the illusion of Evolution

[coffee4u]

But you are doing the same, because rejecting the notion that evolution is part of how he created things is kinda assuming you know how he did/didn't do it.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So explain to me exactly how reading that should be taken, because apparently taking it as written is some kind of crazy wild interpretation.

I guess each and every one of the ten commandments really is some hidden crazy code meaning something other than what it plainly says.

How about Exodus 20:15
“You shall not steal.
I suppose that can't possibly mean 'don't steal' maybe it really means don't ride llamas.

Scripture says there was no death before sin, what do you think the world was doing for all those million of years? But there was no death before man sinned. So a man had to be here for him to sin. According to you animals lived and died for millions of years before some ape man showed up.

 

[coffee4u]

yes i know. I was asking just who was calling dinosaurs "dragons"

Those of us who read Genesis literally do.
When it says God created animals that included sea, land and flying types of beasts.

When Job describes a land creature and a sea monster both descriptions fit easily as a dragon/dinosaur.

There are dragon stories across the world and they go back a very long way. They are depicted as large reptile like creatures, some that fly and or some that breath fire.

The Bible can hardly use the word dinosaur before the word was invented.

Isaiah 27:1
In that day the Lord will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent,
With His fierce and great and mighty sword,
Even Leviathan the twisted serpent;
And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea.

The dragon hat·tan·nin meaning: serpent, dragon, sea monster

 

[coffee4u]

But you don't actually know what those assumptions are.

Those are assumptions for the test, but they are assumptions that can be and have been tested. Actually, the decay of 14C isn't an assumption -- it's a conclusion based on a detailed understanding of nuclear physics that is well established and very well tested. The assumption that organisms were in equilibrium with their environment is based on everything we know about living things, and can be tested by dating tree rings and by dating events of known date.

We have many, many different ways of dating old objects from various time periods. They depend on different physical processes, make different assumptions about different things, provide numerous avenues for testing those assumptions, and all point consistently to the fact that the Earth is very old. When different methods are applied to the same objects, they give consistent results. You have provided no alternative explanation for why these tests give consistent results; your only complaint seems to be that you don't like the answer.

This is out of date but still contains much relevant material: Radiometric Dating. I suggest you read it.

You can't test what isn't here.
They don't have the conditions of the world as it was at creation to know anything about them. That world is gone, changed forever. The world we have now is corrupted.
No scientist worth his salt takes a corrupted sample and runs tests on it and makes claims about it, they go and obtain a fresh uncontaminated sample, only that does not exist.

 

[Cis.jd]

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So explain to me exactly how reading that should be taken, because apparently taking it as written is some kind of crazy wild interpretation.

It shouldn't be taken literally or academically.

Here's how we can come to that. A day on Earth is 24 hours, however other planets like Venus 1 day is over 2784 hours, which on earth is equivalent to 116 days. So whose 7 days based on Earth's time or the other planets?

I guess each and every one of the ten commandments really is some hidden crazy code meaning something other than what it plainly says.

“When there is a conflict between a proven truth about nature and a particular reading of Scripture, an alternative reading of Scripture must be sought.” - St Augustine

Moral laws are not natural facts, so your reasoning is flawed.

I gave you an example of this, by referencing the moon in Gen which you ignored. Because you know the moon isn't a star, it gets its light because it is reflecting the sun's even though its science that tells you that. You go all about how the 6 days is all true, yet reject details with in it such as the moon because you know that is scientifically false.

 

[Cis.jd]

You can't test what isn't here.
They don't have the conditions of the world as it was at creation to know anything about them.

Alright, then lets talk about these conditions of the world then and now, piece by piece.

first, do you think Adam and Eve had teeth like molars and canine? canines help us tear meat and molars help chew food so we can swallow it. We need to eat cuz if we don't we die.

why would A&E (even other animals) have that before the fall when there is no need to eat because there is no death?

Lions are naturally designed to fight, their manes, forearms, etc.. are all significant to the nature/life of a male lion, which is fighting. Do you think they had that in the garden?

