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.
I accept the biblical account of creation in every respect.
I accept the biblical account of creation in every respect. The bible is God's word and He was there when it happened none of these so called experts where there. Interperting so called evidence is not the same.
... would it be too much to say that Moses (or the author of Genesis) wasn't there either?
Is not the bible the inspired word of God? I believe that it is! How about you?
Sure, I do believe that, BUT I won't define inspiration the way you do. And it's a huge jump within a hasty generalization for you to say that you KNOW that God just made an overnight deposit into the brain of Moses so he could write the book of Genesis.
Yeah, admittedly, I don't think the book of Genesis was written via such a deposit. That might work for those who profer for the value of the Qu'ran as a "book from heaven," but not for the Bible.
The bible says that "All scripture is God breathed and written by holy men as led by God". That'll do for me! I have no difficulty in believing that at all.
Not surprisingly, when the function of DNA was discovered, genetic analyses showed the same relationships between living things that had been inferred by anatomy, fossil evidence, and other data.
But we know that only common descent accounts for genetic relatedness. And we can test this by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent.
And here, you confuse homologous structures with analogous structures. Our forelimbs are very unlike the forelimbs of a horse. They are homologous; the same bones are in each of our limbs, although greatly modified to different purposes.
The wings of pterosaurs and wings of bats are analogous; they are very similar, but are derived from different tissues. This is why anyone with even a slight familiarity with biology finds your argument to be absurd.
Evolution has no moral or theological implications whatever. It's just the way this world works. You might was well say gravity supports deism or pantheism.
I mean proof in the same vein I use it for evolution.
It comes back to the man who claims the skeleton is Jesus. He may have every letter after his name and done all the tests he can do, but it is still just some man's word. A fallen, imperfect human being. Scientist are not God. Those who follow him have more faith in that man's words than in Gods.
God says Jesus is risen, this scientists says no here is his skeleton. You have a choice.
You can go with the evidence or you can go with what God says. It is a cross roads. You either let your soul, that is your mind, the logical side of yourself dictate and follow that or you listen to your spirit and you step out in faith and trust.
Peter tried to do that when he stepped off the boat. That first step of his onto deep water in a storm that is an example of 'reckless faith' What stopped him walking the whole way to Jesus? He started to engage with the facts. The facts were he was walking over very deep water 4 km out in a storm. His logical mind told him he would die and normally his mind would be right, but the mind is not always right when it comes to matters of faith, it will lead you astray as it did Peter.
A scientist is just a man or woman. They are no different to you or I or anybody else. They have their own bias that they work from and limitations this world places. They are not some unbiased paragons.
It is no different than the proofs of evolution. Again people place it on the level of being gospel instead of viewing it as man trying to understand the world with only half the pieces of the puzzle. Man attempting to gather information about something that isn't his to know and can never know in this life. They put together an incorrect picture and Satan ensures it is promoted and believed as gospel.
Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
They shall deceive the elect. Pharaohs magicians made snakes slither around the floor- it was a deception. Evolution flourishes- it is a deception. We have men claiming to be women- it is a deception. A skeleton of Jesus is found? It is also a deception.
The world is descending into chaos were evil is called good and good is called evil.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
It is at such a time that people need to hold ever more tightly to the word of God. Science gives us many things but when it comes to God's word and if God's word differs then it's science that has it wrong not God's word. If God can never lie we must believe everything in scripture over man. Scripture claims to be the breathed word of God able to divide between spirit and soul. It is not claiming to simply be a helpful book. I would rather have blind faith then be swayed by science.
This paragraph is loaded with assumptions.
Assuming anatomy points to Evolution.
Assuming fossil evidence points to Evolution.
Who cares how God created these things, He has told us all that we need to know about it. If it was to our advantage to know more about this, I think that He would have told us!
Baffling. So you are genuinely saying that you would still believe even if your faith were disproven?
Do you not see how mad that is?
I'm perfectly happy with the Heb 11v1 definition of faith.That's kind of a caricature of faith. Mark Twain (no friend of religion) once wrote "faith is believing what you know ain't so." That's not how it works. Or at least not how it should work.
That's kind of a caricature of faith. Mark Twain (no friend of religion) once wrote "faith is believing what you know ain't so." That's not how it works. Or at least not how it should work.
'm having trouble locating an argument here.
You can’t even account for genetics to begin with.
You’re trying to explain the origin of mountains by their erosion rates.
Common descent is degradation over time.
Nothing about observed mechanisms suggest upwards creative momentum or the assembly of fundamentally distinct and functional body plans.
Of course the theistic evolutionist can just say ‘God did it’,
Who cares how God created these things, He has told us all that we need to know about it. If it was to our advantage to know more about this, I think that He would have told us!
God is not limited by anything and that includes the laws of nature and man's scientific knowledge. Creation was the result of God's miraculous power. Take away our owe of who is and what He is able to do and what's left?
So they are similar bones
So they are different tissues
You are putting words in my mouth to try and win an argument I never made. I never brought up homology or analogy.
Those are loaded terms that assume evolution is true, but then again that is all you are doing, assuming evolution is true.
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?