Win a debate against evolution every time.

[mathetes123]

How about Job 38:22-23? Are there literally storehouses of snow, or was God simply speaking to Job in a way that he -- a man of 2nd millennium BC -- could understand?

The bible traces Jesus' geneology to Adam. Do you deny Jesus was a historical figure?

 

[Philonephius]

The bible traces Jesus' geneology to Adam. Do you deny Jesus was a historical figure?

No. I believe both Adam and Jesus are historical figures.

Huge difference between a bit of symbolism in Job versus the account by God of how He created...

The only difference is what you imputed to it. The creation account in Genesis contains many idioms. How else would you explain how there was day and night before the Sun and Moon existed? (Genesis 1:4-5, Genesis 1:16-17) From this standpoint alone, it is obvious that the creation account is not to be read literally by the informed reader. Rather, it was written in a way that the people of the time could understand.

 

[Metal Minister]

No. I believe both Adam and Jesus are historical figures.

The only difference is what you imputed to it. The creation account in Genesis contains many idioms. How else would you explain how there was day and night before the Sun and Moon existed? (Genesis 1:4-5, Genesis 1:16-17) From this standpoint alone, it is obvious that the creation account is not to be read literally by the informed reader. Rather, it was written in a way that the people of the time could understand.

This fallacy has been destroyed on every level imaginable...

May God Richly Bless you!

 

[Philonephius]

This fallacy has been destroyed on every level imaginable...

And yet, you seem unwilling to explain it to me. According to Genesis, God created the Sun and Moon after He created night and day. That is a literal reading of Genesis.

Look, I am not a theistic evolutionist because I "want" evolution to be true. I simply find the evidence to support it convincing enough that it warrants acceptance. Incidentally, that is also why >99% of biologists and other experts on the matter accept the theory. But I guess you know better? Have you even objectively looked at the facts, or do you rely on Answers in Genesis for your information?

May God Richly Bless you!

You too.

 

[mathetes123]

And yet, you seem unwilling to explain it to me. According to Genesis, God created the Sun and Moon after He created night and day. That is a literal reading of Genesis.

Look, I am not a theistic evolutionist because I "want" evolution to be true. I simply find the evidence to support it convincing enough that it warrants acceptance. Incidentally, that is also why >99% of biologists and other experts on the matter accept the theory. But I guess you know better? Have you even objectively looked at the facts, or do you rely on Answers in Genesis for your information?

You too.

Actually, God created the night and day cycle on the first day. God is not subject to His creation and does not need the moon and sun to create light.

<p>Genesis 1:3-5 (NKJV)</p><p>^{<small>3</small>}[bless and do not curse]Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. ^{<small>4</small>}[bless and do not curse]And God saw the light, that <i>it was</i> good; and God divided the light from the darkness. ^{<small>5</small>}[bless and do not curse]God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
</p>

Here is a description of the new Jerusalem:

<p>Revelation 21:23-24 (NKJV)</p><p>^{<small>23</small>}[bless and do not curse]The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it,* for the glory* of God illuminated it. The Lamb <i>is</i> its light. ^{<small>24</small>}[bless and do not curse]And the nations of those who are saved* shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.* </p>

 

[Metal Minister]

And yet, you seem unwilling to explain it to me. According to Genesis, God created the Sun and Moon after He created night and day. That is a literal reading of Genesis.

If you truly read the Genesis account, you will see that God created the light, and THEN created a physical source for the light. There are dozens and dozens of good books that discuss Genesis and proves how the Hebrew shows the literal way it was written. Give me some time, and I can throw together a list for you. I'm the meantime, you may enjoy this book. It's very short, and pretty good: In the Beginning, God: Creation from God's Perspective by Dr. Joel Heck

Look, I am not a theistic evolutionist because I "want" evolution to be true. I simply find the evidence to support it convincing enough that it warrants acceptance. Incidentally, that is also why >99% of biologists and other experts on the matter accept the theory. But I guess you know better? Have you even objectively looked at the facts, or do you rely on Answers in Genesis for your information?

I have no problem with the parts of evolution we can observe and test and demonstrate. I have a problem with the parts (macro-evolution) we have no proof has ever happened. It is simply assumed, and because the assumer where's a lab coat, its accepted as fact...as an aside, I do not use AIG. These are the answers I've come up with by my own reading of the evidence. Something to always remember, science is not a hermenuetic for the bible, and >99% of scientists believed the earth was flat and the universe spun around it.

You too.

Thank you.

May God Richly Bless you!

 

[Philonephius]

Actually, God created the night and day cycle on the first day. God is not subject to His creation and does not need the moon and sun to create light.

