If Evolution

[6days]

You still seem rather confused about the contents of science and how it's done.

"Contents of science"? It does seem one of us is confused about science.... and that seems to be you. Your statement would be grammatically correct if you said "the evidence and how it's interpreted".

Remember we were talking about drawing conclusions from data. Not the other way around.

Yes.... and that is why evolutionists are so often proved wrong by science. I gave you a few examples and could give you many more if you wish.

There doesn't have to be any contradiction with the bible, unless you try to interpret it literally....

Then I would suggest that your understanding of the Gospel is as poor as your understanding of science. If first Adam came onto the scene after sin and death were already in the world, then why did Last Adam have to go to the cross?

 

[6days]

If evolution, on the other hand, then all of that evidence is completely consistent.

I agree that if evolution was true the evidence should be consistent, and it isn't... let's talk genetics. Both of us have a belief we start with... you can go first if you wish or do you want me to go first?

 

[Stuu]

I agree that if evolution was true the evidence should be consistent, and it isn't... let's talk genetics. Both of us have a belief we start with... you can go first if you wish or do you want me to go first?

I can't remember the form now, but do boxers start their trash talking by deciding who will be first to dis the other?

Stuart

 

[daqq]

Daqq. :nono: Nope!

But of course one who believes that he is "Michael the Archmessenger" is not going to agree with the Septuagint chronology of six thousand years from Adam to Messiah: for if the Septuagint chronology were true it would that mean he himself cannot be "Michael the Archmessenger", for if it was all fulfilled in Messiah at Golgotha then there is nothing left for "Michael the Archmessenger" to fulfill in the "last days" according to his own perversion of the calendar and prophecy. :rotfl:

:nono:

 

[CherubRam]

But of course one who believes that he is "Michael the Archmessenger" is not going to agree with the Septuagint chronology of six thousand years from Adam to Messiah: for if the Septuagint chronology were true it would that mean he himself cannot be "Michael the Archmessenger", for if it was all fulfilled in Messiah at Golgotha then there is nothing left for "Michael the Archmessenger" to fulfill in the "last days" according to his own perversion of the calendar and prophecy. :rotfl:

:nono:

You need to spend more time studying your bible and history.

 

[6days]

Where did i say that the Genesis account isn't literal history? I never, I believe there is a natural and a Spiritual, and I believe the account of the days of the creation, I just don't see the days as 24 hour periods. Nor do I believe that the world is 6000 years old. And it doesn't say that that the days were 24 hours or that the world is 6000 years old in Genesis either. But saying that, I don't believe in evolution either in that we came from monkeys, God created man as man and a woman, not as evolving monkeys.

Thanks for sticking with me on this topic... I enjoy your thoughts, although I think you are incorrect and VERY evasive. Don't be upset... you can feel that way about me also. I'm glad you don't think that man evolved from apes like creatures as that leads to heretical beliefs.


So, let me ask...

A) If most of the church fathers argued against agnostic Epicureans and Atistotoleans who believed in an old earth... were the early Christians mistaken?

B) If God created over vast periods of time, then why did Moses so carefully define and use context of literal days? Certainly the Jews were intelligent believers, and would accept whatever God said. Ex... He could have said " during the first עידנים (eon) of time"

C) Why wouldn't have Jesus chosen his words more carefully when he referred to humanity as being there from a time "from the foundations of the world" or "from the beginning of creation".

D) Why do you reject the science supporting the plain reading of Genesis?

Being cleansed by the blood of Christ isn't being cleansed by the natural blood from the wooden cross.

E) Was the physical death (and resurrection) of Last Adam necessary, since death and sin entered our world through first Adam? I assume that must be an easy "yes" to that question?

Being cleansed by the blood of Christ is being cleansed by the life of Christ within.

Hmmm.... I'm not sure if we agree or totally disagree. I am not sure by the way you have worded things.


F) Don't the Old Testament sacrifices and shed blood, of a pure innocent animal represent death... and a penalty being paid for sin? We are not cleansed just by the pure innocent life of Jesus, but also by his death and Resurrection... agree?

and we are to live by the will of God and endure to the end for eternal salvation.

GYes, but our Salvation is because of what Jesus did, and not because I am enduring? I 'endure' or press towards the mark because I am saved. I have called the name of the Lord ...repented.... and I endure... do good works... and sometimes even pass out literature about "our great salvation".

Jesus was saving before he went on the cross, the death on the cross isn't what saves us, we are saved by the grace of God through faith.HSo, the question again..... Was the physical death of Jesus required in order for Him to be our Mediator, and defeat death? Why was physical death of Jesus necessary?

 

[daqq]

You need to spend more time studying your bible and history.

It is indeed pertinent to the thread because you deny anything that disagrees with your own mindset-paradigm, which is that you believe you are Michael the Archmessenger: therefore, according to you, there cannot possibly have been six thousand years from Adam to the advent of Messiah. It is preposterous thinking and moreover a very, very, strong delusion.

 

[CherubRam]

It is indeed pertinent to the thread because you deny anything that disagrees with your own mindset-paradigm, which is that you believe you are Michael the Archmessenger: therefore, according to you, there cannot possibly have been six thousand years from Adam to the advent of Messiah. It is preposterous thinking and moreover a very, very, strong delusion.

Post a time chart of what you are speaking about. The way you worded things does not add up.

 

[daqq]

Post a time chart of what you are speaking about. The way you worded things does not add up.

It has already been posted: seek and you shall find, lol.

 

[marhig]

Isn't that generally what people mean when they say they take Genesis literally? That the world, universe, and everything was created in six literal 24 hour days? As opposed to figurative (non-literal) days.



