Creation vs. Evolution

[everready]

Oh i see, the unbelievers will laugh us to scorn, that's not true from my experience, they've told me that it was different to find someone that actually believed what the bible teaches.

everready

 

[6days]

Your saying Augustine laughs Christians to scorn when we say God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it in 6 days?
everready

May I answer?
As you said, Augustine said that the Bible was clear about a young creation. Even in his day, people were trying to add time and 'evolutionism' into scripture. But, where Augustine was wrong is saying that 'God created everything in an instant'. Part of the reason for Augustines mistake is that he was using a Latin translation, which allowed his error. If Augustine knew Hebrew, he would have known the creation days could not be an instant...nor could it be long ages.*

Martin Luther spoke of the error of 'instant creation'. He said “When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day.*But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.”

 

[everready]

Thanks for that 6days. :first:

everready

 

[MichaelCadry]

You say Augustine made it clear, like this?

‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000[9] years have yet passed.’ - Augustine -

everready

Wonderful, everready!! That is exactly what is being done. Assigning Billions and Millions of years, instead of thousands. Someone doesn't know how to measure dating techniques. They are SCREWING UP. All of these half-lives that are longer than man even existed or could dream of. Just a bunch of real trash!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

Consensus does not indicate factuality. You should look at the evidence instead.

In this case I think that based on my own arguably limited level of understanding of the evidence, not yours obviously, but coupled with the general scientific consensus of those rather more able than me, common descent being a fact seems rather more likely than anything miraculous. I can at least understand the reasoning for common descent in say DNA evidence (ERVs) but evidence for anything miraculous otoh imo seems rather thin on the ground to non-existent.

Wherever the evidence leads. I'm not committed to dogma, unlike you.

So you say but I suspect that evidence and scientific conclusions will always be trumped by Genesis for you.

Regardless of the prizes I win, if you look at the evidence it points to mutation + natural selection being entirely incapable of creating the diversity of life we have today.


And his eyes glaze over... again.

Explain to me why very capable natural scientists around the world whose eyes are not glazed over, overwhelmingly accept common descent as a fact? Are they stupid, dishonest or part of a global conspiracy to dupe gullible people like me, but not you and Genesis obviously Yorzhik.

 

[Stripe]

...consensus indicating ... factuality.

Evolutionists love argumentum ad populum. It is the only means they have of staying in a debate.

Explain to me why ... scientists ... overwhelmingly accept common descent.

The same reason they overwhelmingly accepted geocentrism.

 

[Caino]

Had there been an internet during the Genesis age, the Bible books represents the collating of a lot of forum posts into a somewhat coherent story by the Babylonian authors of the OT books. That's why they conflict and have factual errors and impossibilities.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your saying Augustine laughs Christians to scorn when we say God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it in 6 days?

No. St. Augustine is pointing out that if you are foolish enough to try to make the Bible into a science text, and project foolish and wrong ideas, people who know better, some of them unbelievers, will laugh at you.

And you will have put up an obstacle to them coming to learn about Him. This is the real damage creationism does to His purposes.

 

[The Barbarian]

Explain to me why ... scientists ... overwhelmingly accept common descent.

Stipe gets it backwards:

The same reason they overwhelmingly accepted geocentrism.

Luther called Copernicus an “upstart astronomer” and referred to him as a “fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”...

Jean Calvin is reported to have said: Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?


Geocentrism was the creationism of its time.

 

[6days]

No. St. Augustine is pointing out that if you are foolish enough to try to make the Bible into a science text, and project foolish and wrong ideas, people who know better, some of them unbelievers, will laugh at you.

Compromise are more concerned about people's opinion than God's Word. Does it really matter to you if people laugh at you because you believe what God says?

And you will have put up an obstacle to them coming to learn about Him. This is the real damage creationism does to His purposes.

Evolutionism believes in an inept god who creates through trial and error....through death, pain and suffering.

