[MOVED] Denying God's Creation because we prefer the darkness

[coffee4u]

Your assuming those verses are to be taken 100% iterally, I assume you don't accept the verses that just as blatantly speak of the earth being flat as the way the world is. Yet you want to take other verses and conform them just as easily to your understanding of the bible. Evolution is a fact, I understand it too well to reject it, so it's either realize the understanding of the bible is wrong, or chritianity is false, there is no third option. And no childish UHUH's are not valid arguments against evolution, were not 5th graders and make silly childish arguments.

There are no verses claiming the earth is flat- huge difference. I have had flat earthers point out verses about corners and pillars, not one of the verses they used said the world is flat. If any did I would consider it seriously.

Evolution is not a fact because no one was there and no one has ever replicated it. It's an assumption.

Neither, God revealed to us how he created and why he created and how this caused sin and how he dealt with sin. This is God's revealed Word to us vs men's opinions who you would rather believe. I already said believe it if you want to and I will ask again, how do you teach those New Testament verses? Or have you tossed out the NT as well?

 

[loveofourlord]

There are no verses claiming the earth is flat- huge difference. I have had flat earthers point out verses about corners and pillars, not one of the verses they used said the world is flat. If any did I would consider it seriously.

Evolution is not a fact because no one was there and no one has ever replicated it. It's an assumption.

Neither, God revealed to us how he created and why he created and how this caused sin and how he dealt with sin. This is God's revealed Word to us vs men's opinions who you would rather believe. I already said believe it if you want to and I will ask again, how do you teach those New Testament verses? Or have you tossed out the NT as well?

Ummmmm no...not at all just

tree that can be seen all around the world, mountain you can see all the nations, the four corners of the world, a dome that covers the earth, pillars and so on all consistent with the cosmology of a flat earth every other nation around them had. So did they have a flat earth belief or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

tree that can be seen all around the world,

You mean in Nebuchadnezzar's dream?

Daniel 4:10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

 

[coffee4u]

Ummmmm no...not at all just

tree that can be seen all around the world, mountain you can see all the nations, the four corners of the world, a dome that covers the earth, pillars and so on all consistent with the cosmology of a flat earth every other nation around them had. So did they have a flat earth belief or not?

Lol, are you a flat earther now? Come on. We all know you can't see everywhere from a tree or a mountain because the earth is too large. That is something that can be proved because it can be tested and seen by eyewitnesses.

And how does pillars or four corners have anything to do with a flat round disk? Circles don't have corners last time I checked.

No, your sidetracking into flat earthism won't detract me from scripture. You still have not answered what you will teach or believe for all those NT verses. Each time you deflect it prooves you have nothing.

Believe what you want, obviously, it's your choice to not believe God's word but don't say your disbelief is biblical or the plan reading of scripture makes God out to be a lier. You think Genesis is wrong and all the scriptures pertaining to creation, Adam, Eve, and original sin are wrong, so be it, just don't pretend your views are Biblical. If your stance was Biblical you would have real answers to those verses. Every time I come to see your answers I am sorely disappointed. In fact, I have been waiting years for an evolutionist to give me a good solid explanation for how the whole Bible hangs together with evolution as the world base. Still waiting.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is not a great translation, but plants here are referring to cultivated plants, plants that need people to care for them. The plants in Gen1 are wild plants, grasses, forests.

So the words themselves are not clear enough? We need you to tell us what "plants" really means? Hey, whatever you need to do to help you believe. I just think you are stretching.

 

[loveofourlord]

Lol, are you a flat earther now? Come on. We all know you can't see everywhere from a tree or a mountain because the earth is too large. That is something that can be proved because it can be tested and seen by eyewitnesses.

And how does pillars or four corners have anything to do with a flat round disk? Circles don't have corners last time I checked.

No, your sidetracking into flat earthism won't detract me from scripture. You still have not answered what you will teach or believe for all those NT verses. Each time you deflect it prooves you have nothing.