 

[sfs]

You can't test what isn't here.
They don't have the conditions of the world as it was at creation to know anything about them. That world is gone, changed forever. The world we have now is corrupted.
No scientist worth his salt takes a corrupted sample and runs tests on it and makes claims about it, they go and obtain a fresh uncontaminated sample, only that does not exist.

What you can do -- and what scientists do all the time -- is ask what we would see if certain conditions had been true, and then go and look to see whether those predictions are correct. If you can make multiple, detailed predictions and they prove to be correct time after time, that's strong evidence that you do understand what the conditions were. If the only competing theory is 'conditions were different in some way that I'm not even going to attempt to explain, and those differences resulted in these data for reasons I haven't given ten seconds thought to', scientists just go on doing their jobs while ignoring the criticism.

You didn't read the article I linked to, did you? It's by a Christian.

 

[coffee4u]

It shouldn't be taken literally or academically.

Says who, you?

Here's how we can come to that. A day on Earth is 24 hours, however other planets like Venus 1 day is over 2784 hours, which on earth is equivalent to 116 days. So whose 7 days based on Earth's time or the other planets?

This is about the earth which has 24 hour days and God is talking to the Israelite's who understood what 6 days of work and one Holy day were. You think God told them to work for 6 Venus days (if that is even true on the length) and keep the last to be a Holy Sabbath?
You are taking a simple concept-the week and turning it into some convoluted pretzel.

>>>“When there is a conflict between a proven truth about nature and a particular reading of Scripture, an alternative reading of Scripture must be sought.” - St Augustine

Nothing is proved about the age of the earth which are all based on assumptions because no one was there to see and test it and the earth has since been corrupted.
Again no scientist of any worth uses a contaminated sample.

>>>Moral laws are not natural facts, so your reasoning is flawed.

So you are now claiming that all of the ten commandments should be read and understood as written except for verse 11?

I gave you an example of this, by referencing the moon in Gen which you ignored. Because you know the moon isn't a star, it gets its light because it is reflecting the sun's even though its science that tells you that. You go all about how the 6 days is all true, yet reject details with in it such as the moon because you know that is scientifically false.

I Believe that to be true about the moon since there is no scripture saying otherwise. I never said science didn't have worth, it's so called science that tries to say its proven the unprovable that I take issue with. God says he created over 6 days, that is said very plainly. If science disagrees it is science that has it wrong.

 

[coffee4u]

What you can do -- and what scientists do all the time -- is ask what we would see if certain conditions had been true, and then go and look to see whether those predictions are correct. If you can make multiple, detailed predictions and they prove to be correct time after time, that's strong evidence that you do understand what the conditions were. If the only competing theory is 'conditions were different in some way that I'm not even going to attempt to explain, and those differences resulted in these data for reasons I haven't given ten seconds thought to', scientists just go on doing their jobs while ignoring the criticism.

And if they are talking about how things react now, that is fine.

Creation was a one time event and we don't know how God manipulated matter or time.
Secondly after creation was finished the world that he created is no longer here, all we have now is a corrupted world. It will tell you nothing of how it was because those conditions no longer exist.

You didn't read the article I linked to, did you? It's by a Christian.

Everyone on this board says they are a Christian.
I had a look, but its long and complicated and since I don't care what science says I care what God says:
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
I am not giving myself a headache trying to figure out all of that. I would have to reread that over at least 3 times to even get it.

You're a nice enough type sfs but I know for a fact they don't have that world to test so they will never know anything about it. No matter how educated you or they are, you can't test what you don't have.

Death came about because of sin and only because of sin. There was no death until sin. You simply cannot have millions of years of living and dying and also have no death. The two views do not fit together.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…..”

Death is Gods enemy, he would never use his enemy hand in hand with his own creative power. It's an enemy he will defeat and annihilate.
1 Corinthians 15:25-26
For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death (Revelation 20:14)

At that time the He will remake the world back to its pristine state and death will once again be no more. It ends the way it began. Evolution fits no where in the structure of scripture, it is in opposition to it, making death no more then a normal part of life.
There is a lot of scripture one has to either ignore or twist to get away from the basic tenets of sin and the gospel.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And if they are talking about how things react now, that is fine.

