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.
1815 was 200 years ago and in the 19th century.
It's not God being deceptive. It's mans interpretation of the evidence. Like with the strata layers for example; evolutionist see billions of years on top of billions of years.
In the creationists view, the earth looks old because their was a catastrophic world wide flood.
It is true, Dougangel, that Genesis has been interpreted allegorically and then given more than one interpretation. My approach is to stay with the plain meaning or reading f the text, so that we do not turn it into a nose of was that can be twisted any way we want, which was the Reformers critic of the symbolic or allegorical method. Therefore, I believe Genesis is a totally inadequate account of creation . I find it offers two contradictory chronologies of creation written by two different authors from very different periods of history. And I am not alone here. That is the standard understanding of Genesis as found in contemporary biblical scholarship.
Well That is a lot to chew through. I don't have the time right now but I will comment on what you said here:I have some major issues with your comments, Jascksbratt. No matter how you may personally feel about evolution, the fact remains that if you are going to launch outlandish attacks against science, then you need to have some big,big credentials and some big, big evidence to back you up. In your case, I find these big guns you need to be sadly lacking. For example, if you want to take Genesis literally as true, that is your prerogative. However, it does not provide others with a very convincing argument or attack on evolution. I have studied the Genesis account in detail and I find it offers but two contradictory chronologies written by two different authors and two different time periods. I can go into further detail here if you want. I am also well aware that some online self-styled apologists have tried to fuse these accounts into one. And I am also aware their attempts do not work. I can go into more detail here, if you want. I am also aware that there are many other cases where the Bible proves to be an inadequate geophysical witness, such as the flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, etc. These inaccuracies have been noted for centuries and recognized by believers, who still give the Bible a place of honor, recognizing that it is not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness. I hold the same counts for Genesis. Next, you seem to want to run some kind of contest to see what takes the most faith and then go with the one that does. That is no way to judge the validity of anything. Also, your results can be easily challenged. I find many who reject evolution do so on the basis that it just seems too fantastic that God could create a man out of a monkey. It makes more sense to them to stick with Scripture. Yes, evolution does have miraculous quality to it. If God could make a man out of a monkey, just think what he could do with a jackass like you. You go on to argue that it seems to you unlikely that God would create a universe and then just sit back and watch the evolutionary process. I disagree, I find this a false assumption on your part. I and many other contemporary Christian thinkers hold that God works through evolution and that this requires a continual interaction between God an creation. In short, evolution occurs because God is continually providing new creative possibilities. No God, no evolution. The reason why the process seems to take long is simply that God has a huge creative agenda in mind. God's aim is to maximize beauty, and all aspect's of creation manifest some real degree of beauty. God just doesn't let it roll on; God enjoys the beauty exhibited in the world. Since some options for beauty are incompatible with others, not all can be actualized at once. Also, god does not create out of nothing. Not even Genesis actually claims that. God did not create man out of nothing, but out of dust. That is an interesting implication of evolution, as we are all made out of star dust. Since God always cerates out of something preexistent, certain forms must be in place before God can move on to others. Next, you argue that humans are the very epitome of God's creation. That sure seems arrogant to me. I view all creatures as deeply important to God, but that doesn't any particular ones should claim to be the highest God is going to go. Who can say what higher forms of being God may evolve us into? Who says humans are the best God can do? Who says humans are the center of God's attention and enjoyment, that he organizes his whole day just around us? It's a big, big universe, which makes it plain God's creativity is on a far larger scale that just old planet earth. Then you say that theistic evolution claims God creates by speaking. Where did you get that notion? My position is that God works at a deeper level than that represented by thought, sense, or the more specialized forms of conscious knowing. God works at a deeper, preverbal level of experience. There is a direct and immediate flow of feeling between God and creatures. God moves us along because we empathically experience God's aim for the occasion. I hope all this will lead you to more carefully study evolution, God, and the Bible.
All we can do is offer a possible explanation with what we have to work with. As Science comes up with more data then we will have more to work with and then we can explain more. But for now we can only work with what little Science is able to provide us with. Science has population genetics and there are genealogies in the Bible. There is no conflict between science and the Bible, there are no contradictions.
Soft dino tissue.
Scientist say if you're dead...on day 3 you stay dead.
Scientist say you can't walk on water.
You see what your saying there? You identify the Cretaceous strata by the animal you find in it and then identify the age of the animal by the strata it's in. This is circular reasoning.
"How do you know the fossils are old?"
Because it was in old rock!
"But how do you know the rock is old?"
Because it had old fossils!
Soft dino tissue.
Ice is not water?Scientist say if you're dead...on day 3 you stay dead.
Scientist say you can't walk on water.
They have a computer program now that can confirm what you are saying. For example that Genesis ch 1 & Genesis ch 2 are written by different people. Moses just copied them from Clay tablets onto the Papyrus they were using at that time in Egypt.I have studied the Genesis account in detail and I find it offers but two contradictory chronologies written by two different authors and two different time periods.
You do not really believe the Bible says that do you?the Bible proves to be an inadequate geophysical witness, such as the flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth
So are you saying if God can make man out of a monkey then there is still hope for us and what God can do in our lifes?If God could make a man out of a monkey
The main thing is that humans are central to God's plan of redemption. He is working through us for the restoration and redemption of all creation. Perhaps that is what He created us for in the first place.Who can say what higher forms of being God may evolve us into? Who says humans are the best God can do?
Assumption 1. The rate of decay has always been the same.
Also another problem. different radiometric methods often drastically disagree with one another. Some rocks in Hawaii that were known to only be around 200 years old rendered a date of 160 million to 3 billion when dated. ( Funkhouser and Naughton, page 4601)
Radiometric dating just like much of the evidence that supports evolution has too many assumptions.
Yes, all fossils are transitional fossils.
In your eyes. And on paper or pixels. But not in rock record sequences that show transition from one creature to the next, part by part that shows evidence of Evolution. That is too odd, Sir. Too remarkable. So you resort that all fossils are transitional. In your eyes you game what is missing. Like others before you it requires faith to accept Evolution.
I really hate this phrase without context.
Taung child is a transitional fossil because Au. africanus is a transitional species.
Taung child is not a transitional fossil because his descendants never transitioned into anything... because they didn't exist.
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?