Believe what you want, obviously, it's your choice to not believe God's word but don't say your disbelief is biblical or the plan reading of scripture makes God out to be a lier. You think Genesis is wrong and all the scriptures pertaining to creation, Adam, Eve, and original sin are wrong, so be it, just don't pretend your views are Biblical. If your stance was Biblical you would have real answers to those verses. Every time I come to see your answers I am sorely disappointed. In fact, I have been waiting years for an evolutionist to give me a good solid explanation for how the whole Bible hangs together with evolution as the world base. Still waiting.

No the point is about flat eartherism, is that anyone from the past would have taken that as being evidence for flat earth, but it wasn't the bible that changed, or corrected itself, it's our knowledge of it, you can do the same with evolution or become as fringe as those that still think flat earth is real.

Just as it's your choice obviously ignore the evidence of the flat earth, I just go where the science says, not our limited understanding of the bible. Your arguments will never win anyone, and will push anyone with actual knoweledge of science and evolution away.

 

[Dan1988]

I chose to believer god, over our flawed understanding of his creation, the woirld proves evolution happened, so you can either reject it, or reject gods creation. And again your god is a liar a deciever, and not one I'm interested in worshipping. Funny how your excuses have god lying and decieving people in order to make it appear evolution happened. Thats not a answer, and not how science should be done, by saying, "Well god could have done X." you reject any posability of god doing Y."

We have the choice to believe God or men. So it's a simple choice, you either believe what God has said or what men like Darwin have said. You chose to reject God and choose to believe in fallen wicked men.
You obviously don't believe in the God of the Bible, so you have created your own god. Good luck with your imaginary god.

 

[loveofourlord]

We have the choice to believe God or men. So it's a simple choice, you either believe what God has said or what men like Darwin have said. You chose to reject God and choose to believe in fallen wicked men.
You obviously don't believe in the God of the Bible, so you have created your own god. Good luck with your imaginary god.

I don't chose what men have said, I chose what nature has shown, I can see with my own eyes the evolution of nature, from fossils to the modern world, I don't need men to tell me how to read it. But our men telling me to ignore what I can see with my own eyes.

 

[Dan1988]

I don't chose what men have said, I chose what nature has shown, I can see with my own eyes the evolution of nature, from fossils to the modern world, I don't need men to tell me how to read it. But our men telling me to ignore what I can see with my own eyes.

With all due respect, i would urge you to reconsider relying on your own understanding. The Bible warns us in the book of Psalms "lean not on your own understanding, but believe every Word which God has spoken".

It also warns us that mans ways seem right, but they lead to eternal damnation. We must start with the premise that our understanding is fundamentally flawed and if we rely on it, it will lead us to destruction.

God deliberately created everything in such a way that it would confound the wise men of this world, in other words nothing is as it seems in this world. We must do battle with 3 enemies, first one is our own fallen sinful nature which is bent towards evil. 2. is Satan and His Demons and 3. is the world, which is trying to destroy us physically and spiritually.

God has given us the strongest warnings about how we need to fight our enemies, all 3 are much smarter, stronger and vastly superior in every way. If we don't have the Holy Spirit with us, we will fall prey just as a lost lamb to a hungry lion.

The Word of God may come across as foolishness at times, but we were never called to put God's Word on trial. He simply commands us to believe it without question or murmuring.

 

[loveofourlord]

With all due respect, i would urge you to reconsider relying on your own understanding. The Bible warns us in the book of Psalms "lean not on your own understanding, but believe every Word which God has spoken".

It also warns us that mans ways seem right, but they lead to eternal damnation. We must start with the premise that our understanding is fundamentally flawed and if we rely on it, it will lead us to destruction.

God deliberately created everything in such a way that it would confound the wise men of this world, in other words nothing is as it seems in this world. We must do battle with 3 enemies, first one is our own fallen sinful nature which is bent towards evil. 2. is Satan and His Demons and 3. is the world, which is trying to destroy us physically and spiritually.

God has given us the strongest warnings about how we need to fight our enemies, all 3 are much smarter, stronger and vastly superior in every way. If we don't have the Holy Spirit with us, we will fall prey just as a lost lamb to a hungry lion.