Creation was a one time event and we don't know how God manipulated matter or time.
Secondly after creation was finished the world that he created is no longer here, all we have now is a corrupted world. It will tell you nothing of how it was because those conditions no longer exist.


Everyone on this board says they are a Christian.
I had a look, but its long and complicated and since I don't care what science says I care what God says:
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
I am not giving myself a headache trying to figure out all of that. I would have to reread that over at least 3 times to even get it.

You're a nice enough type sfs but I know for a fact they don't have that world to test so they will never know anything about it. No matter how educated you or they are, you can't test what you don't have.

Death came about because of sin and only because of sin. There was no death until sin. You simply cannot have millions of years of living and dying and also have no death. The two views do not fit together.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned…..”

Death is Gods enemy, he would never use his enemy hand in hand with his own creative power. It's an enemy he will defeat and annihilate.
1 Corinthians 15:25-26
For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death (Revelation 20:14)

At that time the He will remake the world back to its pristine state and death will once again be no more. It ends the way it began. Evolution fits no where in the structure of scripture, it is in opposition to it, making death no more then a normal part of life.
There is a lot of scripture one has to either ignore or twist to get away from the basic tenets of sin and the gospel.

Although I could be incorrect, I personally think the implications of the first three chapters of Genesis leave room for mortality being present before 'the Fall.'

But, however we slice the first few chapters of Genesis, we all need Jesus. So I think this whole contention is a moot point between all of us, Sister Coffee.

 

[Cis.jd]

Says who, you?

Just look at the questions I gave you. By common sense alone you should be able to determine such.

This is about the earth which has 24 hour days and God is talking to the Israelite's who understood what 6 days of work and one Holy day were. You think God told them to work for 6 Venus days (if that is even true on the length) and keep the last to be a Holy Sabbath?

But it says "the heavens and the earth", the stars and moon are included in the creation story, so its not just the earth. Also, there is nothing in the Bible that says a day is 24 hours. People during that time viewed a day to be 12 hours, look at sundial clocks. It was all based on when the sun was up. Its Science that says it's 24 hours. So who is correct?

I am going to press additional problems to your views. In Alaska, during the winter, the sun does not return after 67 days which means the 2nd day is after 1608 hours. How does this 6 day work for Alaskans?

So you are now claiming that all of the ten commandments should be read and understood as written except for verse 11?

Just reread the quote from st Augustine.

I Believe that to be true about the moon since there is no scripture saying otherwise. I never said science didn't have worth, it's so called science that tries to say its proven the unprovable that I take issue with. God says he created over 6 days, that is said very plainly. If science disagrees it is science that has it wrong.

But what you are doing is cherry picking and also contradicting your own stance. You are saying the 6 days is factual yet reject the rest within it, such as the description of the moon. You are picking and choosing what you want as truth.

Fact of the matter is your arguments are all just religious bias and pride. You are fooled by satan because it is your views that make God's word appear false and obtuse, it just gives nonbelievers reasons to think Christianity is a false religion.

 

[coffee4u]

The main issue with people like you is you can't seem to differentiate between the natural and the super natural. Miracles don't have to follow any naturalistic laws, by their very nature they defy them, which is why they are a miracle in the first place.

Just look at the questions I gave you. By common sense alone you should be able to determine such.

You are the one expounding here, unless you mean the Catholic church expounds it and you are just following along with no mind of your own, but I will assume it is you, and your opinions.

But it says "the heavens and the earth", the stars and moon are included in the creation story, so its not just the earth. Also, there is nothing in the Bible that says a day is 24 hours. People during that time viewed a day to be 12 hours, look at sundial clocks. It was all based on when the sun was up. Its Science that says it's 24 hours. So who is correct?

Yes it does, which is why I don't believe in the gap theory. The making of the heavens are earth are included all within the 6 days in Exodus 20.

The Israelite's did not view a day as 12 hours nor did they use a sundial. they understood a day to be from 6pm to 6am. Most of us now would not consider that the start of a day but say from 12:01am is the start, but regardless where on the clock a culture starts the day the day is still 24 hours.

But lets for argument sake say at creation a day did take 12 hours or 48 hours, what of it?
Even if you say each of the creation days was a thousand years as people love to quote 2 Peter 3:8, even though it has nothing to do with creation.
‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’
This still won't give you time for evolution.

