Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[pitabread]

first: as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general. now, what you will say about this?:

View attachment 226691

*sigh* Not again...

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes. We all know that to be the position taken by YEC Christians. It is not binding on the rest of Christendom nor is it a requirement for salvation.

I would be very careful stating that not believing Gods word and tuning into/teaching something that is not even so much as implied in scripture is in any way ok with God. And even if it is a fact more believe in evolution, haven't you read your bible enough to know what will happen toward the end and how sound doctrine/straight up biblical truth will be treated?

It's just as the poster said, a way of saying God is a liar or that the Bible cannot be taken for face value, confusing many int not even bothering with it. Making Gods word less than believable, and shame on anyone who does that. The Bible is not something we recklessly change or play around with because we "think" something else might be true.

why id isnt science? because you say so? and evolution is science because?

Because they "say" so, and don't worry about the proof, they also say we shouldn't expect any. And if they said it, it must be true, look at my recent long post that goes into that.

 

[pitabread]

like this one:

designed or not? (image from Unidentified flying object - Wikipedia ).

Looks like a frisbee someone tossed in the air.

 

[pitabread]

I know exactly what it is.

Are you sure? Because you were just equating scientific theory with "conjecture" a couple posts back.

But, as his point may have been, as long as they are unproven assumption/conjecture, they might as well be false.

No, that wasn't the point at all. The point is that scientific theories can never be 100% reflective of reality. But we still create and use scientific theories because they are useful.

Call it proof "for the present" don't assume it will be changed. I just want proof for the now.. If things do change in the future, then change the proof. IOW, "Here is our proof today, at least until something refutes it" and it may very well remain proof forever, just as so many things in science have.

Call it proof for the present if they must, while to most people, it's the same ol' proof we've always expected, just with added unnecessary complications. But they don't do what's reasonable, they instead say proof is not possible. They wrongly assume it will change, and make provisions for it, while though that could happen, it won't necessarily. Makes no sense at all to see it that way, so the only conclusion I can draw from their screwy conclusions, it's an excuse.

You've been given material plenty of times, but you always seem to reject it out-of-hand. So I'm not sure what you're expecting exactly.

It's like a guy standing across a river who keeps asking people to throw him a rope, but then every time someone does so, the guy refuses to reach out his hand to catch it. Then he turns around a complains that nobody can throw him a rope.

I've said it before, all the material is out there and more readily accessible than ever. There's nothing hidden or secret. Granted, some of it might be dense to parse because of terminology or assumed background knowledge, but all of that knowledge is acquirable.

You just have to want to do it.

 

[Micah888]

Yes. We all know that to be the position taken by YEC Christians. It is not binding on the rest of Christendom nor is it a requirement for salvation.

Well the Ten Commandments are eternal and they reiterate the creation account. And they are included in the New Covenant (not written on tablets of stone but on the hearts and minds of believers).

While belief in Divine creation may not be a "requirement" for salvation, how can anyone preach the Gospel without presenting the connection between Adam and the human race in terms of sin and death (Rom 5:12). Paul devotes considerable space to the first Adam as compared to the last Adam. But with evolution Adam becomes a myth.

 

[Speedwell]

I would be very careful stating that not believing Gods word and tuning into/teaching something that is not even so much as implied in scripture is in any way ok with God. And even if it is a fact more believe in evolution, haven't you read your bible enough to know what will happen toward the end and how sound doctrine/straight up biblical truth will be treated?

It's just as the poster said, a way of saying God is a liar or that the Bible cannot be taken for face value, confusing many int not even bothering with it. Making Gods word less than believable, and shame on anyone who does that. The Bible is not something we recklessly change or play around with because we "think" something else might be true.

If your interpretation of scripture is so important, how did Christianity survive for almost 2000 years without it?

 

[Speedwell]

Well the Ten Commandments are eternal and they reiterate the creation account. And they are included in the New Covenant (not written on tablets of stone but on the hearts and minds of believers).

While belief in Divine creation may not be a "requirement" for salvation, how can anyone preach the Gospel without presenting the connection between Adam and the human race in terms of sin and death (Rom 5:12). Paul devotes considerable space to the first Adam as compared to the last Adam. But with evolution Adam becomes a myth.

I'll ask you the same question I just asked Kenny: If your interpretation of scripture is so important, how did Christianity survive for almost 2000 years without it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

If your interpretation of scripture is so important, how did Christianity survive for almost 2000 years without it?

So, the idea of evolution is 2000 yrs old? lol

And how do you conclude evolution from what the Bible actually says? Or, what parts of Genesis suggest evolution?

 

[xianghua]

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory

since we cant tets it its not.

 

[xianghua]

We've observed every necessary aspect of evolution

and yet we never seen a cat becoming non cat. so we must believe its possible by millions of years.

 

[Speedwell]

So, the idea of evolution is 2000 yrs old? lol

Actually, the notion has been around since classical antiquity, well over 2000 years ago; it wasn't until the 19th century that a mechanism for it began to be suggested. But that has nothing to do with the Bible.

And how do you conclude evolution from what the Bible actually says? Or, what parts of Genesis suggest evolution?

The Bible does not address the subject in any way.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are you sure? Because you were just equating scientific theory with "conjecture" a couple posts back.

