Win a debate against evolution every time.

[mathetes123]

I've never met a literalist who felt the "give all you have to the poor and follow me" bit was meant to be taken literally.

I know of many liberal who are more than happy to have the government take from one and give to another. You may want to check the statistics on charitable giving between conservatives and liberals. I think you will be suprised.

 

[mathetes123]

I think this whole debate hinges on our disagreement over these two positions:

One side has an unshakable belief that the entire Bible (except the parts that have been removed over the years) is the literal, historic Word of God containing no metaphors, taking no poetic license, and not subject to any human perspective or interpretation.

The other side, however, believes that taking the Bible literally would degrades it's eternal meaning. They realize that the Word of God is His divine revelation to man and that it should be used as a spiritual guide to determine the will of God -not as a science or history book. They realize that man isn't perfect and makes mistakes. Man also can't be expected to make complete sense out of the inspiration they received from God.

If you think hard enough about it you'll realize that a strict, literalist, interpretation of the Bible is often untenable and sometimes even contradictory. That is unless you are willing to force you brain into denying large segments of reality in order to maintain your position.

Personally, I don't think God meant for us to be forced to ignore and suppress our scientific inquiry, our critical thinking skills, and our general curiosity about the universe.

I think the findings of modern cosmology and biology that literalists work so hard to suppress are actually wonderful examples of God's power and it's a shame that some people want to ignore all that.

I don't think most literalists would say that everything in the Bible is literal, but that the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally unless the context indicates otherwise.

 

[samaus12345]

If Adam and Eve were both middle brown (AaBb), they would have produced children with a wide range of tones. Suddenly, all of us being one race doesn’t seem so complicated.

Adam + Eve = All Skin Tones? - Answers in Genesis

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I know of many liberal who are more than happy to have the government take from one and give to another. You may want to check the statistics on charitable giving between conservatives and liberals. I think you will be suprised.

What have liberals and conservatives got to do with anything??

 

[Blackwater Babe]

If Adam and Eve were both middle brown (AaBb), they would have produced children with a wide range of tones. Suddenly, all of us being one race doesn’t seem so complicated.

Adam + Eve = All Skin Tones? - Answers in Genesis

Uhuh.

 

[KTskater]

Blackwater babe.

If you do have dark skin, you do realise based on Charles Darwins Origin of species and Descent of man you are an inferior 'race'? As science now knows, there is no such thing as 'race' other than in a cultural/loosely defined sense. We all descended from Adam And Eve, from which Eve descended from Adams rib.

Umm...what? Skin tone is based on environment. Humans adapt different skin colors based on either their need to Vitamin D, or need for protection from the sun's radiation. This occurs on a genetic level (your "natural skin tone"), and on an "expressed" level (the range of tones you're capable of expressing due to stimulus from the environment). There is nothing about skin color that makes anyone inferior, nor I have ever heard of such a claim by Charles Darwin.

If Adam and Eve were both middle brown (AaBb), they would have produced children with a wide range of tones. Suddenly, all of us being one race doesn’t seem so complicated.

Adam + Eve = All Skin Tones? - Answers in Genesis

I don't think anyone has argued that human skin tone is impossible to achieve via the biblical account.

 

[samaus12345]

Evolutionary racism

Racism-consequence-evolution


This is what evolutionary biology propaganda calls 'quote mining':

Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) was a leading evolutionist and Marxist, as well as a staunch anti-racist. Yet he admitted:

‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’

Stephen Jay Gould on Racism
​

 

[KhaosTheory]

Evolutionary racism

Racism-consequence-evolution


This is what evolutionary biology propaganda calls 'quote mining':

Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) was a leading evolutionist and Marxist, as well as a staunch anti-racist. Yet he admitted:

‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’

Stephen Jay Gould on Racism
​

What was that about quote mining? You just quote mined gould into saying that increased racism is due to larger exceptance of evolution. Thats not what he said at all.

He was pointing out that increased racism is the result of widespread MISUNDERSTANDING of evolution.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Creation ministries continues to suprise me with the amount of dishonesty they are willing to employ.

For the love of god please stop getting your sources from that crap factory.

