To the evolutionist, I ask: Did Jesus Christ ever exist?

[Interplanner]

However there is inconsistency on believing that death, pain, suffering and extinctions are the method God chose to create.

It's inconsistent to go through scripture saying it means something other than what it says.*

Jesus said "Haven't you read the Scriptures?They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"

Exodus 20:11 For in six days God created the heavens and the earth and everything that is in them.

Jesus said "But since you do not believe what he (Moses) wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"


Joe Boot, President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
“Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we play games with Genesis.

“The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience, one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.

“I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim the Gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.”

Are you still putting death...suffering of all things on the same level as mans? What happened before the fall when Adam and Eve ate plants?

Ex 20 was written to validate God's role as creator about the 10 commands. It is not a passage about details of creation, like what was before day 1, as is Gen 1 or 2 Pet 3.

Sequential, not fused,
Inter

 

[Cross Reference]

Even your questions indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about.

What is an "evolutionist"?

What does the theory of evolution have to do with the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, or his being the Christ?

Theory??? Here all along, I have been believing you all have accepted the theory as fact. Help me here.

What is a "son of God"? Aren't we all "sons and daughters of God"?

I wrote, "Son OF God". So there you go, trying get the advantage by misrepresenting my words.

Why are you even asking these questions?

Simple, to get you to understand the fallacy of evolution.

Just because you don't have a clue, I don't know what I am talking about. So why don't you tell me what you think I am talking about with regards to Jesus Christ and what He was all about? Be brave, be truthful.

 

[Cross Reference]

Read the book. It's hard to fit Christian doctrine in a title.

But not a relationship, which is what Christianity was purposed to be.

 

[Cross Reference]

He validated the creation account including the creation of male and female. I mean that he validated God's/His authority over that realm of relationship.

I believe Adam already did that. So why would Jesus be called the second Adam if not?

But this getting off topic.

 

[Cross Reference]

And who's to say that God didn't use evolution as his creative mechanism?

You would if and when you think to factor in some facts having to with obedience, just for starters.

 

[6days]

Because Jesus wasn't a scientist, and never claimed to be. He and everyone else at the time didn't even know dinosaurs existed.

Since Jesus created everything... He knew dinosaurs existed.

 

[6days]

Are you still putting death...suffering of all things on the same level as mans? What happened before the fall when Adam and Eve ate plants?

Are you still rejecting the clear teaching of scripture?

Your question about plants is silly..... God gave plants as the food for both animals and humans. God did not define plants as life ...they are not 'nepesh'.*

 

[PureX]

Theory??? Here all along, I have been believing you all have accepted the theory as fact. Help me here.

Science does not pursue nor discover "truth", it postulates theories, tests them through experimentation, and either holds the theory or rejects/alters it depending on the results of the experimentation. The theory of evolution still 'works' according to our scientific investigation and experimentation, so scientists are still holding to the theory.

Scientists don't proclaim any theory to be a "fact" (as in it being "the truth" of reality). They simply hold to it as being representative of reality unless and until it's proven otherwise.

Scientists are not "evolutionists". I'm not sure anyone is an "evolutionists", really. But the theory of evolution has proven itself to be the most 'workable' theory of the origins of speciation that we've come up with, and so it remains the accepted theory until it's proven otherwise.

I wrote, "Son OF God". So there you go, trying get the advantage by misrepresenting my words.

So did I: "What is a "son of God"? Aren't we all "sons and daughters of God"?" There was no "misrepresentation". And you didn't answer the questions.

Simple, to get you to understand the fallacy of evolution.

Why should I? So far scientists have not found it to be misrepresentative of reality, and they have been testing it for many years. So why should I?

Just because you don't have a clue, I don't know what I am talking about. So why don't you tell me what you think I am talking about with regards to Jesus Christ and what He was all about? Be brave, be truthful.

It's your thread. Why'd you start it if you can't even present a coherent question or idea?

 

[Cross Reference]

Science does not pursue nor discover "truth", it postulates theories, tests them through experimentation, and either holds the theory or rejects/alters it depending on the results of the experimentation. The theory of evolution still 'works' according to our scientific investigation and experimentation, so scientists are still holding to the theory.

If it works, it is a fact. You can't have both ways.

Scientists don't proclaim any theory to be a "fact" (as in it being "the truth" of reality). They simply hold to it as being representative of reality unless and until it's proven otherwise.

True, but you do. That is why there is an argument going on.

Scientists are not "evolutionists". I'm not sure anyone is an "evolutionists", really. But the theory of evolution has proven itself to be the most 'workable' theory of the origins of speciation that we've come up with, and so it remains the accepted theory until it's proven otherwise.

Quite the contrary, it hasn't. Only by godless men bent on destorying the fact of God having created all things science can't explain because it has nothing to work with placed in it's hand that it might.

So did I: "What is a "son of God"? Aren't we all "sons and daughters of God"?" There was no "misrepresentation". And you didn't answer the questions.

Nonsense. I know your question and I won't reply to it because it doesn't originate in what I asked. You have know answers. I already know that and am only going the motions. However, I'll make it so can't mistake my question this time: Do you believe Jesus Christ was the only begotten SON of GOD?? Why, why not? Got it now?

Why should I? So far scientists have not found it to be misrepresentative of reality, and they have been testing it for many years. So why should I?

I repeat, true science can only work with facts placed in it's hand that it might prove it by lab. experimantation. That's is fact. Look it up. Sorry, no speculation allowed as a answer to any scientific experiment that it be assumed as fact. That's a fact also. Look that up, as well.

It's your thread. Why'd you start it if you can't even present a coherent question or idea?

