Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[BNR32FAN]

Look at the shape.

Isn't that what they teach in geometry?Sure, why not?

That’s is another explanation that holds water, pun intended. That’s the problem with atheists they try so hard to disprove the Bible that they blind themselves to the obvious.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I was implying that the Bible passage in question does not contain any mathematics at all that should be subject to an exacting standard of mathematical correctness. You are struggling to justify a figure of 3.0 when it really does not make any difference.

There was no struggle at all. He asked the question and I simply answered it. If I hadn’t explained how it was possible to come up with that equation then he would’ve said I was ignoring the facts and or dodging the question, so I put all that to rest by giving a logical explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

That’s is another explanation that holds water, pun intended.

That’s the problem with atheists they try so hard to disprove the Bible that they blind themselves to the obvious.

So true!

 

[ottawak]

There was no struggle at all. He asked the question and I simply answered it. If I hadn’t explained how it was possible to come up with that equation then he would’ve said I was ignoring the facts and or dodging the question, so I put all that to rest by giving a logical explanation.

You are still dodging the question. You came up with a justification as to why the figure 3.0 might be arrived at and still be accurate, but you haven't explained why it must be accurate.

That’s is another explanation that holds water, pun intended. That’s the problem with atheists they try so hard to disprove the Bible that they blind themselves to the obvious.

Lets not put all the blame on the poor atheists. They (and I) are not at present trying to "disprove the Bible" but merely are pointing out inconsistncies in your interpretation of it. Casting doubt on the necessity of a literal interpretation of any part of Scripture is not "disproving the Bible." That would only be true if the Bible is, and can only be, the literal, inerrant and perspicuous product of Plenary Verbal Inspiration--a dubious proposition at best, and one which you have not seen fit to justify.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No.

Prove it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's what can happen when you get answer like this to good questions.

Bad ones too, from the look of it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You are still dodging the question. You came up with a justification as to why the figure 3.0 might be arrived at and still be accurate, but you haven't explained why it must be accurate.

Not true my calculation came to the conclusion that pi is 3.14 not 3.0 and I never said it must be accurate. It’s still off by .08”.

 

[ottawak]

Not true my calculation came to the conclusion that pi is 3.14 not 3.0 and I never said it must be accurate. It’s still off by .08”.

True, and your justification attempted to show why the figure of 3.0 could still be arrived at and not be "wrong" but you never explained why it should be "right" to begin with.

 

[BNR32FAN]

True, and your justification attempted to show why the figure of 3.0 could still be arrived at and not be "wrong" but you never explained why it should be "right" to begin with.

No it was AV1611VET that posted the oval pool not me. I just said that is another possible explanation. I’m more inclined to think that it was my explanation because it was said to be circular in form. I don’t see the relevance of saying why it should be right. I guess you could say that it should be mathematically correct if it is in the Bible in order to maintain its reliability as a historical document.

 

[AV1611VET]

Prove it.

Sure.

Ex nihilo - from nothing God creating animals in Genesis 1 and 2.
ex materia - from existing parts - God creating Earth in Gen 1, and Eve in Gen 2.

Creatio ex nihilo = creation from absolute nothingness.
Valentine: God created animals in Genesis 1 and 2.
Bible: Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Creatio ex materia = creation from preexisting matter/energy.
Valentine: God created Earth in Genesis 1.
Bible: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[ottawak]

No it was AV1611VET that posted the oval pool not me. I just said that is another possible explanation. I’m more inclined to think that it was my explanation because it was said to be circular in form. I don’t see the relevance of saying why it should be right. I guess you could say that it should be mathematically correct if it is in the Bible in order to maintain its reliability as a historical document.

