Well, evolution happened. Evidence says so. For example, look at your little toe. It has no use. Its a vestige from a previous species in which it had a use.
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.
What did I quote"
"Adam's predecessors would have died."
Adam had no predecessors. Sin and death came into the world through Adam's sin. That's just one more piece of foundational doctrine you have to reject to accept evolution.
You brought up theory of gravity (although, speaking of gravity, law of gravity is where it's at). There are some theories in physics, but physics is built with laws, not theories. There are massive amount of laws of physics that are used everyday, for calculation in science or applied science, in order to produce a product or more complex knowledge about our physical world. I am merely interested what is universally accepted scientific law (not theory), expressed in a formula, that's discovered within macro evolution, and that's now used in science? I don't propose it doesn't exist. I would just like to know what you would offer as best example.
Why thank you.Nope. God created a mature world. Nothing evolved.
Well, evolution happened. Evidence says so. For example, look at your little toe. It has no use. Its a vestige from a previous species in which it had a use.
Not the point! Jews wrote the book of Genesis.
I posted the James Barr quote.I guarantee you will not be able to come even close to proving this reckless statement which flies in the face of years of careful analysis by scholars of much greater competence that you or me.
The fact is, evolution is a lie. The gibberish about Genesis being allegorical is just that. The point was made absolutely positively clear that the author meant six literal days. Beyond that, the sequence flies in the fact of everything evolution claims.This is the problem with forums like these - while there are, of course, rules against goading, flaming, etc., there are no rules against posting patently untrue statements. If there were such a rule, your statement would fit the bill.
I'm calling you out on that lie. Prove it.Note what I am not saying: I am not saying that scholars have definitively shown that the intention of the author of Genesis was to present myth
Or try radiating fruit flies for a hundred years.Maybe you should perform a small experiment to test the validity of that statement. Try cutting off your little toe. I mean, since it has no use and all ....
Maybe you should perform a small experiment to test the validity of that statement. Try cutting off your little toe. I mean, since it has no use and all ....
But you can't know that evidence that contradicts the scriptures is wrong, because you reject, in advance, all evidence on the subject. Clearly, something other than evidence caused you to come to that conclusion. As I see it, the only other possible choices are hypnosis or peer pressure. I don't trust the results of hypnosis or peer pressure on you.
As I understand it, Dispensationalism views the OT as an accurate, unbroken timeline of history from creation to Jesus.1) We are not preoccupied with Genesis. But it is one of the books of the Bible, part of God's Word - and therefore of IMMENSE value. Equal to that of every other book in the Scriptures.
2) And what exactly does Genesis have to do with Dispensationalism? Are you sure you're not getting mixed up with Revelations? I would really like you to explain your reasoning on this deduction.
Yes, his qualifications as an Hebrew scholar and theologian are certainly impressive.And here is Jonathan Sarfati's credentials.
Born in Ararat, Victoria, Sarfati moved with his family to New Zealand as a child, where he became a dual Australian and New Zealand citizen. He attended Wellington College in New Zealand, later graduating from Victoria University of Wellington with a B.Sc. (Hons.) in chemistry, and a Ph.D. in the same subject for a thesis entitled "A Spectroscopic Study of some ChalcogenideRing and Cage Molecules". He co-authored a paper on high-temperature superconductors that was published in Nature in 1987 ("Letters to Nature"),[3] and from 1988 to 1995, had several papers on spectroscopy of condensed matter samples published in other peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Welcome to the world of the creationist - they very often base their arguments on (intentional or otherwise) abuse of terminology. To wit:Calling something a law instead of a theory is just a verbal difference that has no real meaning. You are wrong to make such word differences your key to accepting science.
God wrote it. Moses was the scribe. He was Hebrew, educated as an Egyptian.
I posted the James Barr quote.
My pastor can read Hebrew and he concurs.
And you are not a human being who reads the pages of your Bible and, yes, interprets the words you read?
Yes, his qualifications as an Hebrew scholar and theologian are certainly impressive.
The fact is that nobody you can name can validate evolution using the Scriptures. it can't be done.
The gibberish about Genesis being allegorical is just that. The point was made absolutely positively clear that the author meant six literal days.
It doesn't matter if he believes or not. What is significant is that an authority on Hebrew confirms that the intent of the author of Genesis intended it to mean exactly what it says; a six day creation. I don't care if he doesn't believe a word of it. He's only quoted to refute the claims of others that the majority of Hebrew scholars find the creation account a metaphor for evolution.One wonders why the good Christian scholar James Barr is not a YEC?
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?