<p>Genesis 1:3-5 (NKJV)</p><p>^{<small>3</small>}[bless and do not curse]Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. ^{<small>4</small>}[bless and do not curse]And God saw the light, that <i>it was</i> good; and God divided the light from the darkness. ^{<small>5</small>}[bless and do not curse]God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
</p>

Here is a description of the new Jerusalem:

<p>Revelation 21:23-24 (NKJV)</p><p>^{<small>23</small>}[bless and do not curse]The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it,* for the glory* of God illuminated it. The Lamb <i>is</i> its light. ^{<small>24</small>}[bless and do not curse]And the nations of those who are saved* shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.* </p>

It is evident that the New Jerusalem will be considerably different from the present universe. For one thing, there will be no night (Rev. 21:25). I find it awfully convenient that you omitted that verse. There are other differences, such as the lack of marriage and reproduction (Matthew 22:30). This is why I view Revelation 21 as a completion of God's creative work rather than a restoration.

So, how did the daylight cycle work before the Sun and Moon existed? Did God switch Himself off every 12 hours?

 

[Philonephius]

I have no problem with the parts of evolution we can observe and test and demonstrate. I have a problem with the parts (macro-evolution) we have no proof has ever happened. It is simply assumed, and because the assumer where's a lab coat, its accepted as fact...as an aside, I do not use AIG. These are the answers I've come up with by my own reading of the evidence. Something to always remember, science is not a hermenuetic for the bible, and >99% of scientists believed the earth was flat and the universe spun around it.

First, please define macroevolution. This isn't a term that biologists commonly use, and I would rather avoid a "moving target" that will waste time for the both of us. There are examples that I believe will fit your criteria.

and >99% of scientists believed the earth was flat and the universe spun around it.

No scientists ever believed the earth is flat. This is a common misconception. Some early scientists were geocentrists, but then came along a brilliant man named Galileo. He observed how Jupiter's moons revolved around it and, based on that information, inferred that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Yet, by your logic, Galileo should have thrown out his idea since he couldn't directly observe the Earth revolving around the Sun, right?

Scientists collect data and form models to explain how the universe works. The theory of evolution and common descent was proposed by Charles Darwin, who knew nothing of genetics, yet genetics (such as pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses) have confirmed his predictions. Evolution has very strong predictive power and only continues to be supported, never contradicted.

You're correct that some people (not scientists) in very primitive cultures once believed the Earth is flat. Someday, people will look back on YECs in the same manner. I'm not sure how old you are, but it is highly likely that your children or grandchildren will be theistic evolutionists.

 

[Metal Minister]

First, please define macroevolution. This isn't a term that biologists commonly use, and I would rather avoid a "moving target" that will waste time for the both of us. There are examples that I believe will fit your criteria.

Perhaps a comparison would be better. Micro-evolution (the definition I'm sure we all agree upon) is minor changes/variations/adaptations over time. Macro-evolution (the one there is little to no evidence for) is the changing of one animal into a completely different animal. (aka a dog giving rise to something that is non-dog).

No scientists ever believed the earth is flat. This is a common misconception. Some early scientists were geocentrists, but then came along a brilliant man named Galileo. He observed how Jupiter's moons revolved around it and, based on that information, inferred that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Yet, by your logic, Galileo should have thrown out his idea since he couldn't directly observe the Earth revolving around the Sun, right?

Um, no. Not remotely. You see Galileo could show direct evidence for his claim, macro-evolution cannot do this.

Scientists collect data and form models to explain how the universe works. The theory of evolution and common descent was proposed by Charles Darwin, who knew nothing of genetics, yet genetics (such as pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses) have confirmed his predictions. Evolution has very strong predictive power and only continues to be supported, never contradicted.

On the micro-evolution point, yes it does. This doesn't mean that we all came from a puddle of muck billions of years ago which was Darwin's attempted point. To describe where we came from with no scientific background whatsoever. He had only bible college under his belt.

You're correct that some people (not scientists) in very primitive cultures once believed the Earth is flat. Someday, people will look back on YECs in the same manner. I'm not sure how old you are, but it is highly likely that your children or grandchildren will be theistic evolutionists.

Actually my belief is that "yec" will be redeemed at the return of Jesus Christ, so I'm not overly concerned if science confirms it or not. As far as my son is concerned, he's fully Christian, beyond that, I don't mind.

May God Richly Bless you!

