Creation vs. Evolution

[Stuu]

You disregard the fact that no one has ever seen life arise from non life.

If you are just out to lay a religious platitude on us then we can all agree you have nothing much of relevance to contribute.

But if you really want to talk about life, then you might need to define that word very carefully.

Does your god conform to the usual biological definitions of life? For example, does it carry out the functions of energy conversion, reproduction, growth, metabolism or excretion of wastes? Life as we know it is cellular. Is your god made of cells?

If you think your god doesn't conform to biological definitions like these of the most central word in all biology, life, then we all agree that life arose from non-life.

Stuart

 

[Soodanim]

Dear Soodanim,



I barely understand the point(s) you are trying to make. Yes, there are more choices. I guess I get it, but it is vague. Thanks for posting, pseudonym!!



With Love, In Jesus Christ!!



Michael

The point I tried to make is this: if the Genesis creation account originally had nothing to do with 'how' ever thin got here (but more the significance that everything that has been made has, and its relationship to God), then it's cut free from being entangled in the Creation vs Evolution debate.

And if the Genesis account is free from that debate (only being a literal description of Divine Creation), the other options are available.

 

[Jonahdog]

6: The real world is out there. It is much more interesting and amazing than your Bible verses.

 

[The Barbarian]

6days is stunned to learn that Genesis is not always literal:

What interpretation are you referring to...

Your new doctrine, teaching that the days of Genesis actually mean literal days. As you know, even ancient Christians knew that they couldn't be literal days. Young Earth creationism was invented in the early 1900s, and wan't widespread until the Adventist evangelized their new ideas to other Christians.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Then stop telling lies, or boasting ignorantly, and maybe people will stop bothering you with the reality of natural history.

Stuart

How are you doing today, Stu!! It's been a while since I've heard from you. Have you been on vacation. I see you once in a great while. That's too bad. Well, I'll talk with you more later. Are you still an evolutionist/ atheist? Just curious. Of course, you're not. You never promoted evolutionism before, eh. Yes, I want to heard about all of the times things were possible or impossible because of evolution. I could go on an on. Later. :ha:

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

6days is stunned to learn that Genesis is not always literal:


Your new doctrine, teaching that the days of Genesis actually mean literal days. As you know, even ancient Christians knew that they couldn't be literal days. Young Earth creationism was invented in the early 1900s, and wasn't widespread until the Adventist evangelized their new ideas to other Christians.

Dear The Barbarian,

What are you trying to do? Are you hurting from the evolution blast! There is nothing wrong with 6days believing that Genesis is truthful. You can bet your booties that all of those during and after Moses believed what Moses wrote. This includes Jesus when He read out of the book of Isaiah. Jesus never told us anything different about the book of Genesis, which I'm sure that He would have. He did say, 'What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.' So, do you think that Jesus thought the book of Genesis was untrue? You are very wrong, indeed! He saw Moses while He was on Earth while His disciples were sleeping during His Transfiguration. A couple of the disciples were awake and saw it! I believe Abraham was there, and also Moses. Surely Jesus did not have to talk about Moses' writing in Genesis. You must realize that these words are all in the Jewish Tanakh, if I'm not mistaken. I don't really care what some persons tried to say differently in history, if it is in error.

The YECs were not reinstated from other older men and women, who had believed that way for thousands of years. YEC was not invented in the 1900s, except in their own minds. The YECs just believed what other older people thought. They just called themselves the YECs {the Adventists did}. I mean, what do you call the original people who believed that way for thousands of years? Who are you to say that even the ancient Christians knew that Genesis was wrong and that God did not make everything in 6days and rested on the 7th day. Am I supposed to believe that the Adventists reinstated it under their name. How preposterous.

I'm done. You should spend more time on Post 11507, Pg. 768, of this thread and study it. Then you will learn about all of the times you've inscribed and based your writings on it.

God Be With You, Brother!!

