Creation vs. Evolution II

[MichaelCadry]

Michael I appreciate you at least giving me an answer to my pillar of salt question. Truly I do. And on the surface, what you say sounds reasonable. Atoms are all just the same, with different numbers of protons and neutrons, right? You should be able to move around some electrons and turn lead into gold!

You're not the first person to come up with this idea. I'm sure you've heard of alchemy before. The alchemists were trying to the same (lead to gold, anyway). Of course, that proved more difficult than they imagined and it was abandoned eventually.

So maybe God did kill someone by rearranging the makeup of the atoms in a her body to transform her into a pillar of salt. But since we've never seen this happen, and have no evidence of it ever happening I can't conclude that it did myself.

Fun fact: pieces of basalt used to be called "tongue stones" because the first geologists thought they were the petrified tongues of those God had turned to stone.

Dear Greg J,

Just because God only did it once doesn't mean it never happened.

Michael

 

[6days]

Is that the royal We?

Stuart

No..... The French 'oui'

 

[6days]

Ok. So if the word was owph meaning winged creatures, and the writer made sure to include both bats and birds under that umbrella.......why would he not also mention flying reptiles such as pterosaurs (since you believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted)? Do you really think he'd leave out the largest winged creatures in existence?

He also did not mention butterflies nor the Canada goose, although both are included in the Hebrew word 'owph'.

 

[Stuu]

He also did not mention butterflies nor the Canada goose, although both are included in the Hebrew word 'owph'.

Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat

Deuteronomy 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
14:14 And every raven after his kind,
14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

It doesn't say 'owph'. It says bats are birds. Twice. There is even a list of mammals before this, in both books.

The OT is scientifically wrong, and therefore is not the word of your god. Humans don't walk around after being judicially executed, so the NT is scientifically wrong too.

Stuart

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Hi All,

This is the new Creation vs. Evolution Thread.........

That is a false dichotomy. Creationism does not conflict with evolution.

 

[6days]

That is a false dichotomy. Creationism does not conflict with evolution.

Biblical creation does conflict with evolutionism

 

[musterion]

That is a false dichotomy. Creationism does not conflict with evolution.

That is incorrect. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[6days]

It doesn't say 'owph'.

Are you shocked that that English Bibles are in English? (Owph is a Hebrew word which means flying creatures. It includes birds, bats, insects.)
If you want to do word study... http://www.godrules.net/library/kjvstrongs/kjvstrongslev11.htm

 

[6days]

That is incorrect. They are mutually exclusive.

They are exclusive. Evolutionism says man evolved from 'monkeys', and monkeys came from molecules... and molecules came from nothing.

God says, In the beginning He created everything in six days. He created woman from mans rib. She is not a result of pond slime.

 

[musterion]

They are exclusive. Evolutionism says man evolved from 'monkeys', and monkeys came from molecules... and molecules came from nothing.

God says, In the beginning He created everything in six days. He created woman from mans rib. She is not a result of pond slime.

Yep. Theistic evolution tries to be the middle path on HOW the process happened but it won't work because sooner or later you still have to come back to First Cause, and that's where the disagreement will always lie.

 

[redfern]

It's an exciting time to be a Christian. Not only are we realizing the vastness of space, but also the incredible complex sophistication within the cell. Many view science as a form of worship.

"The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” Henry “Fritz” Schaeffer, 5 time nobel nominee

"Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”
Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics

"This sense of wonder leads most scientists to a Superior Being – der Alte, the Old One, as Einstein affectionately called the Deity – a Superior Intelligence, the Lord of all Creation and Natural Law.”Abdus Salam, 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics

For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence—an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered—-‘In the beginning God.'”
Arthur Compton, 1927 Nobel Prize in Physics

This is an “exciting time”, not because of your religious beliefs, but because of advances made by science. Religion had a many-centuries-long uncontested head start before science was much of a factor at all, and during that long period religion was almost impotent at making technological advances. Now science has formally come into its own and had enough time to establish an impressive record of technological progress and advancement of knowledge.

