YECs, do I deserve credit?

[juvenissun]

How does it being random remove God's credit? If God dictated it be random for his own purposes, why would that matter? God doesn't personally control the movement of Continental plates either. Doesn't mean they weren't his intention.

Ever played Simcity? Building your city from the ground up, and watching it blossom through mechanisms you built into it is what makes it enjoyable and valuable. An instantly created city is boring. And seeing as time is meaningless to God, and he presumably sat around for trillions and trillions of years prior to choosing to create the universe, why would the length of time it took for humans to develop make the slightest bit of difference? God, being all-knowing, would know the exact time frame it would take humans to develop as a society, and lead to Jerusalem and the Roman Empire, whereby Jesus would enter the picture.

I see absolutely zero issue with the length of time for species to develop.


God can't control evolution if he wanted to? Why? Even a random system can be manipulated by its creator by changing various parameters.

So, when was the moment God touches the process of evolution? When the amphibians showed up? or when the dinosaurs showed up? Or God's hand is on the evolution all the time includes now?

You pick up this heavy burden simply because you do not believe Gen 1. It is not wise.

 

[miamited]

hi again phil,

Now, let's take it to the next step. You go to your supervisor at review time with a report of all the work you did in case #1 and you lay it all out, exactly all the work that you did and expect praise and a raise. Your boss looks at all your work and knows that there are highly defined computer programs in the office and says to you, "Look, I appreciate all that you've shown me here, but I've got to tell you there are over 2 million bills that go out of here each month for the utilities in our facilities all over the world and I know you didn't stamp and mail 2 million bills. So, I'll give you some credit for what I believe you did, but I'm not buying that you're up all month licking and mailing 2 million bills. Have a good day, oh, and thanks for the small part that you do."

Now, remember, what you reported was the truth. Yes, you do, in fact stay up late at night licking and mailing 2 million bills. How do you feel about your boss?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Gozreht]

When God is not in control is called Deism.

 

[Jase]

So, when was the moment God touches the process of evolution?

Probably the beginning. What difference does it make at what other points he might have touched it?

You pick up this heavy burden simply because you do not believe Gen 1. It is not wise.

There is no heavy burden for me, whatsoever. It's quite easy to reject Gen 1 as literal. Most people have been doing it for centuries. I find it far more ridiculous to believe God personally touches every single instance of change in the universe every single microsecond. I don't believe God actively causes earthquakes or hurricanes, why would I need to believe he actively controls species evolving?

What an archaic, primitive belief system to believe such things. Right up there with believing Zeus throws lightning bolts down from Mount Olympus.

 

[juvenissun]

Probably the beginning. What difference does it make at what other points he might have touched it?




There is no heavy burden for me, whatsoever. It's quite easy to reject Gen 1 as literal. Most people have been doing it for centuries. I find it far more ridiculous to believe God personally touches every single instance of change in the universe every single microsecond. I don't believe God actively causes earthquakes or hurricanes, why would I need to believe he actively controls species evolving?

What an archaic, primitive belief system to believe such things. Right up there with believing Zeus throws lightning bolts down from Mount Olympus.

So are you saying that God sets up the stop watch at the very beginning so that at about 570 m.y. ago, life form boomed; at about 300 m.y. ago dinosaur appeared; and at about 120 m.y. ago mammals appeared?

I am afraid your TE friends won't agree with you.

 

[Jase]

So are you saying that God sets up the stop watch at the very beginning so that at about 570 m.y. ago, life form boomed; at about 300 m.y. ago dinosaur appeared; and at about 120 m.y. ago mammals appeared?

I am afraid your TE friends won't agree with you.

I'm saying God created the natural laws and mechanisms that allowed evolution to be possible, and the current findings of species evolving is how it played out. And God knowing it would play out like that, organized his redemptive plan in collaboration with those events.

 

[Gozreht]

=Jase;59947253What an archaic, primitive belief system to believe such things. Right up there with believing Zeus throws lightning bolts down from Mount Olympus.

This is the same argument atheists have against Christianity and their beliefs in the OT. And then they usually throw in Santa Claus.

There is no heavy burden for me, whatsoever. It's quite easy to reject Gen 1 as literal. Most people have been doing it for centuries. I find it far more ridiculous to believe God personally touches every single instance of change in the universe every single microsecond. I don't believe God actively causes earthquakes or hurricanes, why would I need to believe he actively controls species evolving?

Most people? If that is true it's only been the last few centuries starting with the enlightenment and how many of them rejected an actual active God. I don't think God moves every second either which also why I don't think he caused evolution. I do think He intervenes and set up all the laws already in place.

I'm saying God created the natural laws and mechanisms that allowed evolution to be possible, and the current findings of species evolving is how it played out. And God knowing it would play out like that, organized his redemptive plan in collaboration with those events.

Let me know when the next new human comes around. I will test the theory then.

 

[Jase]

This is the same argument atheists have against Christianity and their beliefs in the OT. And then they usually throw in Santa Claus.

I feel the same way they do about Fundamentalist Christianity (which creationism falls under) . Your point?

Most people? If that is true it's only been the last few centuries starting with the enlightenment and how many of them rejected an actual active God. I don't think God moves every second either which also why I don't think he caused evolution. I do think He intervenes and set up all the laws already in place.Let me know when the next new human comes around. I will test the theory then.