 

[KTskater]

Evolutionary racism

Racism-consequence-evolution


This is what evolutionary biology propaganda calls 'quote mining':

Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) was a leading evolutionist and Marxist, as well as a staunch anti-racist. Yet he admitted:

‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’

Stephen Jay Gould on Racism
​

Let's not forget that the Bible has been used to support race-based slavery, as well. Nearly anything can be taken out of context and used to serve a purpose for which it was not originally intended.

 

[samaus12345]

Evolutionists are some of the most IGNORANT people on the PLANET. Your attacks on genesis are INDISTINGUISHABLE from an ATHEISTS. Why need satan undermining genesis when he has believers doing it for him? PLEASE WAKE UP

 

[KhaosTheory]

I fail to see how ranting about how ignorant evolutionists are is going to help you win a debate against one.

Want to stay on topic or should we take that last post as meaning that you've ran out of strawmen and red herrings?

 

[mark kennedy]

I think this whole debate hinges on our disagreement over these two positions:

One side has an unshakable belief that the entire Bible (except the parts that have been removed over the years) is the literal, historic Word of God containing no metaphors, taking no poetic license, and not subject to any human perspective or interpretation.

No it's not, the Creationist position is that God created...period. The evolutionist position is that God did nothing going all the way back to the Big Bang...period. The book of Genesis is an historical narrative and if you have actually read the first few chapters you know this. Reducing the Scriptures to myth and metaphor is the practice of skeptics, not Christian scholarship.

The other side, however, believes that taking the Bible literally would degrades it's eternal meaning. They realize that the Word of God is His divine revelation to man and that it should be used as a spiritual guide to determine the will of God -not as a science or history book. They realize that man isn't perfect and makes mistakes. Man also can't be expected to make complete sense out of the inspiration they received from God.

Are you aware there is nothing tangible in that statement? God's divine revelation of what exactly?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:18-22)​

Again, revelation of what!!!???

If you think hard enough about it you'll realize that a strict, literalist, interpretation of the Bible is often untenable and sometimes even contradictory. That is unless you are willing to force you brain into denying large segments of reality in order to maintain your position.

If you think even mildly you will realize that the literal interpretation is always preferred. Not because you want it to be true but because it's an historical narrative and unbelievers just dismiss everything they don't believe as myth and metaphor. Now if you start to consider what the Scriptures are literally saying your brain has to decide whether you believe or you don't.

Personally, I don't think God meant for us to be forced to ignore and suppress our scientific inquiry, our critical thinking skills, and our general curiosity about the universe.

Personally I don't think God intended for us to dismiss the explicit meaning of the Word of God. Of course he expected us to use our critical thinking skills in order to dismiss the arguments of science, falsely so called.

I think the findings of modern cosmology and biology that literalists work so hard to suppress are actually wonderful examples of God's power and it's a shame that some people want to ignore all that.

Cosmology has nothing to do with it and if you know anything about biology except Darwinian clutch phrases you have yet to post it. The creation is an example of God's power and it's a shame you not only ignore it but mock and ridicule people simply for believing Genesis as it was written.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

You clearly think this refers to evolutionists. I think it refers to creationists. Thats the problem with pithy sounding out of context Bible quotes, they can come back to bite you

 

[jilfe]

The whole spiritual message clearly written throughout the Bible, speaks entirely of Special Creation, done Supernaturally, this is seen very clearly as you read the Bible,

it is not just the literal words but the whole message the Bible is conveying, that the concept of the modern day term MACROevolution, was not the way God brought about everything into existence.

Here is why science cannot account for the origins of everything, because science is 'after' and the 'result' of SUPERnatural creation.

If God created mechanisms to cause macroevolution to take place, (which has already been proven over and over again to not work),

but if it did work, how does that account for the origins of everything,
when macroevolution takes millions of years to happen,

And God said it was done in 6 days

AND here is where God made sure that no one has an excuse to mess this up, but look at what GOD had inspired someone to have written over and over about His creation activities.

Here it is:

Gen:1:5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen:1:8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen:1:13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Gen:1:19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Gen:1:23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Gen:1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Now God spelled it out for everyone to see, all creation took place during a six day period.
So if MACROevolution has to take more than six days, that should settle it once and for all.