The Word of God may come across as foolishness at times, but we were never called to put God's Word on trial. He simply commands us to believe it without question or murmuring.

thats exactly what your doing, your rejecting without understanding evolution, and claiming yiour understanding of the bible is perfect. I go with what reality has shown me, not my understanding of the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

your rejecting without understanding evolution,

What's wrong with that?

If you are convinced of something's antithesis, why study its thesis?

And what exactly do people mean when they say someone "doesn't understand" evolution?

Are they supposed to understand the roles that DNA and alleles play in this process? or is just knowing that the process itself is flawed good enough?

 

[GirdYourLoins]

What's wrong with that?

If you are convinced of something's antithesis, why study its thesis?

And what exactly do people mean when they say someone "doesn't understand" evolution?

Are they supposed to understand the roles that DNA and alleles play in this process? or is just knowing that the process itself is flawed good enough?

A few years ago i met a pastor who was also a top geneticist. Being humble, when describing how good he was all he would say he had recently (then) been invited to be a guest speaker at an invitation only meeting of the top 100 geneticists in the world. He always said he could prove evolution is false but you'd need to be a top level geneticist to understand it. Im not using it as an argument here as it is someone on a keyboard saying something he was told, a rather tenuous link.

When I got saved over 2 years ago I was an evolutionist but God lead me into looking into the evolution v creation debate and I came out of it understanding a lot of the issues that what we see now in animals could not evolve under the survival of the fittest hypothesis.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

thats exactly what your doing, your rejecting without understanding evolution, and claiming yiour understanding of the bible is perfect. I go with what reality has shown me, not my understanding of the bible.

Pray about it and look into the evolution v creation arguments. God very much put it on my heart and lead me away from evolution. Do you even know the arguments and if so how do you dismiss them so easily?

 

[loveofourlord]

A few years ago i met a pastor who was also a top geneticist. Being humble, when describing how good he was all he would say he had recently (then) been invited to be a guest speaker at an invitation only meeting of the top 100 geneticists in the world. He always said he could prove evolution is false but you'd need to be a top level geneticist to understand it. Im not using it as an argument here as it is someone on a keyboard saying something he was told, a rather tenuous link.

When I got saved over 2 years ago I was an evolutionist but God lead me into looking into the evolution v creation debate and I came out of it understanding a lot of the issues that what we see now in animals could not evolve under the survival of the fittest hypothesis.

Like what? Because we actuall have good understanding and explanations for most if not all of those things.

 

[loveofourlord]

Pray about it and look into the evolution v creation arguments. God very much put it on my heart and lead me away from evolution. Do you even know the arguments and if so how do you dismiss them so easily?

Because so far none here have been anything but, "Uhuh.' or missunderstanding evolution, give me your best evidence against evolution that isn't argument from incredulity or ignorance, or uhuh.

 

[AV1611VET]

A few years ago i met a pastor who was also a top geneticist. Being humble, when describing how good he was all he would say he had recently (then) been invited to be a guest speaker at an invitation only meeting of the top 100 geneticists in the world. He always said he could prove evolution is false but you'd need to be a top level geneticist to understand it. Im not using it as an argument here as it is someone on a keyboard saying something he was told, a rather tenuous link.

When I got saved over 2 years ago I was an evolutionist but God lead me into looking into the evolution v creation debate and I came out of it understanding a lot of the issues that what we see now in animals could not evolve under the survival of the fittest hypothesis.

God bless you and that pastor!

 

[AV1611VET]

... give me your best evidence against evolution ...

Time.

... that isn't argument from incredulity or ignorance,

I know how those arguments go. Just act incredulous when someone says God created the universe in six days, and there you have it; you can accuse them of "argument from incredulity."

Or just make a point with them that's over their head, and there you have it; you can accuse them of "argument from ignorance."

When it comes to arguing from ignorance, I have to wonder how many people argue for evolution, who are at the Ph.D. level.

Ignorance is relative (all my relatives are ignorant ).