I appreciate the religious testimony you offer from several highly respected scientists, since I have heard similar testimonies often during my career while working side by side with faithful representing a diverse array of religious leanings.

The rub for me comes not when people of strong religious convictions make their religious views known, but when someone like you glories in the successes arising from science while simultaneously opposing and trying to discredit major parts of science that conflict with your extremist religious views.

Those scientists whose religious testimonies you offer come from diverse (and conflicting) religious traditions, but I doubt any of them have nearly the animosity towards the parts of science you oppose. In fact I expect most of them, if not all, are old-earth advocates. With the exception of Henry Schaeffer I suspect they have little disagreement with the major tenets of modern science. (And when you say Henry Schaeffer is a “5-time Nobel nominee”, aren’t you stating a conjecture as though it were a fact?)

 

[Stuu]

Are you shocked that that English Bibles are in English? (Owph is a Hebrew word which means flying creatures. It includes birds, bats, insects.)
If you want to do word study... http://www.godrules.net/library/kjvstrongs/kjvstrongslev11.htm

Modern usage of owph seems to be mainly for cooked chicken.

Anyway, so you are saying the KJV is wrong, and is therefore not the word of your god.

Leviticus 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Would you like to give us a list of flying creeping things that have four feet, while you are at it?

Stuart

 

[musterion]

This is an “exciting time”, not because of your religious beliefs, but because of advances made by science.

Let's use precise terms here. 6 is saying science keeps supporting our Bible-based beliefs. Religion -- something very different -- ends up refuting itself, and even your religion -- scientism -- ends up refuting itself as well. But the Word of God stands as firm and strong as a mountain.

 

[Stuu]

They are exclusive. Evolutionism says man evolved from 'monkeys', and monkeys came from molecules... and molecules came from nothing.

Where does scripture say molecules came from? Does it say they are combinations of atoms that were either produced during nucleogenesis following the Big Bang, or produced by nuclear fusion (and fission) in stars, especially supernovae?

If it gives some other mechanism, then it is scientifically incorrect and therefore not the word of your god.

Stuart

 

[musterion]

:mock: stoo

 

[6days]

This is an “exciting time”, not because of your religious beliefs, but because of advances made by science.

I meant that it is an exciting time for Christians in that science helps reveal the majesty of our Creator...and helps expose the flaws in atheistic beliefs.

Now science has formally come into its own and had enough time to establish an impressive record of technological progress and advancement of knowledge.

Yes!

The rub for me comes not when people of strong religious convictions make their religious views known, but when someone like you glories in the successes arising from science while simultaneously opposing and trying to discredit major parts of science that conflict with your extremist religious views.

Funny, because I feel the same way. *When someone like you glories in the successes arising from science while simultaneously opposing and trying to discredit major parts of science that conflict with your extremist religious views. Your beliefs / my beliefs about the past are not science. Science however does help confirm the truth of scripture.

Those scientists whose religious testimonies you offer come from diverse (and conflicting) religious traditions, but I doubt any of them have nearly the animosity towards the parts of science you oppose.

Funny again. Although I think you are mistaken about what science is...and what science 'says', I do not think you have animosity towards science.* I do think you have animosity towards God however.

In fact I expect most of them, if not all, are old-earth advocates.

It had nothing to do with age of the earth. Your comment seemed to be that that God did not need to create things more wonderful than what a person can see without aid of telescope or microscope.* Scientists often take joy in discovering how God created... and giving Him the credit.

 

[Stuu]

:mock: stoo

I acknowledge your lack of answers.

Stuart (or Stuu, as it is spelled)

 

[musterion]

I do, but it wouldn't matter. Your mind is already made up.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

That is a false dichotomy. Creationism does not conflict with evolution.

Biblical creation does conflict with evolutionism

Wrong. Only your personal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with evolution. I tried to tell you before, your personal interpretation of the Bible and the Bible itself are two different things.

That is incorrect. They are mutually exclusive.

No they are not.

 

[musterion]

Wrong. Only your personal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with evolution. I tried to tell you before, your personal interpretation of the Bible and the Bible itself are two different things.

You're wrong. Days = days. That cannot be reconciled with your church's love of evolution.