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.
A car without a engine is nothing but dead weight. Same with evolution.stumpjumper said:Bad analogy. The house and the car would still be there despite the flaws in their current operation. Same with evolution.
I don't either since it can forever hide in some unknown laws of physics.No. I said probably not definitely. Macroevolution could be falsified although I do not see how.
Whilst that's an interesting idea I think it's more pertinent and imprtant to note that our human nature doesn't mean just our physical being.Critias said:Physical doesn't just mean a body. We must first realize this and understand that something physical doesn't mean the body.
He took on our human nature which is indeed other than the spirt, our human nature encompasses our physical being and our soul. There are also other incommunicable attributes of God which Christ was not able to take up otherwise it would have negated his true humanity.Jesus Christ was and is God. When He was man, He was God. He wasn't just the image of God, He was God. So, since we know the form Jesus took wasn't God, but His Spirit was, then image must be something other than the spirit in these verses. It very well encompasses the spirit, but is more then that.
So are you saying God needs a physical outlet for his acts of love since, as a reflection of that, we carry out our acts of love as physical acts? We as physical beings carry out acts of love which flow from the Spirit, but to say that because we exist in a physical reality means that God somehow also must have a physical aspect to his nature is not the case. As I pointed out to QuantumFlux, God loved the Son from all eternity without the need of any physical expression of that love.There are physical aspects that are also 'in the image of God'. Acts of love can be physical acts. Acts of mercy can be physical acts. These stem from the Spirit and are carried out by the physical.
This is very true, although I'm not sure how it relates to the discussion. God does not need a physical nature to carry out acts of love just because we do.It seems we tend to just cut off the physical completely, which can be used to justify our evil acts as something not of us, spiritually. That would be incorrect. For sin starts in the mind and is carried out in the physical. So too are acts of good.
Third post in a row, I'm on a roll.
You keep comparing the evolutionary theory to that of gravity and meteorology. It is in no way like gravity because gravity can be measured and the theory has not been changed in who knows how long.
Meteorology however is a good analogy. Any meteorologist will tell you how unpredictable the weather is, they can only give you a rough estimate of what the weather will be like that day, much less predict the weather 5 years from now. If they could they could have warned New Orleans a year ahead of Katrina.
...
If evolution is proven like meteorology is proven, then its not proven at all because meteorology is wrong in alot of cases.
Here is a link to a evolutionistary view of the cambrian explostion
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/l...4/l_034_02.html
The things to notice here is that the scientists have very little speculation as to how these creatures evolved so fast. You all of a sudden have creatures with heads and bodies, arms and legs all fully functional.
...
There are several cultures with records of a world wide flood. Native american cultures, chinese cultures, african tribes and multiple other cultures all have this very similar tale of a world wide flood. If this were to be judged as any other historical evidence with so much cooberating evidence, the world wide flood is historical fact. Perhaps the evidence is there, but you choose not to look at it.
At first, Brown thought H. floresiensis evolved from Homo erectus, but now he believes the hobbits were more closely linked to Australopithecus, a more apish-looking human ancestor that walked upright but had long arms.
This is causing a stir only because scientists actually search for answers and the truth. I could not say the same about YEC's.
However, there are some things that have been proven completely wrong and without merit: a 6000 year old earth, unique special creation, and a literal reading of Genesis is untrue. You cannot get around it by saying some arms are not as long as other arms. The strawmen you build up can be burned down again and again yet reality will still bite you in the rear end. So you say.
There are plenty of fossils that show change within a species. Reality is that every fossil creates a new link.
Unfortunately, a literal reading of Genesis which leads you to accept a very young earth with unique special creation is totally wrong. No matter how you spin the facts it is just not true. And you know it
Through prayer and meditation I know Jesus Christ was a historical figure and the unique savior of mankind. The entire New Testament is devoted to the life of this unique person in history and He has no equal. Noah has one chapter of one book in a collection that began as oral history over many centuries. Jesus Christ was written about within two decades of his death and resurrection.
Time to break out TalkOrigins' list of creationist claims! Hmm, I just found refutations.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html
Not true. Read a good book on forensic science.which they have no evidence of
Oral stories of many cultures, especially the hebrews, have stayed word for word intact for centuries.
QuantumFlux said:Stop comparing me to YECs, I have my own beliefs and one of them is that God made the earth mature just as he made the trees mature and mankind mature when he created them during the 6 days of creation. And my friend, a literal reading of Genesis is the only way to read Genesis. You either take it in context as it was written or you throw the whole book out as myth, there is no seperation between creation, the story of noah or anything up to Moses. It is all written as one piece, it does not seperate anything as myth, so you take it all literal or you throw it all in the myth pile, context, cultural or otherwise, does not allow it to be taken any other way.
a) this is certainly not true of Norse myths, or any ancient near Eastern culture that we know of either. Or African. Or Native American. Or (insert culture...) They only became relatively fixed when written down. Elaboration was/is very much a part of story-telling culture (you can see it too in folk songs - many of which exist in several variations.)
b) apart from the fact that it supports your pov, have you any actual evidence that the Hebrew culture of, sat, the 5th-10th C BC was any different in its oral story practices than the surrounding culture
Where in Genesis does it say that God created recently yet made the earth look extremely old with extinct fossils and all the other data that you conveniently push aside.