People can accuse me of being ignorant, but there are Ph.D.s who can accuse them of being ignorant as well.

And if a Ph.D. accuses me of being ignorant, there is One who is omniscient Who can accuse him of being ignorant as well.

It's all a matter of degrees (no pun intended).

 

[GirdYourLoins]

Because so far none here have been anything but, "Uhuh.' or mis-sunderstanding evolution, give me your best evidence against evolution that isn't argument from incredulity or ignorance, or uhuh.

It was nearly 20 years ago when I took more time to study it, but have seen things more recently which keep me up to date to a degree. Here are a few.

Darwins observations of the finches in the Galapogos showed the finches evolved following changes in weather. What it doesnt account for is that later studies found that once the weather returned to the original conditions the types of finches that were prominent returned t what it was. It was not evolution at all, it was finches with the traits that suited the conditions bcoming more prominent.There was no change of species, DNA or mutations involved.

There has never been a single beneficial mutation that has been witnessed or proven. What we actually see is people saying from what we see there appears to be a chain of animals that show changes believed to be from mutations.

There are numerous mechanical parts in animals that could not evolve over time as they require the full mechanism to be there to work and would have been useless during the evolution process.

A number of organs such as the liver would have needed something else to do their job while they were evolving, otherwise it was a massive jump from something doing that function to a liver. During the evolutionary process the liver would have been a dead weight completely oppsing survival of the fittest. Other organs such as the eye cannot be explained by evolution. The problem is the optic nerve taking the signal from the eye to the brain which has been proven to be evolutionary impossible.

I used to have some excellent text books on the subject but sadly I lost them some time ago. They were written from the perspective of looking at the arguments rather than trying to disprove either but were very good at providing both sides of the argument.

 

[loveofourlord]

It was nearly 20 years ago when I took more time to study it, but have seen things more recently which keep me up to date to a degree. Here are a few.

Darwins observations of the finches in the Galapogos showed the finches evolved following changes in weather. What it doesnt account for is that later studies found that once the weather returned to the original conditions the types of finches that were prominent returned t what it was. It was not evolution at all, it was finches with the traits that suited the conditions bcoming more prominent.There was no change of species, DNA or mutations involved.

There has never been a single beneficial mutation that has been witnessed or proven. What we actually see is people saying from what we see there appears to be a chain of animals that show changes believed to be from mutations.

There are numerous mechanical parts in animals that could not evolve over time as they require the full mechanism to be there to work and would have been useless during the evolution process.

A number of organs such as the liver would have needed something else to do their job while they were evolving, otherwise it was a massive jump from something doing that function to a liver. During the evolutionary process the liver would have been a dead weight completely oppsing survival of the fittest. Other organs such as the eye cannot be explained by evolution. The problem is the optic nerve taking the signal from the eye to the brain which has been proven to be evolutionary impossible.

I used to have some excellent text books on the subject but sadly I lost them some time ago. They were written from the perspective of looking at the arguments rather than trying to disprove either but were very good at providing both sides of the argument.

okay lets go through this in order.

Do you have anything on the beaks having anytihng to do with weather, my understanding was it was food sources. Unless you mean ending up on different islands with different foods. Well all know that the finches come from a single ancestral group so something allowed the diversity we see.

As for evolution of liver and other organs, this missunderstands how evolution work, the process will always have some use, even if it's something else, the liver was never a dead weight, just used for something else more simple, perhaps just waste management, and then other process developed as needs arrived. Early life wasn't as complex so didn't need everything the same way that it does now.

Again your wasting your time on the eye, that was figured out from the start, we have the evolution of the eye in nature right now, plus the eye evolved multiple times, so it must not have been that hard to do. Irredeucible completxity is dead in the water, and like I said, give me something more then argument from incredulity and ignorance, your not knowing how something works doesn't make it wrong, give me actual examples of thing.

If you want to see evolution in action for every single human being, look no further then the kidney that actually goes through the evolutionary stages during development.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This isn't a thread about God. It is a thread about a literal interpretation of Genesis.