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.
KJ English ≠ Elizabethan English
KJ English = Jacobean English
Yeah, light without the sun. That's another problem, isn't it, unless you provide a non literal explanation which then means abandoning a literal translation.
Nevertheless, the point missed is the fact that land plants did not appear in the geologic record until Ordovician, 450 million years ago; well after marine plants and animals. Flowering plants, i.e. fruits, did not appear until the Triassic 200 million years ago. These are facts known to be true.
The only argument I am making is that with this knowledge, I see no problem in seeing the evolution of not only all life, but man as well.
Neither has germ theory, atomic theory or gravitational theory. You clearly don't know what 'theory' means, in the scientific context.
'The world' (read: scientifically literate people) is talking about it as if it's among the best supported scientific theories. Which it is.
Modifying a theory does not invalidate it.
Virtually no one in the relevant scientific fields has 'recanted' the ToE. Those that do have terrible reasons for doing so.
Accumulating knowledge in new areas of study does not invalidate the ToE.
You are speaking out of ignorance.
Right.AV, I too prefer reading the KJV because I like the way it reads. However, I am aware of the translation problems, therefore, I am not bound by a complete literal translation. There is absolutely no doubt that in the word earth should be understood to be land. The people of that time had absolutely no concept of the planet earth, much less its size. Replace earth with land and genesis makes much more sense.
In your opinion.Virtually no one in the relevant scientific fields has 'recanted' the ToE. Those that do have terrible reasons for doing so.
You don't have to answer this, but would I be correct if this god you are talking about -- his name is YAHWEH?I was a young earth creationist speaker and debater for years. I first began to repent of my position when God convicted me of the rampant lying with our movement.
And the lone private eye is heckled and ridiculed for saying otherwise.
That's the world for you.
That is how I see it, but I reckon when it comes to hearing His words, it is on God to cause the increase as He is the One that is ministering.
YAHWEH rescued you from the evolution-deniers, did he?God rescued me from the evolution-deniers of the young earth creationist movement.
Of course you are free to put your faith in man or God's word. In either case, don't fool yourself into thinking it is anything more than faith. Unless we have the ability to go back 450 million years to calibrate these dating methods, we have no way of knowing if they are accurate.
I do interpret Genesis 2:7 LITERALLY. And we should begin by acknowledging that "literal" doesn't demand only ONE possible interpretation.
In ancient Hebrew language, how would one say "the basic chemical elements of the earth's crust"? After all, there are no technical terms for it.
Does it not make sense to simply say that the non-living ingredients from which Adam was made was "the dust of the ground" or "soil"?
And does Genesis 2:7 say WHEN Adam was formed from the dust of the ground? No. Does it say how many intermediate processes were involved? No.
So there is NO REASON why Genesis 2:7 is not compatible with millions of years between the FIRST "dust of the ground" (that is, the formation of the earth's crust, its erosion, and its utilization by plants, etc.) and the eventual evolution of humans from earlier forms of life.
Moreover, as VerySincere posted here many times and in his BSF forum articles, Gen. 2:7 describes ABIOGENESIS. The living human was formed from non-living ingredients: the dust of the ground (chemical elements.)
The ancient Hebrews weren't focused on timelines and processes. They were focused on WHICH GOD they would recognize and worship. Genesis 1 is about WHO (God), not the when (timelines) and the how (intermediate processes.)
So that is why I strongly believe in LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Hebrew Bible while rejecting the TRADITIONS which Bible-deniers and science-deniers wish to impose upon the Bible text.
KJ English ≠ Elizabethan English
KJ English = Jacobean English
Totally different
than what has been established as laws of science.
Well, if you trust the world more than God's word,
then nothing I can say will change that.
No, but a work in progress is hardly a proven fact.
In your opinion.
Again, a work in progress mean that it is not proven yet.
And yet so many are taking the evolution theory as gospel.
It's like a homicide detective squad when after reading a fictional novel wherein the butler was the murderer, goes to a fresh crime scene and declares that the butler did it while some lone private eye interjected that the deceased does not have a butler employed, but the squad is writing up the final report anyway.
