If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Out of context?
Not so — the context is the first creation story. It says the earth brought forth life.
Again, you deny what the text says to support your unscriptural tradition.
6days
New member
HAHA... laughing. You just can't and won't let scripture stand on its own. Last time trying this. NRSV Gen.1:11 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day
Wow. Never thought about that. I started reading the Bible when I was quite young, and before YE creationism had taken hold among evangelicals. In that time, most of them were OE creationists (other than the Adventists).
So I didn't even think that anyone would interpret that as literal history.
Most Christians took Augustine's advice, and when it became clear that the Earth was very old, rejected interpretations like Ussher's. In the 1800s, for example, the Baptist evangelist Spurgeon, spoke of an Earth millions of years old. And the creationism presented at the Scopes trial was OE, not YE.
marhig
Well-known member
We have said in our house meeting this about grapes, we say that God created them with seed to reproduce, but man altered God's way and changed the grapes so they can grow without seeds, they look the part, but they can't naturally reproduce, they have to have cuttings from the vine to grow. And this is like the false churches. The seed of Christ isn't past on at the hand of God, but man has changed the word of truth and cut it to suit, and now it carries on seedless like it's original lie made up by different denominations, each cutting the same as the man who has changed the way to suit man.
There is one way, and that's through Christ Jesus. And if we truly follow him we'll obey the father and obey what Christ taught, the way he taught it and live by the will of God.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
This splains a lot. :chuckle:
Yes, Chapter 4 is one of the clearest reasons to recognize the early chapters of Genesis are not literal history.
It is right up there in the “that’s obviously not the way it literally happened” with two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation and a planet-wide flood lasting months just 5000 years ago.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the 2010 article I found puts the speculation of the 2009 article you provided to bed.
On the orange, it was a natural mutation occurring about 200 years ago. Man, in his God-given dominion over nature, simply used the gift of a seedless mutant.
As for the church, I think it is best to judge them, if you must judge them at all, by their fruit. The wiser approach may be to leave that judgment to the Lord.
I can have Christian fellowship with anyone who lives a righteous life and agrees on the essentials (which generally are described in the Apostles Creed).
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Couldn't be that secular science has the dating of the so called ages wrong, hunh?
He merely was the first to show how it works.
Nope. Show me which of the four points of Darwinism are wrong. I suspect you don't even know what his theory says.
As you should know, that wasn't part of his theory of evolution. However, Mendel's discoveries cleared up a major problem for Darwin's theory. No one could explain how a new trait could spread in a population. If it was as scientists in Darwin's day expected, a new trait would disappear like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.
Later, when it became clear that inheritance was like sorting beads, instead of like mixing paint, that problem went away. Thanks for bringing that up.
Genetics has come a long way since the 60s. You need to do some reading.
Any new allele in a population is an increase in information. Let's see if you know how to figure it out...
A population has two alleles for a certain gene locus. Each is 50%. Then a new mutation occurs and eventually each of the three has a frequency of 0.3333. (I'm using these numbers to make it easier for you to compute, but use whatever numbers you want, if you don't think it works for everything)
Tell me what is the information for that gene locus when there were two alleles, and when there were three.
Good luck.
Rather, it would be like writing a note on a page.
But let's see how you do. If you don't know how to find information in a population, ask me and I'll help you.
Lon
Well-known member
:think: Artist rendition from the description in Job:
Spoiler
There is no such thing as 'scientific proof.' Kind of makes you rethink who is doing better and more rational science, no?
See, the quote above, this is 'indoctrination' and settled belief rather than science. SCIENCE keeps and continues looking. We don't believe in "proof" but rather rethinking and reexamining everything. Look at the previous post and this one, all rational reasons for 'rethinking.' Posturing? That is indeed the death knell of Science and a believer who is moldable by God. Give that some thought. We have no room for such posturing as we see.
Spoiler
Since you didn't quote or cite your source, I'm sure we all know why you didn't.
marhig
Well-known member
I agree, but I'm not talking about the people, but the teachings of the churches.
Lon
Well-known member
Agree, hard to determine from Job if a mammal or reptile but a cedar-like tail, I think, throws the probability away from a mammal. It might rather be one's presentation of impression, than an actual artist rendition then. Google sometimes lets me down.
Greg Jennings
New member
The KT boundary that Barbarian mentioned is what I am referencing. You'll never find any mammals other than extinct rodents below it (therapsids, like dimetrodon, not being fully mammalian and therefore don't count. They just look like lizards with sails)
I am appreciating our civil discourse
Greg Jennings
New member
:think: Artist rendition from the description in Job:Spoiler
There is no such thing as 'scientific proof.' Kind of makes you rethink who is doing better and more rational science, no?
See, the quote above, this is 'indoctrination' and settled belief rather than science. SCIENCE keeps and continues looking. We don't believe in "proof" but rather rethinking and reexamining everything. Look at the previous post and this one, all rational reasons for 'rethinking.' Posturing? That is indeed the death knell of Science and a believer who is moldable by God. Give that some thought. We have no room for such posturing as we see.
Spoiler
Lon, there has never been a dinosaur found alongside people or modern mammals. You can't find a single example bc one doesn't exist. You can keep pretending that doesn't sink your story, but the objective among us can see it.
Also, that's certainly no dinosaur (that tail, and Dinos didn't have external ears) in your pic. It does however look much like a rhinoceros ancestor called Paraceratherium:
I'm thinking your artist used that as his base. And with 6days getting upset every time an artist's rendition of a hominid or dinosaur is brought into this, I don't think artist's renditions are the most reliable source
With iron working developed the same time as music?
And bronze and iron working developed by the same person?