The God of the Bible is what people need. We need the One who offered Himself ....to redeem us from the death pain and suffering caused by our sin.*

 

[alwight]

Evolutionists love argumentum ad populum. It is the only means they have of staying in a debate.

Rigorous science is what offers scope for a rational debate based in presentable evidence, while bald assertions derived from a literal adherence to an ancient scripture only offers debate about what the words actually meant e.g. how long exactly is a day, the order of events for a supposed creation myth, an original sin to account for life's imperfections, say. All gripping stuff for adherents no doubt.

The same reason they overwhelmingly accepted geocentrism.

Science evolves apparently, from some very dubious beginnings, a lack of evidence and the wrath of the church.

 

[Stripe]

Rigorous science is what offers scope for a rational debate based in presentable evidence.

So do that then. :up:

Quit relying on what the "majority" say.

Bald assertions derived from a literal adherence to an ancient scripture only offers debate about what the words actually meant e.g. how long exactly is a day, the order of events for a supposed creation myth, an original sin to account for life's imperfections, say. All gripping stuff for adherents no doubt.

So present your evidence then. :up:

Goodness knows there has been enough evidence presented against your silly notions.

Science evolves apparently, from some very dubious beginnings, a lack of evidence and the wrath of the church.

What? :AMR:

You asked why there are so many evolutionists. You seem to have completely ignored the answer in favor of diving down another rabbit hole.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. St. Augustine is pointing out that if you are foolish enough to try to make the Bible into a science text, and project foolish and wrong ideas, people who know better, some of them unbelievers, will laugh at you. And you will have put up an obstacle to them coming to learn about Him. This is the real damage creationism does to His purposes.

Compromise are more concerned about people's opinion than God's Word.

Every time you add something new like YE creationism, to His word, you are compromising your wishes with the truth.

And, as you see, it's harmful and puts off people who might otherwise come to God, if you weren't peddling your own ideas disguised as His.

Does it really matter to you if people laugh at you because you believe what God says?

It would concern me greatly, if I added new doctrines that made it harder to bring people to God. This is, as I said, the real damage that creationism does.

Evolutionism believes in an inept god who creates through trial and error....through death, pain and suffering.

God could have produced a universe devoid of any of those things, but he chose not to do that. You'll have to take that up with Him.

Perhaps His ways seem wrong to you. And that is the heart of the creationist agenda; "my way, not His way."

And no, the notion that God tortures animals because we sinned, is not a Biblical belief.

 

[6days]

Perhaps His ways seem wrong to you. And that is the heart of the creationist agenda; "my way, not His way."
.

Exodus 20
(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(9)*Six days*shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(11) For in*six days*the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 31
(15)*Six days*may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
(16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
(17) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in*six days*the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

six days
Genesis 1

And the evening and the morning were the*first day.

And the evening and the morning were the*second day.

And the evening and the morning were the*third day.

And the evening and the morning were the*fourth day.

And the evening and the morning were the*fifth day.

And the evening and the morning were the*sixth day.

(Thanks Tambora)

 

[6days]

Evolutionism believes in an inept god who creates through trial and error....through death, pain and suffering.

God could have produced a universe devoid of any of those things, but he chose not to do that. You'll have to take that up with Him.

Your god (yourself) may have created with death pain and suffering.

The God of the Bible cursed the completed creation only after man sinned.*

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."
Rom 5:12

 

[alwight]

So do that then. :up:

Quit relying on what the "majority" say.

I think science explains itself rather well Stripe without my interpretation, since it is based in testable evidence.
Yes I rely on explainable scientific conclusions which have remained unfalsified, unchallenged or approved of by scientists generally.
If geologists, say, explain why they think that the Earth is old, which then also compliments other sciences, then I see no particular reason to think that it is only a few thousand years old, required vast un-evidenced "fountains of the deep" to explain a global flood that never happened, simply because of allegorical or mythical tales from an ancient scripture. lain:

 

[6days]

I think science explains itself rather well Stripe without my interpretation, since it is based in testable evidence.*

No, the data always needs interpretation in historical or forensic science. It does not matter if you are looking at DNA, old bones, The Bible, or finch beaks.... it requires interpretation.

