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.
Okay.Indeed, we've known each other long enough and I have enough respect for you that I think you deserve an honest answer.
I meant the other half of the Creation & Evolution 'forum.'How so? I believe that God is the author of our being whether the theory of evolution is true or not. An Atheist does not believe that God is author of our being whether the theory of evolution is true or not. The existence of God is not relevant to a discussion about whether the theory of evolution is true or not. The theory of evolution is the same for both theists and atheists.
I hear you.I don't care very much about it unless it is used as a basis for denying the faith of other Christians, as creationists frequently do. You can interpret Genesis any way you want, so long as you understand that you don't own the book and that your interpretation is not normative for other Christians.
. Nah , IMHO atheists prevent fundies from abusing people .So you're saying atheists are making an eternal mistake?
(Hit a nerve, didn't I?)
But didn't you say some atheists are bullied into atheism by Fundamental creationist lies?. Nah , IMHO atheists prevent fundies from abusing people .
Creationism is responsible for a lot of the atheism ...
Yes, he could see living things were breeding within their kind, we see it too. I happen to agree with the view that there are only variations from a large gene pool, and not macroevolution through mutations (even though they exist) from a small gene pool. Of course, many others see it differently. However, we all still see things breeding within their kind (however you define it) at the time.Maybe because he could see that animals could breed and produce offspring that way?
Care to elaborate some???Cool how the creationist sinks the ark without even trying.
Species would be even more... wouldn't it?Too many "kinds" to fit on board.
. No I meant that the superstitious ignorant pseudoscience nonsense that creationists claim is about a God created universe, is driving people away from faith. In droves!But didn't you say some atheists are bullied into atheism by Fundamental creationist lies?
It's not really as bad as all that, depending on how you define "faith." Many of those driven from Fundamentalism wind up in other branches of the Christian religion, so they retain their faith in Christ even though Fundamentalists don't think they are "real" Christians any more. For example, Orthodox Christianity has provided a popular refuge for ex-Fundamentalists.Wow, that’s taking the back door off the hinges!
Yes, he could see living things were breeding within their kind, we see it too. I happen to agree with the view that there are only variations from a large gene pool, and not macroevolution through mutations (even though they exist) from a small gene pool. Of course, many others see it differently. However, we all still see things breeding within their kind (however you define it) at the time.
When he said the first ones were created after their kind – wasn’t that a forward-looking statement, and as such, saying for example, the initial whales were being created according to later whales?
I see what you’re saying, but even though recording the account from his present-day perspective, how/why would he have known to be so careful as to make such a forward-looking initial creation statement in that way? Leaving off ‘after their kind’ (no apparent reason to include it for the first ones) would have left open the possibility of macroevolution; instead, it seems to me he may have been closing the door on that mechanism... with no possible knowledge of it himself, and that’s what I find curious.
Follow the conversation please.
in atheist-think, it's either a literal Genesis 1 or atheism ... right?
I don't.Well yes, we don't expect to see a cat mate with a tortoise and produce a fish.
So does Creation.Evolution says that is literally impossible.
There's no conclusive evidence of macroevolution after billions of years... why extrapolate from observable variation?Why do you not think that a sufficient number of variations would not result in macroevolution?
It couldn't mean 'according to what came before,' this was the initial creation. I'm just saying he was careful to include 'after its kind' in a forward-looking comment. This may not be a good analogy, but would you say, "I created a completely new house style, after that kind of house" unless 'maybe' you wanted to make sure everyone knew it didn't include elements of a previous style? Just curious is all, and yes, I might be reading too much into it.Not sure what you mean by saying "created according to what came later."
How so?
No, that there is no evidence that it happened 6000 years ago according to a literal reading of Genesis.are you saying that we have no evidence for the existence of god/designer?
I’m sure glad you used a repost, and yes, that is perfectly okay. I have been dreading writing lengthy answers to such questions every since I slipped-up and asked “How so.” I don’t think any of us want to write research papers here.Sorry, I didn't see this until today.
I will repost something that forum member Papias wrote here if that's ok......
..............................
Some examples, by day of "creation":
Initial State
Watery abyss
wrong - Land has always existed on Earth
1
Light (no Sun yet)
wrong - Light without sun?
2
Firmament/inverted bowl
wrong - Hebrew word shows this to be solid, but there has never been a solid dome over the earth.
3
Dry land, then All land plants
wrong - sea animals preceded land plants
4
Moon, Sun, stars and the whole universe
wrong - Those existed long before life and most of the other things made in days 1-3.
5
Aquatic Animals & Birds
wrong - Birds were not before animals on land.
6
Land animals and humans
But this is a different order than Genesis 2.
7
Rest
............................................................
I’m sure glad you used a repost, and yes, that is perfectly okay. I have been dreading writing lengthy answers to such questions every since I slipped-up and asked “How so.” I don’t think any of us want to write research papers here.
So, if it’s okay with you, let me just say you can find good explanations, which are not contrary to the Bible, for all these type questions in good bible commentaries. I use a very good one, composed by those who are very knowledgeable in the Bible. As your post states, Genesis 2:4-5 in particular, used to puzzle me in regard to the Genesis 1 account, until I read and studied my commentary. I’m not evading your question, I’m just saying there are reliable explanations, if you want to look.
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?