This is where your worldview collides with scientific fact.

Scientific fact? Science doesn't show that we come from monkeys at all, there is no link between man and monkeys!

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

On the contrary, it would mean that that 90% is wrong, at least partially.

So Jesus obviously thought it was literal, else He wouldn't have said "from the beginning of creation, God 'made them male and female."

Evolution says that genders didn't arise until later, God says He made them Male and Female from the beginning. There is no way to reconcile one with the other.

That is exactly what I mean by interpretation. If you choose to understand Genesis in this manner, you're not showing that >90% of science is wrong - you're just showing that you prefer to foolishly deny observable facts in favour of pure man-made mythology. That's just sad. :sigh:

But it need not be!

Join the majority of Christians worldwide who have reconciled the 2 quite easily

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

"Contents of science"? It does seem one of us is confused about science.... and that seems to be you. Your statement would be grammatically correct if you said "the evidence and how it's interpreted".

So now you want to argue about grammar? Really, cause on the web that's the sure sign you've run out of actual arguments ... :devil:

Yes.... and that is why evolutionists are so often proved wrong by science. I gave you a few examples and could give you many more if you wish.

You didn't give any examples, you just listed a bunch of topics.
Do you even understand how science works? Do you realise that science is always "wrong" about stuff and that it is constantly correcting itself ....

Then I would suggest that your understanding of the Gospel is as poor as your understanding of science. If first Adam came onto the scene after sin and death were already in the world, then why did Last Adam have to go to the cross?

Now this is a matter of theology, not science. I can only give you my opinion:

The purpose of first Adam is to establish God's benevolence and explain the realities of life, which cause great suffering and would otherwise be incompatible with a benevolent creator.
The purpose of last Adam is to advance humanity beyond mere existence into a more moral society. A new start so to speak, essentially the greatest sacrifice that God could make for us. It should inspire people to better themselves, unlike the earlier approach of cruel punishments.

 

[patrick jane]

Scientific fact? Science doesn't show that we come from monkeys at all, there is no link between man and monkeys!

The argument that chimp-human DNA similarity is evidence of common ancestry is possible only by ignoring the 98 percent of DNA that is different!6 It is like arguing that an aspirin pill is identical to a cyanide pill because they are the same shape and color. When do the differences enter the conversation?
Regulatory DNA—not just genes—is essential for each kind of organism, is almost entirely useful, and is different in humans than it is in chimps. How could billions of DNA differences have evolved in just four million years? It's impossible.7 Humans and chimpanzees were distinctly and uniquely created after all.

1. Evolutionists say that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor six million years ago. Then, two million years ago, modern humans supposedly diverged from a (still unidentified) ape-like ancestor. The difference equals four million years. Further, 98 percent of the human genome's 2.9 billion DNA base pairs, roughly corresponding to its regulatory DNA, equals 2.8 billion base pairs. Therefore, evolution requires the belief that man emerged after 2.8 billion precisely placed DNA bases somehow appeared, and even more ape-specifying regulatory DNA disappeared, in only four million years, even though experiments have not found this kind of DNA appearance and disappearance in today's genomes.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on November 15, 2011.


http://www.icr.org/article/dna-study-contradicts-human-chimp-common/

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Stuu

 

[JudgeRightly]

That is exactly what I mean by interpretation. If you choose to understand Genesis in this manner, you're not showing that >90% of science is wrong - you're just showing that you prefer to foolishly deny observable facts in favour of pure man-made mythology. That's just sad. :sigh:

But it need not be!

Join the majority of Christians worldwide who have reconciled the 2 quite easily

Here I am showing you how Scripture (and therefore God) rejects evolution and the old earth from scripture, and you very rudely just snip out the verses. What, are you afraid to address what the Bible says about creation?

Go back and respond to the verses I provided. Otherwise I'm going to call you a coward and a fraud. Coward, because you won't address a straight up refutation of your position. Fraud, because you ignore evidence that goes against your position, and continue to push your own beliefs as if they were correct all along.

My argument is that scripture states that the earth is young, less than 10,000 years, and that God made man in the beginning of creation, not after millions of years.

 

[SUTG]

Scientific fact? Science doesn't show that we come from monkeys at all, there is no link between man and monkeys!

Yes, or as better expressed by another poster ~90% of scientific facts need to be discarded to entertain a literal interpretation of the evens in Genesis.

Come from monkeys?! Where did you get your science education, from Answers in Genesis?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, or as better expressed by another poster ~90% of scientific facts need to be discarded to entertain a literal interpretation of the evens in Genesis.

Come from monkeys?! Where did you get your science education, from Answers in Genesis?

You know, now that I think of it, that 90% claim seems rather high. Perhaps you could point out a few topics where we would have to "wipe the slate clean" per se?

 

[SUTG]

You know, now that I think of it, that 90% claim seems rather high. Perhaps you could point out a few topics where we would have to "wipe the slate clean" per se?

It's tougher to think of areas that you can keep! Chemistry, Biology and Astrology would have to go, off the top of my head.

 

[Stripe]

~90% of scientific facts need to be discarded to entertain a literal interpretation of the evens in Genesis.

Name one.

Astrology.

Oh.

:chuckle:

 

[marhig]

Yes, or as better expressed by another poster ~90% of scientific facts need to be discarded to entertain a literal interpretation of the evens in Genesis.

Come from monkeys?! Where did you get your science education, from Answers in Genesis?

Ok, we don't come from apes of any sort, God created man as man not from an ape man. And if we have evolved from an ape, then there would be no apes, they would all have evolved.

I see you don't believe in God?