Meanwhile, the crime scene is yet to be processed by the forensics team still........ and because the matter is settled, the forensics team has to cater to the squad's final report as case closed or lose their jobs...... and strangely enough, no butler was ever arrested, but the media never reports the obvious.
And the lone private eye is heckled and ridiculed for saying otherwise.
That's the world for you.
That is how I see it, but I reckon when it comes to hearing His words, it is on God to cause the increase as He is the One that is ministering.
Genesis does give the who, what, when and where, you just cannot accept them because they don't fit with your faith in evolution.
I find it endlessly hilarious when the faithful invoke 'faith' as a negative criticism.
Not true at all.. There is zero indication that this 'god' exists anywhere outside the confines of your skull.
All will have irrubutable proof of God's existence in the moment that it is too late for faith to save you from damnation.Actually, a critically robust body of evidence would change that.
We have a coherent defintion of God, but the incredulous mind of the atheist can neither understand nor accept it.A coherent definition of 'god' would change that.
What evidence do you have that logic and reason alone are the governing factors of the universe? What evidence do you have that the incredible complexity of even one simple cell could happen by itself in a hundred trillion years? What evidence do you have that random amino acids could somehow assemble the required proteins to form life, and that that life would contain the information required to subsequently form every living thing in the universe? What evidence do you have that the physical laws of the universe are the absolute governors; that there is no greater force which can supersede them? What evidence do you have that everything which exists could have somehow defied the very laws of physics that govern it and somehow come into existence from absolute nothingness? You MUST either believe this foolish notion or the even more foolish notion that somehow matter is eternal but God is not.I am prepared to amend what I believe in light of logic, reason, evidence and/or a combination thereof.
Yet another statement of ignorance. You have no way of knowing what anyone else knows, so you ASSUME that they are ignorant. It says more about you than it does about anyone else.Do you know the difference and relationship between fact and theory? Clearly not.
Not true at all.
The testimony of those who have had encounters with God, His angels or demons are evidence as witness testimony is evidence.
God doesn't reveal Himself to those who deny Him, but He DOES reveal Himself to those who seek Him.
Aguments from incredulity
regarding a deity for whom you have never searched does not constitute evidence that He does not exist.
All will have irrubutable proof of God's existence in the moment that it is too late for faith to save you from damnation.
We have a coherent defintion of God,
What evidence do you have that logic and reason alone are the governing factors of the universe?
What evidence do you have that the incredible complexity of even one simple cell could happen by itself in a hundred trillion years?
What evidence do you have that random amino acids could somehow assemble the required proteins to form life, and that that life would contain the information required to subsequently form every living thing in the universe?
What evidence do you have that the physical laws of the universe are the absolute governors; that there is no greater force which can supersede them?
What evidence do you have that everything which exists could have somehow defied the very laws of physics that govern it and somehow come into existence from absolute nothingness?
You MUST either believe this foolish notion or the even more foolish notion that somehow matter is eternal but God is not.
The arrogant ignorance of some people is beyond me.
Why do you assume that peolpe who reject your theory do not understand your theory?
Can your mind not grasp that someone could look at the same data and come to a different conclusion?
Is your grasp on reality so tenuous that any challenge to your interpretation makes you lash out and attack others as ignorant and unaware?
Do you not know that the ToE is rammed down people's throats by educators the entire time they are in school, and by so-called documentaries when they are not?
I don't think there is anyone over 15 with at least average cognitive skills who doesn't have a good working knowledge of your molecules-to-man dogma.
Yet another statement of ignorance. You have no way of knowing what anyone else knows,
so you ASSUME that they are ignorant.
I'm spectacularly unimpressed
by your inability to articulate a pursuasive argument without personal attacks
and faulty reasoning
I find it endlessly hilarious when the faithful invoke 'faith' as a negative criticism.
I find it endlessly hilarious when the faithful invoke 'faith' as a negative criticism.
The criticism is not in the faith in evolution, but the object of the faith.
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?