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 implying that if evolution exits, God started the process....and just left it to do something else. Sounds like deism.
Let's identify the evolutionists favourite catch phrases, shall we?There are various views in evolutionary creationism about God's will/action and how it relates to evolution. God could have began the process and made it so the process created life according to his will without him needing to intervene directly. Or perhaps he is constantly being involved in the evolutionary process so what comes forth is apart of his will.
Either way....evolution is still very impressive. God not creating life instantaneously in present day form doesn't make him less awesome.
Yes, you are being very rude and dismissive. You provided no list of solid evidence to support YEC. What you did was dish up some creation-science material and that does not count as real science.Sorry brother, evolution doesn't have answers for anything, just rhetoric, conjecture and speculation... I'm not being rude or dismissive, just truthful. I gave a list of observable natural phenomenon that support a young earth creation... please, would someone on here give me a clear piece of evidence that evolution happened. And please don't say..."I already did" when nothing has been shown in this entire thread, beyond some references to species adaptation, which is not evolution.
So now you are misquoting me to say I implied that evolution exists... believe me, nothing is further from the truth.
Let's identify the evolutionists favourite catch phrases, shall we?
- various views
- could have
- Or perhaps
- Either way
="Hoghead1, post: 69511782, member: 381793"]Here are the facts, EastCoast.
Science has determined the universe to be about 14.5 billion years old. This is based on c. Now, unless you go with that nutcase Setterfield, then c has remained constant and these scientific measurements are accurate.
Don't you ever read anything in science? Do I have to take you by the hand through high-school-level science? You remarks on the experiments with bacteria closely show you have absolutely no understanding of evolution. Evolution is about generating new species and that is what happened with the bacteria. The fact they remained bacteria is beside the point.
Try reading Pere Teilhard de Chardin. Yes, he most definitely did see evolution as fitting Scripture. Also, it is not a question of unbelievers here. What it really boils down to is that you feel it's your privilege to berate fellow Christians who do not share your particular views. Your statement about modern biblical scholarship here is totally inaccurate,disrespectful, and inappropriate. Nobody is attacking God or the Bible, just your irrational interpretations thereof. But this is, of course all par for the course. The SOP is that whenever any scholar disagrees with the fundamentalist version of the Bible, he or she is automatically written off as possessed by the Devil, lacking in faith, etc. They did that with Schweitzer, so why shouldn't KW do it to me and others here?More to the point, that's their intent.
You don't see Christians pretending to be scientists posting on atheists websites attacking the theory of evolution, but we see unbelievers pretending to be scientists and Biblical scholars coming to this forum to attack Christian's faith in the Bible. How do we know they are pretending? Very simple. In all their "expertise" they can't justify the Scriptures which they claim to believe with the "science" they are touting. They can't blow their cover by admitting that there is nothing in the Scriptures they find holy and true, but they can't manufacture a rationale for believing in one miracle but not another.
One thing you can be sure of. You will never see an evolution believer posting passages of Scripture to support his belief.
Only blind people don't.What you say does not make sense. Dawkins sees the contradictions between literal translations of the Bible and the theory of evolution. Christians don't.
Well, seeing as you didn't refute it with academia, I will stand on what I posted. What I posted is observable and no amount of your baseless statements that creation science is not real science holds any weight.Yes, you are being very rude and dismissive. You provided no list of solid evidence to support YEC. What you did was dish up some creation-science material and that does not count as real science.
It's a naturalistic model.
Why do you keep making the same statement and thinking that by saying enough times, someone will believe you. Again, I ask (but will not get) for these tons of facts you tout... please crush me with the weight of your evidence showing observable evolution in practice.No, I accept evolution through fact. And if you paid any real attention to modern science, you would, too.
Get a clue:Here is what Colin Patterson had to say in 1993 when asked about his words being quoted by creationists:
The question required a yes or no answer... not more rhetoricKW, it is a no-no in serious theological discussion and also on this forum for you or anyone else to sit and knock the spirituality and Christianity of fellow Christians, as you are doing with me here. Posts such as this simply show you are very intolerant and lacking in respect for those Christians who maybe do not share your views. Certain forms of religious ideation border on irrational, neurotic thinking. And frankly this and other hate posts you have aimed at me come awful close, too close, to such ideation.
Apparently they refuse to.Notice that every Bible-affirming observation is nature - is taken with a great deal of dismay by our atheist evolutionist friends - and even a great number of T.E.'s -- the reason is that many T.E.'s go overboard in that they unwittingly argue against 'design' -- which is a "distinctively atheist" argument. They simply never stopped to think about it.
When I speak of the Bible, I use words that are definitive not ambiguous. God's Word is sure not to be guessed on.I never misquoted you. I said, "you are implying IF evolution exists". That is a big IF....a hypothetical.
I use those phrases because we are talking about God and evolution. In other words a realm beyond the actual ToE which doesn't deal with religion and its relationship to science.
It makes sense for me to say "various views" when we deal with God and evolution because that is clearly true. There are "various views" that Christians have when it comes to evolution and whether or not God caused it.
Read Genesis 1:26-27It all depends upon what you mean by the Imago Dei.
Stones and thick skulls...I'm guessing at this point you're just trying to throw stones.
-CryptoLutheran
Yes God is a creationist....since he created the worldGet a clue:
God is the Creationist.
So when along the evolutionary cycle were we stamped with the image of God? When we were that ancestral relation, or even further back... what was the beginning of all this life? Was that the image of God? If evolution doesn't answer hat question then, imo, you have to look at the validity of something that doesn't support clear scripture that we were made in the image of God, being made a little lower than the angels. What about angels, are they all apart of the evolutionary process? They must have been if everything created was through evolution. Does this mean that we will evolve into angels or that angels evolved from our current state?
Any answers to the above questions? Anybody?
Wow, you make statements like "only blind people don't" as a bare assertion. You don't think of other alternatives.Only blind people don't.
You'll have to have serious reading problems to miss the contradictions, or you have to force allegorical interpretation onto it.
Read Genesis. 'nuff said.Wow, you make statements like "only blind people don't" as a bare assertion.
You just assume that.You don't think of other alternatives.
Well, they sure hold weight to those of us who know what science really is about. I have carefully gone over major behavior patterns in creation-science publications and I no way they anywhere come near real science. Here is a list of just a few. Presenting bogus degrees is illegitimate. Plagiarizing is illegitimate. Presenting the unqualified judgments of unqualified persons on sensitive scientific matters is illegitimate. Presenting evidence know to be false is illegitimate. Look, creation-science people themselves admit that the old moon-dust argument and also the human-footprints-with the-dinosaur arguments have been debunked, yet you still find them peddled all over the literature. Presenting 0one's religious beliefs as something to be accepted without question and the sole criterion for which to judge the validity of scientific findings is illegitimate. presenting deliberately falsified information, a in the case of Darwin's finch research and also the rumor they stated about Haeckel, is totally illegitimate. The list goes on and on. Now if you feel that is real science, the God help you.Well, seeing as you didn't refute it with academia, I will stand on what I posted. What I posted is observable and no amount of your baseless statements that creation science is not real science holds any weight.
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?