{We're Definitely Bro's, So Don't Worry!!}

:thumb: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :rapture:


​

 

[noguru]

Dear The Barbarian,

What are you trying to do? Are you hurting from the evolution blast! There is nothing wrong with 6days believing that Genesis is truthful. You can bet your booties that all of those during and after Moses believed what Moses wrote. This includes Jesus when He read out of the book of Isaiah. Jesus never told us anything different about the book of Genesis, which I'm sure that He would have. He did say, 'What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.' So, do you think that Jesus thought the book of Genesis was untrue? You are very wrong, indeed! He saw Moses while He was on Earth while His disciples were sleeping during His Transfiguration. A couple of the disciples were awake and saw it! I believe Abraham was there, and also Moses. Surely Jesus did not have to talk about Moses' writing in Genesis. You must realize that these words are all in the Jewish Tanakh, if I'm not mistaken. I don't really care what some persons tried to say differently in history, if it is in error.

The YECs were not reinstated from other older men and women, who had believed that way for thousands of years. YEC was not invented in the 1900s, except in their own minds. The YECs just believed what other older people thought. They just called themselves the YECs {the Adventists did}. I mean, what do you call the original people who believed that way for thousands of years? Who are you to say that even the ancient Christians knew that Genesis was wrong and that God did not make everything in 6days and rested on the 7th day. Am I supposed to believe that the Adventists reinstated it under their name. How preposterous.

With all due respect Michael, you have no idea what you are talking about. Continue to follow 6days lead and you will remain on the path to inaccuracy.

I am going to cover the history of this 1 more time. Hopefully you will see where 6days and others like him are misrepresenting the reality. If not then so be it, continue to be a gullible and naive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Prior to the onset of modern science and the Enlightenment in Europe, I certainly would not put much stock in people's understanding of the natural world and natural history. You are free to just accept these people's view point, but don't be dismayed that others can see right through the non sense.

Ussher's Chronology was the first attempt to make this a scientific model with support from evidence. But his chronology did not last long as a scientific model considered accurate.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Seehigh and Michael 8-6-2015

Seehigh and Michael 8-6-2015

Dear seehigh,

Errrrrr. Evidence, irrefutably is that both RNA and proteins have been created in the lab.

Hey seehigh,

As long as you have dirt, the Lord God can form a man. And a woman. And all of the creatures of the earth and sea. So if your scientists have advanced to that point, and their chemistry is as good as God's, then maybe they'll make a man. Even a caterpillar. Tell them a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call, {from the song "White Rabbit."}. God knows how to do it.

Hope to hear from you again soon!! Do you know how very alive rocks are? Have you seen one cut in half and full of crystals, beautifully crafted by God, and grown so painstakingly. They look so beautiful. Remember you are looking at half of the rock, because it's cut in half. If it were carefully cut, maybe we would be able to see more. Like maybe just cutting the top part off. Try to get a rock that is 7,000 years old. Whoa!! That would be interesting. Well, will get going. Keep on posting. I'm sorry I don't get to post as often here lately. I still have an issue with my computer's Windows 10 playing videos. I just get a green screen. Will get it fixed.

May God's Blessings Be Plentiful!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

With all due respect Michael, you have no idea what you are talking about. Continue to follow 6days lead and you will remain on the path to inaccuracy.

Dear noguru,

Hey Buddy!! We'll see what's happening here. My reply was accidentally erased and I can't type a new one, because it is 9 a.m. and I've been on here since last night at midnight. I'm really tired and can barely type, because I'm feeling sleepy.

I am going to cover the history of this 1 more time. Hopefully you will see where 6days and others like him are misrepresenting the reality. If not then so be it, continue to be a gullible and naive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Prior to the onset of modern science and the Enlightenment in Europe, I certainly would not put much stock in people's understanding of the natural world and natural history. You are free to just accept these people's view point, but don't be dismayed that others can see right through the non sense.

Well, call me naive about one instance? I believe that God did everything He wanted to do. He just says the word and it is done.

I saw your Chronology. I can handle 6000-1 B.C.

Ussher's Chronology was the first attempt to make this a scientific model with support from evidence. But his chronology did not last long as a scientific model considered accurate.