Few are more dishonest that you on this forum.

 

[patrick jane]

Answering that question in the affirmative only raises the next: Was He the Son of God? If not, what was He or should I ask, "Who was He"?

well, the first question can be answered like this. do you exist ?

tens of thousands of witnesses and testimony. please

2000 years from now nobody will know i existed -

the second question after the OP is answered in the entire NT and prophesied in the OT - :mrt:

 

[PureX]

If it works, it is a fact. You can't have both ways.

And if it doesn't work, that is also a "fact". So I guess it is both ways after all.

True, but you do. That is why there is an argument going on.

There is no argument for me. I accept that the theory of evolution is the best working theory we have for the origin of speciation. What's to argue about?

Quite the contrary, it hasn't. Only by godless men bent on destorying the fact of God having created all things science can't explain because it has nothing to work with placed in it's hand that it might.

The theory of evolution doesn't proclaim anything about God one way or another. If you believe in a creator God, as many scientists do, then all the theory of evolution does is offer a good working theory about how God created speciation.

Nonsense. I know your question and I won't reply to it because it doesn't originate in what I asked. You have know answers. However, I'll make it so can't mistake my question this time: Do you believe Jesus Christ was the only begotten SON of GOD?? Why, why not? Got it now?

I don't know what your question is supposed to be asking. What is a "begotten son of God"? What does that phrase mean? Personally, I don't think you have the slightest idea. I think you're just mindlessly regurgitating Bible-speak. If I'm wrong, then prove it, and explain what a "begotten son of God" is, and if and how it differs from us all being "begotten sons and daughters of the creator God".

I repeat, true science can only work with facts place in it's hand that it might prove it by lab. experimantation. That's is fact. Look it up. Sorry, no speculation allowed as a answer to any scientific experiment that it be assumed as fact. That's a fact also. Look that up, as well.

This is simply gibberish, as near as I can tell.

If my thinking was as vague and confused as yours seems to be, I would be seriously worried! Honestly! And I would do something about it.

Few are more dishonest that you on this forum.

Actually, I'm being brutally honest with you, because I think you're suffering from a serious intellectual deficiency. And you really ought to address it.

 

[Cross Reference]

And if it doesn't work, that is also a "fact". So I guess it is both ways after all.
There is no argument for me. I accept that the theory of evolution is the best working theory we have for the origin of speciation. What's to argue about?

Again, theory based on speculation, not anything concrete to say "yes" to.

That's the only fact that has resulted in any so-called, experimental testing. To deny that is, idiotic. That's a fact as well. Enjoy your bliss.


FINE

 

[Kdall]

Since Jesus created everything... He knew dinosaurs existed.

Then he chose to leave out details to his followers that they couldn't possibly comprehend. Something I've been telling you for months now

 

[User Name]

Answering that question in the affirmative only raises the next: Was He the Son of God? If not, what was He or should I ask, "Who was He"?

Faith and science are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[everready]

Because Jesus wasn't a scientist, and never claimed to be. He and everyone else at the time didn't even know dinosaurs existed. And more importantly, nothing I believe in contradicts the Christian faith.

Also, do you think your quote from God is supposed to be applied to everything? Are you of the opinion that scientists, instead of doing research and studying things, should instead just pray for the answers?

Your saying God doesn't know the creatures he created existed, then you most certainly are contradicting the Christian faith.


everready

 

[Kdall]

Your saying God doesn't know the creatures he created existed, then you most certainly are contradicting the Christian faith.


everready

God and Jesus aren't the same being. Jesus was part human, as is proved by his ability to suffer, feel pain, and die like a mortal man. If his body's divinity was compromised, it would stand to reason that his mind had been affected as well. Maybe not, but it does make sense. The other very possible option is that he did not want to reveal things that would've seemed insane to those who he was trying to persuade to follow his teachings. If you are trying to gather support, it helps to not come across as a madman.

Now quit avoiding the question I asked you

 

[Cross Reference]

Faith and science are mutually exclusive concepts.

Oh, indeed. I believe that as well. So where does faith end and true science begin when dealing with evolution? What part of evolution has true science proven?

 

[Kdall]

What part of evolution has true science proven?

That genetically and physically, populations change over time in response to external stimuli. A commonly used example of this is bacteria populations developing antibiotic resistance in response to drugs. MRSA didn't exist 50 years ago. It only exists because the bacteria developed resistance to any drugs that were used to treat Staph infections. As a result, we know have a super version of the original bacteria species that is nearly impossible to kill with medicine

 

[Cross Reference]

A

nd if it doesn't work, that is also a "fact". So I guess it is both ways after all.

Good, therefore it remains a theory because there is not enough to prove it does.

There is no argument for me. I accept that the theory of evolution is the best working theory we have for the origin of speciation. What's to argue about?

I'll make this short and to the point:

You just wrote, by inference, evolution does not work. I believe that. However, I believe it is the best science can come up with by what it holds in its hand for investigation.

I hope by those comments you won't prove yourself mentally challenged.

 

[The Barbarian]

Since speciation has been directly observed (even the Institute for Creation Resesarch and Answers in Genesis have admitted that) and since a change in allele frequency is always being observed, both microevolution and macroevolution are observed facts.

Can't get better than that.

The question of common descent is testable by DNA analysis, by predicted transitional forms later discovered, and various other lines of evidence. Predictions of the theory have always been validated.

Part of the confusion comes in the misunderstanding of what "theory" means. Newton referred to his "theory of gravitation" even though gravity was an obvious fact. A theory, in science, refers to something that has so much evidence supporting it that there is no reasonable argument against it.