How could MACROevolution happen, when God did all creation in six days.???????

　

 

[samaus12345]

5 times in Genesis God says "It was good", and 1 time "it was very good". Is pre-fall death very good? Is suffering very good? Is pain very good? Is disease very good?

 

[KhaosTheory]

I still don't see how quoting Bible verses is going to help in a scientific discussion against evolutionists.

 

[samaus12345]

Khaso theory you havnt even read Origin of species. Would i be an IGNORANT fool if i claimed, with authority, absolute knowledge on Shakespeare's play formats all without reading a single one of his books? Yes.

Which day did God makes fruit trees and herb?

Which day did God make the sun,moon and stars?

Which day did God make beast of the field, cattle and every creeping thing that moves?

Which day did God make man?

 

[Papias]

In response to this:

Jilfe wrote:
that even these verses speak very clearly AGAINST macro evolutionm.

Papias wrote:
I'm not aware of any verse that so much as mentions macro evolution. If you know of any, please point them out.

And this:

Jilfe:

Every verse in the Bible speaks of creation as a SPECIAL creation, done entirely SUPERNATURALLY.

Papias:
​

Similarly, I'm waiting for you to back this up with scripture that includes the words "special" or "supernatually", which your post above seems to be saying are in the Bible.

​

Jilfe wrote:

Here are a few verses other than the actual creation account in Genesis,
that shows complete evidence, that God created all things as a special creation SUPERNATURALLY,, and these verses speak totally AGAINST

(the concept of macroevolution, .....

Jilfe, none of those mention "supernaturally", "special", or "macroevolution", as asked previously. It may be true that your interpretation of them disagrees with other sources of information, but that's just a human's interpretation. The interpretations of many other humans, including many theologians, is completely in agreement with God's other revelation, His creation itself - the natural world.

More importantly, most of the verses you posted simply state that God is the one who created, and we all agree on that anyway. Did you not read this part of my previous post?

Jilfe wrote:

There are scripture verses other than in Genesis, that speaks about creation, and God as the creator,

Papias wrote:
​

Of course - didn't you see progmonk's poll thread? We all agree that God did the creating. If you want to argue with atheists, go find them - we are Christians here in this subforum.

Do you understand that I, along with other theistic evolution supporters, fully credit God with His creation? There is no creator aside from God. Jilfe, out of Christian unity, could you please state if you acknowledge that we all, YEC and TE alike, claim that God is the creator, and reject any origin idea that doesn't have God on his throne as the creator of all?

Plus, you didn't respond to these:

Jilfe wrote:

The wholke point about understanding the origins, is written in the Bible as being Supernatural, the natural laws were not used by God, the natural laws of physics were created by God, just as all creation was done Supernaturally.

Papias wrote:
​

The natural laws are not used by God? You don't think God is acting through the natural laws all the time? Have you not read John 5:17 nor Heb 1:11? It sounds like you want to push God out of the natural world.

With His love-

Papias

Nor this:


Papias wrote:
​

I guess I don't see how your response follows from my post that evolution and an old earth are ideas with a mostly Christian, not atheist, origin.

Papias

 

[KhaosTheory]

Khaso theory you havnt even read Origin of species. Would i be an IGNORANT fool if i claimed, with authority, absolute knowledge on Shakespeare's play formats all without reading a single one of his books? Yes.

When did I ever say I never read Origin of Species? Besides, why is reading a 150 year old book relevant to our discussion about modern day biology?

And when did I ever say I had absolute knowledge of anything... I'll glady change my position as new evidence is presented... there's a sentence that I know you'll never say.

Which day did God makes fruit trees and herb?

Which day did God make the sun,moon and stars?

Which day did God make beast of the field, cattle and every creeping thing that moves?

Which day did God make man?

Why don't you tell me? The Bible isn't exactly clear on that.

Were humans created after the other animals? Genesis 1:25-27
Or were humans created before animals? Genesis 2:18-19

Were plants created before humans? Genesis 1:11-13, 27-31
Or were plants created after humans? Genesis 2:4-9