 

[Philonephius]

Metal,

I'm currently on a flight so I'll make this brief. We do not observe one "kind" evolving into another "kind" simply because there hasn't been sufficient time to observe it. We have, however, observed the evolution of "new structures" as well as "new information" - two points that YECs often argue against. A few decades ago, Italian wall lizards were introduced to a small island off Croatia. Within a few decades, biologists discovered that the primarily insectivorous lizards had evolved a new muscle in their intestines that allowed them to better digest vegetation, since insects on the island were more scarce than in their native habitat. Another example are nylon-eating bacteria. These bacteria were discovered in close proximity to nylon factories in Japan. A frame-shift mutation occurred that produced a new enzyme, allowing them to metabolize nylon. Nylon is an artificial polymer invented in the 1930s, so it is impossible that this enzyme existed prior to that time. There are also many examples of speciation, whereby populations become isolated. Given these bits of information, why is it so far fetched that isolated species could evolve into completely different organisms over millions of years? Paleontologists have discovered countless fossils to back it up. I'm addition, genetics confirms common descent. Pseudo genes, endogenous retroviruses, and chromosome #2 are sufficient evidence of common descent by themselves. Please look these up and make sure you're sources are objective. I'm out until next week, I'll check back then.

 

[mathetes123]

It is evident that the New Jerusalem will be considerably different from the present universe. For one thing, there will be no night (Rev. 21:25). I find it awfully convenient that you omitted that verse. There are other differences, such as the lack of marriage and reproduction (Matthew 22:30). This is why I view Revelation 21 as a completion of God's creative work rather than a restoration.

So, how did the daylight cycle work before the Sun and Moon existed? Did God switch Himself off every 12 hours?

I don't know how the daylight cycle worked, but you cannot deny that scripture is clear that it was there on the first day of creation

 

[jilfe]

Metal,

why is it so far fetched that isolated species could evolve into completely different organisms over millions of years? .

That is where worldly wisdom always misses it with there science.

They suppose, with NO evidence, they look at the curret data, then assume in fantasy logic, instead of FIRST and FOREMOST, look at the data that is current, and stop assuming fantasies, stick to the data, that is proven, and don't move any further in mind games, farfetched ideas, but rather take all the data, and hold it in the LIGHT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

Because the BIBLE is the final authority given to mankind when it comes to the origins of all things.

Then the science field can be studied with proper logic, as science should be studied out, if scientists can stop supposing fantasy ideas, and stay only on BIBLICAL scripture, they would then understand science as it really is. In its proper context of the study of origins.

 

[Keachian]

Perhaps a comparison would be better. Micro-evolution (the definition I'm sure we all agree upon) is minor changes/variations/adaptations over time. Macro-evolution (the one there is little to no evidence for) is the changing of one animal into a completely different animal. (aka a dog giving rise to something that is non-dog).

Hi MM, I'm afraid that you are mistaken, the theory of evolution when dealing with "macroevolution" does not actually say that a dog will ever give rise to something that is non-dog and so you are setting up a strawman (possibly unknowingly) to knock it down, what biologists normally would talk about in terms of speciation and continued modification from there is that eventually we may get something that doesn't appear to be a dog, but genetically and by hereditary it remains a dog, just as we remain tetrapods even to today.

Um, no. Not remotely. You see Galileo could show direct evidence for his claim, macro-evolution cannot do this.

Well yes it can and it is on the same par with Galileo's evidence in my opinion, however I haven't looked for it too recently and am currently busy doing other things too busy to find it for you sorry.

On the micro-evolution point, yes it does. This doesn't mean that we all came from a puddle of muck billions of years ago which was Darwin's attempted point. To describe where we came from with no scientific background whatsoever. He had only bible college under his belt.

It's interesting that you object to us coming from a puddle of muck; "Yahweh God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." You're essentially replacing one muck puddle with another the only real difference I can see is that you accept God's involvement in one and not the other.

Actually my belief is that "yec" will be redeemed at the return of Jesus Christ, so I'm not overly concerned if science confirms it or not. As far as my son is concerned, he's fully Christian, beyond that, I don't mind.

As long as we continue to win more for Christ, yes.

 

[jilfe]

progmonk:

That was very well explained, thankyou for taking the time to clear up some of the misconceptions of how we looked at the secular teaching of macroevolution,

Ifr someone is reading this post as a last entry, please refer to the post above by progmonk, he did a very good job in explaining some things,

I still believe in the Biblical creation account, but I don't discredit the actual data that is scientifically acurate, as was stated above, but I believe that God created His creation to function that way, but NOT the CAUSE of the origins of everything, but rather the charactersistics that God created His creation to have.

After all He created everything Supernaturally, in perfect maturity state, that's why the stars can be at the edge of the universe and shine its light instantly on the earth when God created it to do so, because God does not need science natural law to create, He did it Supernaturally.