Well, I did paste your URL into my browser and checked it out. I think I have been at that site also, besides just this once. Yes, I believe in God's Literal Creation of the Earth and Universe, and man; and all that lives on the Earth, etc. Everything, noguru. You can't be thinking like 'how could God create man and woman; and this entire Universe?' God can just say IT IS and it happens. So He would have plenty of time. Don't expect Science to have all of the answers because you'll regret it. Do what you want.[/QUOTE]

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi 6days,

I've got to PM you with an idea from JoelB. Well, it's surprising to find you up this early. I have stayed up all night, posting between 10:30pm and 9:35am. I've got to get to bed for now. I will check out some of your past posts here from a day or two ago, or more. I look forward to it.

God's Best For You And Your Spirit!!

Michael

 

[6days]

6days’ dedication to discrediting evolution has long been evident.

Yes....if you are referring to common ancestry beliefs which contradict God's Word.*

*But he would be well-advised to not seize on just any perceived errors in science and try to use them as leverage against evolution. A good example where he did that recently was when I pointed this out to him:
"… he (6days) didn’t hesitate to dishonestly lump a technical study in cosmology right in with some disputed anthropology results as though they were all performed by “evolutionists”. It would be nice if creationists were a bit more honest in recognizing that there are branches of science that, though they may conflict with Genesis timelines, still exist independently of the ToE."

In an attempt to justify his broad-based slap at science, 6days responded...
6days: "The connection between the points was that many evolutionists still often are quick to believe poor conclusions when it fits their beliefs. The connection is that things haven't changed much in how evolutionists make grand announcements and slow, quiet retractions when science proves them wrong."

You slightly misrepresent things. Both of us see no fault in science itself.

You statements are accurate if you replace the word 'science' with 'common ancestry beliefs'; and replace the word 'evolution' with evolutionism'.*

Let’s see how well the facts fit 6days’ characterization of what happened. 6days:
"The connection between the points was that many evolutionists still often are quick to believe poor conclusions when it fits their beliefs."

The cosmology study that 6 days is faulting has to do with a brief period 9 billion years before the earth even existed. That is about 10 billion years before the most primitive forms of life are believed to have appeared on earth.

I am not aware of a single detail in evolution that was predicated on what the cosmology study came up with. I feel confident that most scientists who are actually involved in evolutionary studies didn’t even know that the study was underway, and to this day most of them probably don’t care.

Where you are wrong here is associating the word 'evolutionist' with biological evolution. *Big Bang beliefs are part of stellar evolution.*

… things haven't changed much in how evolutionists make grand announcements …

6days, not evolutionists. Cosmologists. Got that?

Nope..... the word cosmologists would have been incorrect in that statement.

The announcement came from a group of scientists involved in cosmology studies.

I agree.

slow, quiet retractions…

Slow and quiet, huh? The initial disputed results were released in March of 2014. According to the ESA website, when the results were released it “spark(ed) an enormous response in the academic community and general public.” By September, only 6 months later, specific data had been gathered challenging the conclusions of the study, and an international team was formed, consisting of some of the original cosmology team along with other experts, to look at alternative explanations for the data. In 4 months they published the results which showed, using data from several sources, that the conclusions of the original study may have been in error.

Evolutionary beliefs (stellar evolution) lead to boisterous and rash claims by cosmologists at a news conference in March of 2014.

Headlines that followed.... (3 examples from many):

"Surprisingly strong gravitational waves rippled through the fiery aftermath of the*Big Bang, astronomers announced Monday, a finding that confirms the cosmos grew to a stunningly vast size in its very first moments.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-gravitational-waves-inflation-science-space/

Or,
Cosmology. First wrinkles in spacetime confirm cosmic inflation.
Cho A,*Bhattacharjee Y.

or,
*The finding is direct proof of the theory of inflation, the idea that the universe expanded extremely quickly in the first fraction of a nanosecond after it was born.*
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/

Over the course of the next six months many science magazines and cosmologist started admitting that the announcement had been rash. In Oct. 'Nature' said that the claim was hanging by a thread. And in January of this year announced that it was officially dead. 'New Scientist' *in Oct. 2014 said that the results indicate inflation is wrong.