QuantumFlux said:Well, it only makes sense that he made the earth look old since he made the trees to bear fruit and didnt plant the seeds, he made man mature so that he could speak and commune with God. As the the extinct fossils, the only way you know how old they are is by the layer in which they are burried or c14 carbon dating or radioisotope.
if the layers were created suddenly instead of progressively then the layer dating is negated, we still dont know all of the elements that affect both c14 and radioisotopes so those are faulty as well. In essence, fossils dont prove an old earth, there is a fossilized miners helmet found an a late 19th century mining cave, I'd be curious to see when those dating methods would place that helmet.
QuantumFlux said:So much for searching for the truth, they are just trying to confirm their own belief with whatever evidence they can make up.
Listen you could probably get around the light from stars reaching us from hundreds of thousands of light years away by saying that at the time of creation light speed was infinite, but there are lots of things you cannot get around. Supernovas that have exploded tens of thousands of light years ago are just reaching us now. It takes a long time for stars to mature and then explode and then have their light reach the earth. You also can't get around the Big Bang inflationary model. The Big Bang shows that the universe was not created within the span of one earth week and you just cannot get past that and the data that support it.
Then you go to anthropology and biology and you are sunk. I honestly do not know how people can believe in a recent, unique creation.
God might be more active in evolution than myself or others think but it is clear that Genesis 1-11 is not literally true from every area inquiry.
A bit like making up that God made the earth mature when the evidence does not suggest it and the Bible gives us no indication of this.
You have evidence that they are accurate? How many of them end up with the first king being born of a god?There are many african tribes that can oral trace back their lineage for a millenium worth of generations.
By the time of the exile and post-exilic communities, certainly it was becoming so in some terms, especially theological. But as there is nothing in the OT that was written or compiled (in its current form at least) from any earlier than about 500BC at the earliest, and as the prophets were always complaining bitterly about how much the Hebrews were running after the gods and practices of the surrounding nations, any idea of "seperateness" was very much in its infancy.but the OT shows how very special and different the Hebrew culture was
Culturally, until the law was codified during and after the exile, the hebrews would have shown little difference but for a belief in one god rather than many from most of the people around them.
QuantumFlux said:You have no evidence for that anymore than I have for the contrary. In essence, you can believe that if you wish, I'll continue to believe that the Genesis book is true in its entirety.
Out of curiousity, how do you believe that genesis is figurative. Walk me through the chapters and what they mean figuratively. I've heard general statements that are like "its just saying that we were created special" however that is really vague for how many specifics are in the few chapters. So help me out, show me the symbolism.
Numenor said:Unfortunately the thread has become bogged down in PRATTs but I didn't want the points Critias made to go unaddressed as they raise a far more interesting and beneficial aspect of the debate.
Numenor said:Whilst that's an interesting idea I think it's more pertinent and imprtant to note that our human nature doesn't mean just our physical being.
Numenor said:He took on our human nature which is indeed other than the spirt, our human nature encompasses our physical being and our soul. There are also other incommunicable attributes of God which Christ was not able to take up otherwise it would have negated his true humanity.
Numenor said:So are you saying God needs a physical outlet for his acts of love since, as a reflection of that, we carry out our acts of love as physical acts? We as physical beings carry out acts of love which flow from the Spirit, but to say that because we exist in a physical reality means that God somehow also must have a physical aspect to his nature is not the case. As I pointed out to QuantumFlux, God loved the Son from all eternity without the need of any physical expression of that love.
Numenor said:This is very true, although I'm not sure how it relates to the discussion. God does not need a physical nature to carry out acts of love just because we do.
Not sure what you mean by "figurative." "Metaphorical" I might go with; I don't really think it's as instrumental as "this figure represents that quality." I can't really do as you ask as I don't have the time; but with regards to Chap 1, for instance, I would have to say that it's embedded right into the very structure: that it has a refrain, that even from the very beginning it has God "brooding" over his creation (that is, it uses poetic and metaphorical language throughout), its cadence even, and many other things lead me to say that it has all the qualities of a liturgical psalm to be used in worship, not a piece of factual reportage.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
QuantumFlux said:Well, it only makes sense that he made the earth look old since he made the trees to bear fruit and didnt plant the seeds, he made man mature so that he could speak and commune with God. As the the extinct fossils, the only way you know how old they are is by the layer in which they are burried or c14 carbon dating or radioisotope.
if the layers were created suddenly instead of progressively then the layer dating is negated, we still dont know all of the elements that affect both c14 and radioisotopes so those are faulty as well. In essence, fossils dont prove an old earth, there is a fossilized miners helmet found an a late 19th century mining cave, I'd be curious to see when those dating methods would place that helmet.
stumpjumper said:No. I said probably not definitely. Macroevolution could be falsified although I do not see how.
Critias said:Is it?
Jesus Christ is in the very nature God Himself. Yet, it is stated that Jesus is the image of God. (Col 1:15) 1 Corinthians 11:7 man, normal man, is the image of God.
So, if Jesus Christ is God, how is He the image of God if it has nothing to do with the physical when He is already God?
The answer is more complex then I think many realize. The 'in His image' is more than just spirit, mind, emotion, etc. It also has to do with the physical.
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?