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.
You are a good one to get people to question the Bible. What you have to say about it is so preposterous that a sensible person might be tempted to reject the whole book.
Given the stuff we've seen from Kent Hovind, "Answers in Genesis" and so on, God had their numbers.My pastor likes to bring this verse to mind ...
2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Given the stuff we've seen from Kent Hovind, "Answers in Genesis" and so on, God had their numbers.
or, eisegesisPlease, stop. Your condemnation of other Christians is almost as bad as your exegesis.
They use him to reject YEC. You've confused YEC stories with the Bible.I have a feeling it's not just Kent Hovind that people use as an excuse to reject the Bible.
Hovind is noting new. Paul talked about guys like him.After all, the rejecters have been around since the Garden of Eden.
And YECs blame all the other Christians. We get that. It's not new.And notice Adam blamed Eve, and then Eve blamed the Devil.
Are you saying a natural process could have produced human beings? I don't think so.In a way that is a false dichotomy. You are assuming that explaining a process in terms of natural causes rules out divine Providence.
A natural process is devoid of any supernatural influence. For example, you can boil water without God stepping in to help.There you go again: "natural" is not the same thing as "Godless."
That depends what you mean by "work". If their "work" is dreaming up stories about how life evolved millions of years ago, then their "work" is meaningless and pointless and doesn't advance scientific knowledge one iota, so they should do something more constructive with their time and talent.If the ToE is the best scientific explanation, then you can't complain when scientists utilize it in their work. So I'm not sure what your point is now. Do you want scientists to do their work differently? If so, how?
Sorry, I don't know what you mean.You ask a question that you know is nonsense and when someone notes that the question is nonsense, that's your support for your claim?
No, evolutionary biologists do not go to work and sit around dreaming up stories. I guess then you don't want them to do their work differently, which brings us back to my question to you: What is your point?That depends what you mean by "work". If their "work" is dreaming up stories about how life evolved millions of years ago, then their "work" is meaningless and pointless and doesn't advance scientific knowledge one iota, so they should do something more constructive with their time and talent.
Never mind, it's not important. I'm still trying to figure out what your overall point is today.Sorry, I don't know what you mean.
I believe the history of life on earth is one of evolution. As for what caused evolution, no one knows, nor will anyone ever know. It can't be proven that evolution is the result of any natural process.What is your primary issue with evolution? You have already admitted it is the best scientific explanation. Reading your comments, it seems you just don't like it because you have a problem with atheists?
Huh???Is that what you are trying to say, you don't like atheists and since they accept it, you don't?
Really? Literally thousands of scientific papers, articles and books have been written by evolutionary biologists about that very thing ... stories about how they think prehistoric life evolved.No, evolutionary biologists do not go to work and sit around dreaming up stories.
What are you talking about? For starters, I haven't even mentioned Genesis. And I don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis - on the contrary, I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth began millions-billions of years ago as relatively simply organisms that became more complex and diversified over time.What you are really doing is promoting a literal and inerrant reading of Genesis.
I agree.The truth is that nothing that science has discovered or in principle could discover in future can disprove the existence of a creator God.
Show me one. Show me a published paper that is nothing more than a dreamed up story.Really? Literally thousands of scientific papers, articles and books have been written by evolutionary biologists about that very thing ... stories about how they think prehistoric life evolved.
It's been directly observed that evolution proceeds by mutation and natural selection. As even honest YECs admit, the evidence shows common descent. For example, evolutionary theory predicted that lungfish would be more closely related to humans than they would be to other fish. And that prediction has been observed.This would make no sense whatever if creationism were true, but it's another confirmation of Darwin's theory.It has been "directly observed" that mutations and natural selection produced the history of life on earth? I don't think so.
You and I for example, were produced by natural processes. Our souls were given directly by God, but that is outside the reach of science.Are you saying a natural process could have produced human beings? I don't think so.
Do you think that God isn't involved in every particle and force in the universe? Who do you think keeps it working? Are you perhaps a deist, who supposes that God created the world and walked away to let it work on its own?A natural process is devoid of any supernatural influence. For example, you can boil water without God stepping in to help.
A natural process is devoid of any supernatural influence. For example, you can boil water without God stepping in to help.
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?