Yes I rely on explainable scientific conclusions which have remained unfalsified, unchallenged or approved of by scientists generally.*

No.. im not going to buy your prime real estate...located in Florida everglade swamp.*

The belief in common descent has too much elasticity to be falsified. And even evolutionists have wildly varying hypothesis on everything from the Big Bang to little "Lucy".*

If geologists, say, explain why they think that the Earth is old, which then also compliments other sciences, then I see no particular reason to think that it is only a few thousand years old...

And if other geologists*say, explain why they think that the Earth is very young, which then also compliments other sciences...? (Biology, physics, paleontology, astronomy, etc)

 

[alwight]

No, the data always needs interpretation with historical science. It does not matter if you are looking at DNA, old bones, The Bible, or finch beaks.... it requires interpretation.*

Not true imo, the consensus scientific opinion where it exists and very often does, is the current benchmark that remains as the presumed or at least provisional truth until or unless something falsifies or supersedes it.
Unknowns of course will still be argued over but simply remain as unknowns and not supposed truths pending better data/facts. I never claim that my opinion of unknowns is any more than my own opinion and certainly not a truth as some theists will do with theirs.
Religions otoh simply schism or go off in different directions, there is no general consensus in religious belief because it is not founded in the testable and evidential, just in personal opinions and certainly has no room for unknowns.:nono:

The belief in common descent has too much elasticity to be falsified. And even evolutionists have wildly varying hypothesis on everything from the Big Bang to little "Lucy".*

I realise that you would prefer to think that but I don't think that there is much overall disputing of it's truth in mainstream science. But fear not I'm sure there will always be a few loose ends that creationists can trot out of course.

And if other geologists*say, explain why they think that the Earth is very young, which then also compliments other sciences...? (Biology, physics, paleontology, astronomy, etc)

But do any genuine geologists say that? I'm sure you can always find me a self-styled geologist perhaps employed by the Discovery Institute 6days.
No the consensus of mainstream geology is that the Earth has shown itself to be very old since the days of James Hutton (1726–1797).
Astrophysics has shown the even greater age of the universe, which compliments geology.

 

[Ardima]

I think science explains itself rather well Stripe without my interpretation, since it is based in testable evidence.
Yes I rely on explainable scientific conclusions which have remained unfalsified, unchallenged or approved of by scientists generally.
If geologists, say, explain why they think that the Earth is old, which then also compliments other sciences, then I see no particular reason to think that it is only a few thousand years old, required vast un-evidenced "fountains of the deep" to explain a global flood that never happened, simply because of allegorical or mythical tales from an ancient scripture. lain:

un-evidenced fountains of the deep? You haven't read about the vast fountains of the deep (giant underground lakes) that farmers tap into to irrigate their crops all across the world? Like the one found in 2013 in Greenland, or the one found in the USA called the Ogallala Aquifer?

Geologists are still discovering evidence that supports the biblical flood. Science is just as much faith based as any religion. You place faith in all of those "unfalsified, unchallenged or approved scientific conclusions though you and most of the human race has never observed what has been claimed. You read reports, research papers, experiment notes and must place your faith in the accuracy of said papers because you were not the one doing the experiments, research or observing. That is a lot of faith placed in fallible man....

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
God could have produced a universe devoid of any of those things, but he chose not to do that. You'll have to take that up with Him.

Your god (yourself) may have created with death pain and suffering.

Being omnipotent, He could do it anyway He chose. This is the one He did.

The God of the Bible cursed the completed creation only after man sinned.

That's a modern revision. God, being just, would not punish innocent animals for man's transgressions. Nor does the Bible say that He did. When God speaks of this, He only mentions things that affect humans, not other animals.


"

When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."

So now you're telling us that animals sin?

The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years after. If God is always truthful, the death that the Fall brought to us, was not physical.

Adam was already mortal in the Garden, something God mentions when He says:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.