Who was to blame for the rash announcement?... The cosmologists blamed media pressure. The media blamed the cosmologists. *Meanwhile many who don't pay great attention to these issues think the Big Bang is now a proven fact.*

 

[6days]

The point I tried to make is this: if the Genesis creation account originally had nothing to do with 'how' ever thin got here (but more the significance that everything that has been made has, and its relationship to God), then it's cut free from being entangled in the Creation vs Evolution debate.

And if the Genesis account is free from that debate (only being a literal description of Divine Creation), the other options are available.

But the Genesis account has everything to do with how we got here. It is the foundation to the gospel. The foundation of all Christian doctrines is found in Genesis. If the literal first Adam and original sin are simply allegorical, then the "Last Adam" (Christ) and his death and resurrection become uneccesary.*

Jesus referred to Genesis as real history.... we should too.*

 

[seehigh]

But the Genesis account has everything to do with how we got here. It is the foundation to the gospel. The foundation of all Christian doctrines is found in Genesis. If the literal first Adam and original sin are simply allegorical, then the "Last Adam" (Christ) and his death and resurrection become uneccesary.*

Jesus referred to Genesis as real history.... we should too.*

So what seer stone was used to tweak out the saying of someone who died decades before the first gospel was written?

That is almost as intriguing as the Mormon story of Joseph Smith.

 

[noguru]

But the Genesis account has everything to do with how we got here. It is the foundation to the gospel. The foundation of all Christian doctrines is found in Genesis. If the literal first Adam and original sin are simply allegorical, then the "Last Adam" (Christ) and his death and resurrection become uneccesary.*

Jesus referred to Genesis as real history.... we should too.*

Non sense. That is your claim about it, and it is based on a myopic view confined from an irrational fear for your individual eternal security. And it has been beaten into your head by your human theological slave masters so they can feel more comfortable in their own folly.

Just because you find no value in the Gospel without your dogmatic approach does not mean others have to follow you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Jesus referred to Genesis as real history....

Sounds like another 6days whopper. For one thing, there wasn't a word for "history" in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or Latin, at the time. So looks like another of those "well yeah, He didn't actually say it, but I know that's what He meant" stories.

 

[noguru]

Removed

 

[6days]

Jesus referred to Genesis as real history....

Sounds like another 6days whopper.

Because you don't believe Moses.... you don't believe Jesus.

Jesus: *"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

Jesus quoted from and accepted Genesis as ultimate truth.*

Am example of Jesus referring to Genesis as real history.*
Moses: "male and female, created He them.... And there was evening, and there was morning, the 6th day"
Gen. 1

Jesus: "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female"
John 5:46

You reject Christ's words... He did not say from beginning of humanity. He does not say at the end of a 18 billion year process. It is clear that Christ was a a Biblical creationist, saying humans we're from the beginning, quoting from Genesis 1& 2.*

 

[6days]

Errrrrr. Evidence, irrefutably is that both RNA and proteins have been created in the lab.

You accept and believe in evolutionism although you blindly do so.
Even IF scientists could rely on all the past knowledge and technology to create RNA or proteins.... Wouldn't that be great evidence for an Intelligent Designer?

 

[alwight]

You accept and believe in evolutionism although you blindly do so.
Even IF scientists could rely on all the past knowledge and technology to create RNA or proteins.... Wouldn't that be great evidence for an Intelligent Designer?

I believe that Darwinian evolution offers the best naturalistic explanation for life being how it is today based on testable evidence and scientific conclusions not blind belief, whether a god is behind it or not.
Explanations of gods are not available and not required.

YECreationism requires no explanation, nor science, nor for god, just a blind belief and a rejection of all that inconvenient nasty sciency stuff.

 

[DavisBJ]

You accept and believe in evolutionism although you blindly do so.
Even IF scientists could rely on all the past knowledge and technology to create RNA or proteins.... Wouldn't that be great evidence for an Intelligent Designer?

If intelligent scientists could create RNA or proteins, that would show that creation of those elements of life did not require the intervention of a God. With God shown to be not a required element in the process, the question of whether natural processes could have done the same is still open.