That verse is about God's promises and how to us it can seem to never come. When Peter says a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day to God. The words like/as shows that it is a figure of speech, a simile. No different then saying your eyes are like the ocean.

I am going to press additional problems to your views. In Alaska, during the winter, the sun does not return after 67 days which means the 2nd day is after 1608 hours. How does this 6 day work for Alaskans?

I am quite sure Alaskan's get up and go to work in the dark understanding that it's a new day. The fact that they have to do this at all is an example of the corrupt world we now live on.
The Ancient Israelite's were not up in Alaska- it didn't even exist. Alaska is a result of the flood, just one of the many difference between the created world and the corrupt world we now live on.

The world as it is now is not the key to the past, God changed the lock.

Just reread the quote from st Augustine.
“When there is a conflict between a proven truth about nature and a particular reading of Scripture, an alternative reading of Scripture must be sought.” - St Augustine

I don't mean to offend you, but that is yet another example of someone who let science influence what he believed about scripture.

Evolution can never be proved no matter how much you say it is. You will never see one creature turn into a completely new creature no matter how long you stare at it and you will never prove the base assumptions in dating methods.

But what you are doing is cherry picking and also contradicting your own stance. You are saying the 6 days is factual yet reject the rest within it, such as the description of the moon. You are picking and choosing what you want as truth.

You might want to elaborate as I have no idea what you are talking about. I never mentioned the moon except to reply back to you. What description was I supposed to have given? I believe it exactly as written including the moon.

Fact of the matter is your arguments are all just religious bias and pride. You are fooled by satan because it is your views that make God's word appear false and obtuse, it just gives nonbelievers reasons to think Christianity is a false religion.

I get this from the plain reading of scripture as I have stated many times. I have trouble understanding why people such as yourself have trouble getting that. If you conflate the reading of scripture as written with religious bias and pride then I can't help that.
I never said you had to agree with the plain reading of scripture but to try and make it out to be something of Satan is wicked and you should check yourself.

 

[Cis.jd]

The main issue with people like you is you can't seem to differentiate between the natural and the super natural. Miracles don't have to follow any naturalistic laws, by their very nature they defy them, which is why they are a miracle in the first place.

No. You are making excuses, and this counter of yours has no matter because in the end there are details in Genesis that are factually incorrect, and you know this as shown with the example of the moon.

The Bible is God breathed but the writers also inserted their views and described things based on the understanding of society during that time and during that time, Moses and all the other writers did not know the facts about the natural world because God never revealed that. He chose them to write for the purpose of establishing a relationship with man, not to educate them on science.

But lets for argument sake say at creation a day did take 12 hours or 48 hours, what of it?

Because 6 days = 144 hours when we go by 24 hrs. If we use the 12 hrs that is 72, which is only 3 days.
Back then, no one based a day on the earth's rotation it was just when morning happened, so who is correct?

The Ancient Israelite's were not up in Alaska- it didn't even exist. Alaska is a result of the flood, just one of the many difference between the created world and the corrupt world we now live on.

Where did you get this "Alaska did not even exist". It doesn't matter if people inhabited it or not, or even there wasn't any land because that specific region on earth has a different duration between morning and night.

Evolution can never be proved no matter how much you say it is. You will never see one creature turn into a completely new creature no matter how long you stare at it and you will never prove the base assumptions in dating methods.

It has been proven, get over it. I've given you a question in regards to human teeth and natural body features in animals that you just ignored. You have no right to dictate what can and can't be proven because your stance isn't just empty of proof there is mountains of proof that your stance is just wrong. You can't even admit that there are things you reject about the 6 day creation such as the moon.

I believe it exactly as written including the moon.

So you believe the moon is a star?

 

[sfs]

I had a look, but its long and complicated and since I don't care what science says I care what God says:
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
I am not giving myself a headache trying to figure out all of that. I would have to reread that over at least 3 times to even get it.

You're under no obligation to figure out science. If you don't, though, you really should stop attacking science and scientists. don't understand science? Fine -- but don't lecture scientists on how to do science.