- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
History is often revised by the teller.
Also, history is often completely made up by the teller as well.
where and how did God tell you? Was it a vision?but why believe the Bible --> The Bible is infallible --> but how do you know its infallible --> The Bible is the word of God --> but how can you be sure its the word of God? --> Because God Himself tells us so.
[serious];66949776 said:Where and how did God tell you? Was it a vision?
I've seen a few thesitic evolutionists make this claim, but most do not. I don't believe that the theory of evolution is supported by the bible. I don't believe it's disproved by the bible either, however.and evolution theory.
This is also a very thin argument.. virtually made of paper. "Let us make man in our image," does not at all suggest man was being re-made.That is not the argument. The argument is that the resurrection of Jesus gives support to the idea that Adam’s life (Man’s life) could have been restored (re-created) from a previous life form, rather than evolved from apes. The verse “Let us make man in our image” suggests that the man might have existed in a previous form before he was re-created from dust in God’s image.
"From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth" - (Acts 17:26).
This is no historical account of mankind descending from one man. No one ever witnessed such an event, nor is it even possible. GEN 1-2 are allegorical stories, not historical accounts. The writers couldn't have witnessed any of it anyway, since they weren't there. I know you are going to say God was there, but he didn't write the bible.. even if he inspired the bible, that doesn't change the reality that GEN1-2 are not historial anyway.The historical biblical record shows that humans descended from one man (Adam), which reveals a big flaw in your evolution theory, destroying its credibility.
You need a new theory that is consistent with the history, because you cannot change history.
I never claimed the TOE had biblical support... why would it? The bible is about theology, not biology. Therefore, your point is moot.You should listen to the Bible. I never claimed my theory was Ultimate Truth. I am simply showing that my theory has greater biblical historical support than yours.
The only way you can rationalize your belief in creationism is by denying reality and misinterpreting scripture.The only way your evolution theory works is by denying the biblical history. But you cannot change history.
The only way your evolution theory works is by denying the biblical history.
But you cannot change history.
You just don't see what I have been saying, or don't want to believe what my position would really be. I did not say at all that fossils are all, or even mostly, fake. I can recognize the fossil skulls too, I have been in classes showing those too. I can see fossil humans which I can say includes Neanderthal people are with what you displayed shown from the skull identified with the designation F and onward from that, including babies' skulls, the other skulls are representing other hominid and ape creatures. I see no actual transition in that.
Yes I can see there would be organization from the Creator by design into groups according to feature, this is not from being limited, but with being orderly for the Creator's own purposes, there is logic to that thinking, the evidence is just what there is that is interpreted one way by you and others and this way by me and others seeing the same way. So we don't have something conclusive just with that.
The monotremes, for your example, are their own category of mammals,their features are their own with being mammal, they are not reptilian, what they have would be recognized being distinct from reptiles.
There is no falsification of the Creator.
The circle does not represent my reasoning at all. It represents your denial of the God who inspired the Bible.
The writers couldn't have witnessed any of it anyway, since they weren't there. I know you are going to say God was there, but he didn't write the bible.. even if he inspired the bible, that doesn't change the reality that GEN1-2 are not historial anyway.
It's time to revive this thread and move forward into:
'Darwin used the words "extreme imperfection" to describe the gappy nature of the fossil record - . . .
No, in my brain.[serious];66949776 said:where and how did God tell you? Was it a vision?
No, in my brain.
We don't necessarily need ears to hear nor eyes to see. We just need a functional brain for God to work with.
It would seem that theists have more brain power than atheists, hence our awareness of God.
God's word predicts what I should experience when I test/obey it. It never fails as long as you know how to do the tests.What evidence do you have that these voices are real and not just your imagination?
God's word predicts what I should experience when I test/obey it. It never fails as long as you know how to do the tests.
It's a shame that this 'godboost' is insufficient for you to make some convincing arguments in this forum.No, in my brain.
We don't necessarily need ears to hear nor eyes to see. We just need a functional brain for God to work with.
It would seem that theists have more brain power than atheists, hence our awareness of God.
I think it's because God boost our brain power somehow.
No, in my brain.
We don't necessarily need ears to hear nor eyes to see. We just need a functional brain for God to work with.
It would seem that theists have more brain power than atheists, hence our awareness of God.
I think it's because God boost our brain power somehow.
It also doesn't take into consideration natural variations within the same species. They have found skulls from one species with variations that would just about cover the entire bottom row of shapes in that skull picture showing transitions. Evolutionists are so eager to name new species that they will make a new species out of every new shape they find in the ground as it gives them some recognition. There have even been as you said younger versions of the same species of animal made into a transitional. Some young dinos will have a few vastly different features of their parents and therefore evolutionists make them a new transitional. They will see the similarities but make them a new species because of the differences. But then later the bones are tested and they are found to be younger versions of the same species.You just don't see what I have been saying, or don't want to believe what my position would really be. I did not say at all that fossils are all, or even mostly, fake. I can recognize the fossil skulls too, I have been in classes showing those too. I can see fossil humans which I can say includes Neanderthal people are with what you displayed shown from the skull identified with the designation F and onward from that, including babies' skulls, the other skulls are representing other hominid and ape creatures. I see no actual transition in that.
Yes I can see there would be organization from the Creator by design into groups according to feature, this is not from being limited, but with being orderly for the Creator's own purposes, there is logic to that thinking, the evidence is just what there is that is interpreted one way by you and others and this way by me and others seeing the same way. So we don't have something conclusive just with that.
The monotremes, for your example, are their own category of mammals,their features are their own with being mammal, they are not reptilian, what they have would be recognized being distinct from reptiles.
There is no falsification of the Creator.
The one thing that I understand that validates the bible comes from one of the bibles scriptures, 2 Timothy 3:16, which states:All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:Opposing views of course state something like this:
You say the bible is true because the bible says it is.In other words circular reasoning. Hmmm, "circular reasoning", now where have we heard that before?
Nevertheless, the bible did not exist when 2 Timothy was written. 2 Timothy is specifically speaking of scripture, not the bible. Now, who decided what was scripture and what was not scripture and how do we know what was and what was not inspired by God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?