Precisely why I'm sure. I prefer the dictionary over a definition version doctored for the sake of convenience. Besides, the very first time they tried to prove evolution here, with me anyway, it rested on conjecture. IOW, I saw it in action.

No, that wasn't the point at all. The point is that scientific theories can never be 100% reflective of reality. But we still create and use scientific theories because they are useful.

Then that was just my point.

You've been given material plenty of times, but you always seem to reject it out-of-hand. So I'm not sure what you're expecting exactly.

Did you not understand why when there are liars in the mix, it's very hard to believe any of the group. That brings you all down to a level that, at the very least, I'm leery of. And you really don't know what I'm expecting by now? Unbelievable.

It's like a guy standing across a river who keeps asking people to throw him a rope, but then every time someone does so, the guy refuses to reach out his hand to catch it. Then he turns around a complains that nobody can throw him a rope.

One problem yours is not a real rope, it's a pretend one, one imagined, conjecture, an assumed rope, or something I'm certainly not going to put my faith in....huge difference.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Actually, the notion has been around since classical antiquity, well over 2000 years ago; it wasn't until the 19th century that a mechanism for it began to be suggested. But that has nothing to do with the Bible.

Then the 2000yr comment meant little to nothing more than a notion? Yet you put it out there to mean much more? Is it any wonder I don't believe much of what's said here?

So, take way your attempted twists, I was correct, it's a recent thing, towards the end of time, something that is expected, and not expected because it's real/true, but because it isn't.

The Bible does not address the subject in any way.

Again, is it any wonder. Of course it does.

 

[Speedwell]

Then the 2000yr comment meant little to nothing more than a notion? Yet you put it out there to mean much more? Is it any wonder I don't believe much of what's said here?

I wasn't talking about evolution at all; I was asking you how you thought Christianity survived for almost 2000 years until your interpretation of scripture was invented.

Again, is it any wonder. Of course it does.

You'll have to quote chapter and verse. I am unable to find anything at all in scripture which has to do with biological evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-


Again, is it any wonder. Of course it does.

No it doesnt. Its writers where ignorant about the issue.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I wasn't talking about evolution at all; I was asking you how you thought Christianity survived for almost 2000 years until your interpretation of scripture was invented

Of course you were

Kenny'sID said: ↑

So, the idea of evolution is 2000 yrs old? lol

Actually, the notion has been around since classical antiquity, well over 2000 years ago; it wasn't until the 19th century that a mechanism for it began to be suggested. But that has nothing to do with the Bible.

Anyway, since evolution was merely a notion, and that one is out, and your saying my interpretation wasn't the norm, so that riles that one out as well, what was the normal explanation? IOW, If they got along without my interpretation, what interpretation did they get along with for those 2000 yrs?

 

[Kenny'sID]

You'll have to quote chapter and verse. I am unable to find anything at all in scripture which has to do with biological evolution.

And you never will, because there was no biological evolution.

Are you catching on now?

 

[Speedwell]

Of course you were

Kenny'sID said: ↑

So, the idea of evolution is 2000 yrs old? lol



Anyway, since evolution was merely a notion, and that one is out, and your saying my interpretation wasn't the norm, so that riles that one out as well, what was the normal explanation? IOW, If they got along without my interpretation, what interpretation did they get along with for those 2000 yrs?

People of the Book generally believed that the Genesis stories were in some sense historical, although figurative interpretations of the Genesis stories are almost as old as the book itself. Other cultures, of course, had their own creation stories which were also accepted as nominally historical. And why not? There was simply no other information to be had on the subject until the emergence of modern science several hundred years ago.

 

[Micah888]

I'll ask you the same question I just asked Kenny: If your interpretation of scripture is so important, how did Christianity survive for almost 2000 years without it?

Well as a matter of fact no genuine Christians ever questioned the creation account until the 19th century. So Christianity always held to divine creation as presented in Scripture. Matthew Henry sums it up nicely:

The foundation of all religion being laid in our relation to God as our Creator, it was fit that the book of divine revelations which was intended to be the guide, support, and rule, of religion in the world, should begin, as it does, with a plain and full account of the creation of the world—in answer to that first enquiry of a good conscience, "Where is God my Maker?’’ (Job. 35:10 ).

Concerning this the pagan philosophers wretchedly blundered, and became vain in their imaginations, some asserting the world’s eternity and self-existence, others ascribing it to a fortuitous concourse of atoms: thus "the world by wisdom knew not God,’’ but took a great deal of pains to lose him.

The holy scripture therefore, designing by revealed religion to maintain and improve natural religion, to repair the decays of it and supply the defects of it, since the fall, for the reviving of the precepts of the law of nature, lays down, at first, this principle of the unclouded light of nature, That this world was, in the beginning of time, created by a Being of infinite wisdom and power, who was himself before all time and all worlds. The entrance into God’s word gives this light, Ps. 119:130 .

The first verse of the Bible gives us a surer and better, a more satisfying and useful, knowledge of the origin of the universe, than all the volumes of the philosophers. The lively faith of humble Christians understands this matter better than the elevated fancy of the greatest wits, Heb. 11:3

 

[Speedwell]

And you never will, because there was no biological evolution.

Are you catching on now?

Even if the theory of evolution is correct, there is no particular reason that the Bible should say anything about it.