Saint Augustine rejected a literal Genesis 1600 years ago and told Christians who actually claimed it was literal in the face of science, especially in witnessing to a non-Christian, that it makes Christianity look ridiculous.

If a literal Genesis looked ridiculously stupid in the 4th Century, just imagine how it looks now in light of modern science and technology.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm saying God created the natural laws and mechanisms that allowed evolution to be possible, and the current findings of species evolving is how it played out. And God knowing it would play out like that, organized his redemptive plan in collaboration with those events.

I got all kind of criticisms when I brought up this idea.
Good luck.

 

[juvenissun]

I feel the same way they do about Fundamentalist Christianity (which creationism falls under) . Your point?



Saint Augustine rejected a literal Genesis 1600 years ago and told Christians who actually claimed it was literal in the face of science, especially in witnessing to a non-Christian, that it makes Christianity look ridiculous.

If a literal Genesis looked ridiculously stupid in the 4th Century, just imagine how it looks now in light of modern science and technology.

It is more true than what we know now.

Want to try? I will spend time on you.

 

[Gozreht]

I feel the same way they do about Fundamentalist Christianity (which creationism falls under) . Your point?

My point is, it is not a valid argument to say it is archaic. It doesn't matter how "old" the idea might be. Just because some people in modern times think differently doesn't mean it is new and improved.

Saint Augustine rejected a literal Genesis 1600 years ago and told Christians who actually claimed it was literal in the face of science, especially in witnessing to a non-Christian, that it makes Christianity look ridiculous.

If a literal Genesis looked ridiculously stupid in the 4th Century, just imagine how it looks now in light of modern science and technology.

And scientifically speaking his point of view is worth 1000 others since he is the sample group? I never doubted some people denied or did not believe the literal account. But I would venture to say that when said "most" it is was probably not accurate or it just needs proof. Either way the numbers of believers doesn't make it more correct. If Genesis is literal imagine how stupid scientists will look when He returns. Are you trying to say that technology is the deciding factor.

This is why I can't stand to get into discussions about this. Those who think they have some kind of science knowledge always think those who oppose the idea of evolution/OE are stupid. And since they "know" science that their ideas are always correct and better. Do they not understand that there are things like multiple intelliegences? Not all smart people have to have a science degree. Science can't prove everything, even in the scientific world. They can't even explain the midpoint formula in terms of physics and yet they try to explain the nature of God. Sometimes it takes more than science and technology to understand the nature of man and his beginnings. Sometimes it takes faith and simple listening to the word of God.

 

[juvenissun]

My point is, it is not a valid argument to say it is archaic. It doesn't matter how "old" the idea might be. Just because some people in modern times think differently doesn't mean it is new and improved.

And scientifically speaking his point of view is worth 1000 others since he is the sample group? I never doubted some people denied or did not believe the literal account. But I would venture to say that when said "most" it is was probably not accurate or it just needs proof. Either way the numbers of believers doesn't make it more correct. If Genesis is literal imagine how stupid scientists will look when He returns. Are you trying to say that technology is the deciding factor.

This is why I can't stand to get into discussions about this. Those who think they have some kind of science knowledge always think those who oppose the idea of evolution/OE are stupid. And since they "know" science that their ideas are always correct and better. Do they not understand that there are things like multiple intelliegences? Not all smart people have to have a science degree. Science can't prove everything, even in the scientific world. They can't even explain the midpoint formula in terms of physics and yet they try to explain the nature of God. Sometimes it takes more than science and technology to understand the nature of man and his beginnings. Sometimes it takes faith and simple listening to the word of God.

A Christian scientist does not interpret God. Instead of criticizing that His word is wrong in science, he read what God says and tried to understand the message in science. Did you say what's recorded in the Genesis 1 is "wrong" in science so you need to understand it in other ways? If so, you might also think some messages in the New Testament are also wrong in "social aspects" and need to understand them scientifically.

 

[Gozreht]

No. I wasn't saying that Genesis is wrong scientifically. But I also know it needs some faith and belief in what God said as plain and simple. Hope that helps with the misunderstanding.

 

[juvenissun]

No. I wasn't saying that Genesis is wrong scientifically. But I also know it needs some faith and belief in what God said as plain and simple. Hope that helps with the misunderstanding.

Indeed, I see the scientific correctness of Gen. 1. So my faith is stronger. Blessed are those who don't see it, but still have strong faith.

 

[Jase]

No. I wasn't saying that Genesis is wrong scientifically. But I also know it needs some faith and belief in what God said as plain and simple. Hope that helps with the misunderstanding.

You are aware Genesis was not written in modern English right?

Genesis also isn't a writing from God. Genesis is an oral, Hebrew song that was passed down for generations.

 

[Gozreht]

All 50 chapters?

 

[juvenissun]

You are aware Genesis was not written in modern English right?

Genesis also isn't a writing from God. Genesis is an oral, Hebrew song that was passed down for generations.

So?

 

[juvenissun]

You are aware Genesis was not written in modern English right?

Genesis also isn't a writing from God. Genesis is an oral, Hebrew song that was passed down for generations.

So, which Book IS a writing from God? None?