The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[AV1611VET]

You know darn well this verse is not referencing ToE.

Here's another passage I don't know is referencing evolution:

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Here, Paul is equating evolution with philosophy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yup ... those genealogies sure were endless, weren't they?

 

[HitchSlap]

Yup ... those genealogies sure were endless, weren't they?

Not only endless, but different from one gospel to another. Just like G1/2.

You really should rewrite your own bible AV. You could call it AVVETAENKJV. That way you could have any scripture ready to whip out that would support every view and personal opinion you've ever had. You could have entire books on Thalidomide, Pluto, New Jersey & flood waters, how we got the moon, your theory on the Challenger, well, you get the idea.

I really think you should look into this, AV. As it is now, you reaaaaaaaally have to strain and bastardize scripture to get it to convey your opinions. It would be much more effective to create your own holy book and dispense with those antiquated suggestions anyway.

 

[Strathos]

So?

The principle is the same.

If God sets a boundary for A in nature, can't He set a boundary for B in nature?

If God can allow microevolution, can't He allow macroevolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

If God can allow microevolution, can't He allow macroevolution?

The thing is ... did He?

I contend He didn't.

And He made that very clear in Genesis 1.

 

[CabVet]

Here's another passage I don't know is referencing evolution:

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Here, Paul is equating evolution with philosophy.

That's as much about evolution as Gottservant's posts.

 

[CabVet]

The thing is ... did He?

I contend He didn't.

And He made that very clear in Genesis 1.

You can contend all you want, but you cannot say it is clear. If it was "very clear", everyone would agree on this. I will tell you what is "very clear": Jesus died in the cross and resurrected, that is "very clear". Creation is not.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can contend all you want, but you cannot say it is clear.

Yes ... as a matter of fact ... I can.

In fact, a child can understand it.

Scientists can't.

If it was "very clear", everyone would agree on this.

Just like everyone would agree on the virgin birth?

I will tell you what is "very clear": Jesus died in the cross and resurrected, that is "very clear".

I don't think so.

He died on the Cross, not in It.

Creation is not.

Yes, creation is.

 

[createdtoworship]

Study: 2 Million U.S. Scientists Identify As Evangelical | Christianity Today

 

[bhsmte]

Not only endless, but different from one gospel to another. Just like G1/2.

You really should rewrite your own bible AV. You could call it AVVETAENKJV. That way you could have any scripture ready to whip out that would support every view and personal opinion you've ever had. You could have entire books on Thalidomide, Pluto, New Jersey & flood waters, how we got the moon, your theory on the Challenger, well, you get the idea.

I really think you should look into this, AV. As it is now, you reaaaaaaaally have to strain and bastardize scripture to get it to convey your opinions. It would be much more effective to create your own holy book and dispense with those antiquated suggestions anyway.

If Tommy Jefferson can do it, I don't see why AV can't. Tommy just nuked all the miracles out of the NT and he was good to go.

 

[HitchSlap]

If Tommy Jefferson can do it, I don't see why AV can't. Tommy just nuked all the miracles out of the NT and he was good to go.

Right. I mean AV is so close to doing it now, I'm not sure what's stopping him from going full Joe Smith on us and writing his own bible to support his opinions.

We should start a petition to have AV create the AVVETAENKJVB
(av vet alfred e neuman king jim version bible)

At least then he can write verses to say what he wants them to without having to take bible verses out of context and twist them for the purposes of his ego.

 

[Sayre]

Ahh I needed a laugh.

The bible doesn't talk about evolution at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ahh I needed a laugh.

The bible doesn't talk about evolution at all.

Why would It?

Only when the seeds of evolution began to crop up (rudiments of the world, apes, referring to onself as wise, endless genealogies), does the Bible issue warnings.

Satan's man brought all four of those tares under one roof in the 1800's, and now we have this end-time philosophy that is a serious challenge to creationism.

 

[FredHoyle]

and now we have this end-time philosophy that is a serious challenge to creationism.

Nothing is a serious challenge to creationism because creationists refuse to take reality seriously,
if anything does not gel with their take on the bible it's not even considered, it's blanked and dismissed,
to be able to accomplish this feat requires information to be withheld from the creationist during training,
in other words the creationist must be held in a state where they know no better because of a lack of knowledge.


Religions work on this principle, 'if you don't know but I do, you are reliant on me'.

 

[Sayre]

Why would It?

Only when the seeds of evolution began to crop up (rudiments of the world, apes, referring to onself as wise, endless genealogies), does the Bible issue warnings.

Satan's man brought all four of those tares under one roof in the 1800's, and now we have this end-time philosophy that is a serious challenge to creationism.

Why do you think the rudiments of the world refer to evolution? Referring to oneself as wise is about pride, not evolution. And while the number of generations is large under evolution, it is still finite. So to me, and many others, it seems that you are massaging an opposition to evolution into the bible, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

How is evolution an end-time philosophy? It isn't a philosophy at all. Evolution is a fact that is understood by both theists and atheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think the rudiments of the world refer to evolution?

Specifically, I think the rudiments of the world refer to the Periodic Table of the Elements.

Referring to oneself as wise is about pride, not evolution.

Pride leads to atheism, does it?

And while the number of generations is large under evolution, it is still finite.

The Bible says "endless" ... not "infinite."

So to me, and many others, it seems that you are massaging an opposition to evolution into the bible, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

That's what you want to think.

You want to think, "Let the text speak for itself," then you guys claim it speaks of geocentrism, flat earth, local flood, bronze dome, two different creation accounts, contradicting genealogies, young lady (vs. virgin) giving birth to Jesus, genocide, incest, slavery, an entity known as YAHWEH, deep time, talking snakes and talking donkeys.

And one of you has the gall to say I should write my own Bible?

 

[Chany]

Pride leads to atheism, does it?

One should be wary of double-edged swords.

 

[AV1611VET]

One should be wary of double-edged swords.

We've got Something sharper than that!

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[CabVet]

We've got Something sharper than that!

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Unrelated Bible verse of the day?

 

[AV1611VET]

Unrelated Bible verse of the day?

Is there such a thing as a related Bible verse of the day to an unbeliever?

(In your opinion?)