 

[Metal Minister]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7686056/

 

[ANinjainaLabcoat]

First and foremost, science is not a religion. I can not make this point any more clear, SCIENCE DOES NOT EQUATE TO A FAITH GROUP, science is not based on superstition, assumption, or any type of data that could be based on opinion or bias. Science transcends religion, if you are having difficulty harmonizing your religion with what we can physically observe, you need to try a little harder, look at both sides, the bible is meant to be taken about as literally as an Andy Warhol painting, this means it is MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED so that it CAN accompany facts that arise as we progress further into the exploration of our physical origins. Through science, it doesn't matter what race, religion, gender, sexuality or nationality you are, science works. It isn't something you believe in, it is something you understand and know, as fact that it is true. These facts are tested forever, and certain things we know now, including relativity, the big bang, gravitation, Higgs field theory and evolution have stood up to so many tests, so many theorems that they are now known as true. You can always find a way to find harmony between your religion and science, because the two are from very different catagories. Science is facts, it is what we can know about the physical reality around us. Religion is the choice to select which doctrine explains what we cannot know, such as what exists outside of time, what happens after death and how free will exists, spirits, the idea of luck or a higher power. We choose what we put our faith in. Don't waste your faith on science, it doesn't require faith or belief, science is different, science describes the literal and physical, religion describes the spiritual.

 

[jilfe]

I think this is where people are getting confused about Christian stance of science.

The point we are trying to make is that God never intended to give us science to explain the origins of all things, because the origins of all things was done SUPERNATURALLY.

Science is only given to us to understand how to use the natural things God supernaturally created to benefit mankind.

For science to go into a direction of trying to discover how things originated is NOT SCIENCE, but only chasing of manmade theories, that will always go around in circles with no difinitive answer, because the origination of all things was by GOD SUPERNATURALLY>

THe origination of all things is not science, but spiritual, in every aspect of the Bible teaching, to show that God owns it all, its all through the Bible that God is the creator of all without natural means to bring it about.

As Christians we are not knocking science, were simply saying is science has no part in trying to discover the origination of all things, because it was all done supernaturally.

Thats why all the theories of origination falter in science data, because the science data has to do with natural means, the origination od everything is outside science.
SUPERNATURAL, workings of GOD.
&#12288;
Hope this helps clear up some confusions, about Christian views on science.
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;

 

[Keachian]

Jilfe is God in control of the natural world of has he wound it up and set it off like a clock?

 

[jilfe]

According to scripture, He is in full controle, soveriengn over all creation, it's hard to comprehend, but according to scripture, it states that all things are upheld by the Word of His power.

And also states that in God we all live and move and have our being.

As far as allowingt nature to run it's course, I believe that scripture backs that up also, but yet at the very same time, the course it's running is still under the sovereign power of God.

I know that this is hard to understand, but I believe that because God is God, He is the only one that can do both simultaneously, beyond our comprehension.

That even though nature functions on it's own accord, it is still God who is soveriegn over the functions of nature.

Here is a good example of the soveriegn Majesty of our LORD.

Rv:7:1: And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

If we read that literally, it makes people think that God is speaking of the earth as a flat square.

So they acuse christians that the Bible is full of metaphores.

They are wrong, because God is NEVER WRONG.

If God called it the four corners of the earth, than it is the 4 corners of the earth,
simultaneously, the earth is a sphere in our realm, but with the power and majesty of our God, it is also a flat surface with 4 corners, at the very same time.

Hos because God is able to creatwe it that way.

We only see the earth as the sphere God gave us to see it as in our realm.

That's given to us by God, but God also created it to be flat with corners that only He see's it as, but He has only revealed to us the one shape of our earth, and has reserved the other shape for himself.

Just as only God can hear nature praising Him,no scriptures are contradictroy but divine power of God demonstrated.

God stores up the snow and the rain, we only see the natural function, but God crested it to work uin the spiritual as well.

If we take everything God has written in His Word, literally, that seems contradictory with science and natural law, we weould learn that the natural world as we know it, is given to us in the natural, but it was also created with spiritual dimension, which can only be sought out by finding these scriptures and taking them literally.

Then we casn see the glory of God who is sovereign and Holy and RIGHTEOUS in all HIS works

Some nmore verses

21: Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

23: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.

24: Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.

25: To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

26: Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

27: Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God?

28: Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

 

[Keachian]

Then at what point does God's supernatural works stop and his natural ones begin? I don't believe that the Bible makes a distinction between the two, it merely talks of the acts of God. you're making a distinction that isn't in the text, mainly because the distinction of supernatural vs natural is a recent one, up until recently the distinction a was between the acts of God and the acts of man.