- Jan 29, 2017
- 12,920
- 13,373
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
That seems to be when creationists either start writing extra-Biblical narratives or give up. At least that's been my experience.
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.
And the OP is about *how* "god" created things. So after you check Genesis and find nothing about mechanism, then where are you?
Science still hasn't been able to explain how living species were created.I've asked creationists repeatedly over the years how God created living species. Yet I have found that creationists are unable to provide an answer to that (outside of vague reference to supernatural powers).
But at the same time, creationists insist God could not have done so via evolution.
So if we don't have an explanation for how God created living species, why couldn't God have used evolution? Why explicitly rule that out?
It is a metaphor used to distinguish man from all of God's creation. You may not be familiar with this type of figurative language often used in the bible. There are several genres in scripture. It helps to understand them when critiquing its contents.Literally breathed? Does God have lungs?
It is a metaphor used to distinguish man from all of God's creation. You may not be familiar with this type of figurative language often used in the bible. There are several genres in scripture. It helps to understand them when critiquing its contents.
Yes, we are familiar with it, some of us subscribe to it, but the point being argued here is that it must be literally true.It is a metaphor used to distinguish man from all of God's creation. You may not be familiar with this type of figurative language often used in the bible. There are several genres in scripture. It helps to understand them when critiquing its contents.
I already explained it, you just do not accept it. Evolution puts all creation under one umbrella when in fact scripture tells us otherwise. Evolution does not allow God into its paradigm.Oh, I'm familiar with the use of figurative language. It's just that such use gets fuzzy when talking to Biblical literalists because I never know how literal they are actually being.
And if we talking about a metaphorical or figurative creation of human kind, then why would this necessarily preclude an evolutionary process?
That is a teleological proposition which not all Christians accept. It is distinct from the material process of evolution.I already explained it, you just do not accept it. Evolution puts all creation under one umbrella when in fact scripture tells us otherwise. Evolution does not allow God into its paradigm.
I already explained it, you just do not accept it. Evolution puts all creation under one umbrella when in fact scripture tells us otherwise.
Evolution does not allow God into its paradigm.
Unfortunate.Yes, we are familiar with it, some of us subscribe to it, but the point being argued here is that it must be literally true.
I already explained it, you just do not accept it. Evolution puts all creation under one umbrella when in fact scripture tells us otherwise. Evolution does not allow God into its paradigm.
Evolution tells us we come from apes. God did not breathe into the nostrils of apes. It is flawed from start.I don't know what you mean by evolution putting "all creation under one umbrella"?
Sure it does. Why wouldn't it?
Evolution tells us we come from apes. God did not breathe into the nostrils of apes. It is flawed from start.
They have yet to find the transitional fossil that proves the theory of evolution and that fact remains under wraps for the sake of Darwinism.Evolution is a science. Science works to explain by natural means the natural world. Since gods and the like aren't "natural" then they aren't used as explanations in a scientific model.
[As a non-biologist, I'm rather impressed by how well their evolution theory works to explain so much of biology.]
They have yet to find the transitional fossil that proves the theory of evolution and that fact remains under wraps for the sake of Darwinism.
I thought you said it is a metaphor.
Ignoring for the time being the erroneous notion that scientific theories are to be "proved" you are floating an egregious conspiracy theory to support your position. Why is that?They have yet to find the transitional fossil that proves the theory of evolution and that fact remains under wraps for the sake of Darwinism.
Fact is, the notion of a link has widely become unpopular so we will never get the connection affirmed scientifically.Except loads of transitional fossils have been found. That's not a secret at all. They're well documented in the scientific literature.
Hummm?Ignoring for the time being the erroneous notion that scientific theories are to be "proved" you are floating an egregious conspiracy theory to support your position. Why is that?
Unpopular? Unpopular with whom? What has popularity to do with science?Fact is, the notion of a link has widely become unpopular so we will never get the connection affirmed scientifically.
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?