To justify its purported reliability as an historical document; good, that's a little closer to a real answer. But its overall historical reliability would not be much impugned if the author(s) were just careless over such an unimportant point.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sure.
Creatio ex nihilo = creation from absolute nothingness.
Valentine: God created animals in Genesis 1 and 2.
Bible: Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Creatio ex materia = creation from preexisting matter/energy.
Valentine: God created Earth in Genesis 1.
Bible: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

There wasn’t pre-existing energy or matter since both of those must be created. John 1:3 says that everything that was created was created by Christ and nothing was created without Him.

“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[AV1611VET]

There wasn’t pre-existing energy or matter since both of those must be created. John 1:3 says that everything that was created was created by Christ and nothing was created without Him.

Correct.

But the Earth was spoken into existence from absolute nothingness (creatio ex nihilo).

The animals were then "brought forth" from the earth (creatio ex materia).

Valentine has those backwards, saying Earth was created ex materia, and the animals were created ex nihilo.

 

[BNR32FAN]

To justify its purported reliability as an historical document; good, that's a little closer to a real answer. But its overall historical reliability would not be much impugned if the author(s) were just careless over such an unimportant point.

True but I like to shut down the mockers & scoffers.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Correct.

But the Earth was spoken into existence from absolute nothingness (creatio ex nihilo).

The animals were then "brought forth" from the earth (creatio ex materia).

Valentine has those backwards, saying Earth was created ex materia, and the animals were created ex nihilo.

ahh ok yes I completely agree

 

[stevil]

How would you answer someone who wanted to know how, if creation ended after six days, God fed the four thousand without doing any act of creating?

If it's in the bible and if I believed everything in the bible then I'd say god did it.
If the bible didn't talk about how god fed them then I'd say the bible doesn't say how it just says god did.

 

[Astrid]

Every system of measurement me have today is rounded to some extent. No system of measurement is precisely what it claims to be. An inch mark on a ruler isn’t exactly 1 inch it’s off by an extremely small fraction. Even the most expensive micrometers have a tolerance rating. So personally a piece of string with knots in it to measure cubits being accurate within .008” per cubit is pretty impressive in my opinion considering the technology during that era.

Everybody kows that. And that you made up
the 0.08 and how it was derived.
Are you being deliberately evasive about the
question about what it means that the bible says
some things that are not accurate?

 

[stevil]

Ok but my position is that God created them the same way they are naturally made which would mean that they would not only look old but they would have all the same characteristics of an old rock.

In nature when the rocks are formed they are composed of a particular isotope.
Over time the isotopes decay at a consistent rate. So some of them change to a different isotope.
The scientists can tell how old the rock is by checking how much of a percentage of the rock is of the decayed isotope.
So in essence, when the rock is new it is shiny (shiny meaning, composed of a particular isotope) and overtime it gradually decays into a different isotope (losses its shine).
If God created the rocks the way that nature creates them then gods rocks are going to be composed as shiny (with the original isotope) and it would take time for these atoms to decay. Scientists measure how much decay has happened, they know the rate of decay (the half life) and so they can work out how much time has passed since the rock first formed.

If god wanted to make his new rocks to look old, then god would have had to make rocks that are already decayed. God would have had to make his rocks differently to what happens naturally. God would have had to have put already decayed isotopes into his new rocks.
Let's just say that god did this. Now because of this detail that god did, it makes scientists think the rocks are millions of years old. Scientists date things based on many different methods and everything comes together consistently to tell a consistent story. This means, that if god did it, then god was very careful to construct a planet and universe to make it look consistently old, to tell a story for scientists to discover. Scientists aren't making stuff up, they are discovering this story that god is telling. Isn't it fascinating that god left this message for us and that scientists are discovering god's message?

 

[AV1611VET]

If it's in the bible and if I believed everything in the bible then I'd say god did it.
If the bible didn't talk about how god fed them then I'd say the bible doesn't say how it just says god did.

So just saying "God did it" is good enough for you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Everybody kows that. And that you made up
the 0.08 and how it was derived.
Are you being deliberately evasive about the
question about what it means that the bible says
some things that are not accurate?

If the Bible said something inaccurate, would you even know it?