View Full Version : Did God use evolution to create life
kristian's_mom
08-22-2010, 06:21 AM
Why should christians be so opposed to the idea of God using evolution to create life?
What do you think the scriptures mean by this:
Genesis 1-
20And God said, LET THE WATERS BRING FORTH ABUNDANTLY the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, WHICH THE WATERS BROUGHT FORTH ABUNDANTLY, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
drummerboy_dave
08-22-2010, 07:01 AM
Look at 21 again: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
It says God created every living creature that moveth and it says these animals gave birth to their own kind. Same thing in verse 24.
Fiyahstarter
08-22-2010, 01:06 PM
What does this mean?
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Praxeas
08-22-2010, 01:24 PM
Why should christians be so opposed to the idea of God using evolution to create life?
What do you think the scriptures mean by this:
Genesis 1-
20And God said, LET THE WATERS BRING FORTH ABUNDANTLY the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, WHICH THE WATERS BROUGHT FORTH ABUNDANTLY, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
what ever it means, it does not sound like evolution
drummerboy_dave
08-22-2010, 02:15 PM
Not sure what this post is all about.
What does this mean?
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
I believe that God truly wants us to know Him and believe Him. If He used evolution to create life, I believe the bible would clearly say so. Why would christians want to set aside what the bible says for the concept of evolution?
One thing I'd add to my prior post; in looking at how God made one man out of the dirt and one woman out of that man's side and then told them to be fruitful and multiply, I'm thinking that God also made a single male and single female of each animal species, and entrusted to them the task of abundantly bringing forth their own species to populate the earth and it's vast oceans.
BroGary
08-22-2010, 03:39 PM
That same verse goes against evolution:
24And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
God made everything to reproduce after it's own kind, meaning that apple seeds will produce apple trees, ect. and humans will produce humans, animals will produce animals, ect.
Evolution would have you believe that apes could produce something not after it's own kind that evolved into humans.
Evolution also would indicate that God was not capable of creating things good and perfect from the start, that they had to evolve to improve on the original creation.
God is all powerful, He spoke the billions and billions of stars into existance !
Jeremiah 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
Jason B
08-22-2010, 06:05 PM
Jeremiah 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
God appearently hasn't been on AFF very much lately, theres alot of doubters here who disbelieve He is able to do what His Word says He did. Creation is among those things that some HAVE appearently thought too hard for God. As though it was impossible for creation as we know it to come about except through millions (if not billions) of years.
Mr. Smith
08-22-2010, 06:37 PM
God appearently hasn't been on AFF very much lately, theres alot of doubters here who disbelieve He is able to do what His Word says He did. Creation is among those things that some HAVE appearently thought too hard for God. As though it was impossible for creation as we know it to come about except through millions (if not billions) of years.
Mr. Spiritual Badejo, it has nothing to do with God's ability and everything to do with God's methodology. Have you considered that God is powerful enough to have use evolutionary methodology to create our existence?
Jason B
08-22-2010, 06:39 PM
Mr. Spiritual Badejo, it has nothing to do with God's ability and everything to do with God's methodology. Have you considered that God is powerful enough to have use evolutionary methodology to create our existence?
Indeed, Dearest Mr. Smith, however His Word specifically and plainly says he did it in 6 days.
EXODUS 20:11 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.
Just sayin'.....:bliss
Mr. Smith
08-22-2010, 06:44 PM
Indeed, Dearest Mr. Smith, however His Word specifically and plainly says he did it in 6 days.
EXODUS 20:11 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.
Just sayin'.....:bliss
Surely you're sharp enough to consider the figurative nature of the word, "Day" and the considerable evidence that the word represents an "Age."
Jason B
08-22-2010, 07:06 PM
Surely you're sharp enough to consider the figurative nature of the word, "Day" and the considerable evidence that the word represents an "Age."
Where's the "figurative" even hinted in ANY scripture related to creation in the Bible? Please quote it so that I can consider it.
Everytime creation is the topic the days are presented as being literal days, not ages of untold millions of years.
The same school of thought denies the legitimacy of Noah and the Ark, making it to be a fairy tale. Once you start whittling down what God is able to do, there is ALOT of Bible to whittle down.
Noah and the Ark-just figurative. Probably wasn't even a man named Noah.
Sodom and Ghommorah? just figurative, God just wants people to be nice....you know, the sin wasn't "really" homosexuality, but unhospitality
Lot's Wife... just figurative
The Red Sea Crossing....not real either
Manna from heaven....have YOU ever seen manna?
Virgin birth......impossible
Ressurection......just figurative
Eternal life.......
on and on it goes.
BroGary
08-22-2010, 07:45 PM
That same verse goes against evolution:
24And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
God made everything to reproduce after it's own kind, meaning that apple seeds will produce apple trees, ect. and humans will produce humans, animals will produce animals, ect.
Evolution would have you believe that apes could produce something not after it's own kind that evolved into humans.
Evolution also would indicate that God was not capable of creating things good and perfect from the start, that they had to evolve to improve on the original creation.
God is all powerful, He spoke the billions and billions of stars into existance !
Jeremiah 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
Evolution would have you believe that man evolved from apes, but the Bible clearly says that each species produces after it OWN kind, and not fish evolving into apes and apes evolving into man.
There can be genetic changes within a species like if you breed two different kinds of dogs, but not one species producing something not after it own kind as a completely different species.
Here are some related links I found online:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.creationism.org/
pelathais
08-22-2010, 08:03 PM
Where's the "figurative" even hinted in ANY scripture related to creation in the Bible? Please quote it so that I can consider it.
Everytime creation is the topic the days are presented as being literal days, not ages of untold millions of years.
In summing up the creation account that you have cited from Genesis 1, as part of the segue to an alternate account in Chapter 2, the Author of Genesis says in Genesis 2:4:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..."
We haven't even moved more than just a few verses beyond the passage you cited and already the Bible itself contradicts your theory.
The same school of thought denies the legitimacy of Noah and the Ark, making it to be a fairy tale. Once you start whittling down what God is able to do, there is ALOT of Bible to whittle down.
We've covered this so many times it's almost ad naseum. Just as you were wrong to have worked yourself up into a "vomiting" mode because you misheard John MacArthur on the matter of "God's counsel" (and not "council") - so you have also decided to become a firebrand for another issue that you really have never studied out.
Stay cool, Bro. I'm here to help!
Noah and the Ark-just figurative. Probably wasn't even a man named Noah.
Was there "really" a "rich man" and a "beggar named Lazarus" in Luke 16? The "rich man" character appears frequently in a number of parables in this chapter and even the broader context of Jesus' teachings at the feast in the home of the pharisee.
You blithely accept the idea that there was "really" no "rich man." And, the Lazarus we know from the Gospel of John was hardly a "beggar" since he owned a house and property. (In fact, many commentators have posited that our Lord's unnamed host in Luke 14:1 - Luke 17:10, may have been the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead in John 11). Thus Jesus may have deliberately introduced the name of his host into the parable as He disputed with the other pharisees present - but that's a different topic.
The point here is that parables contain details that are REAL, though the "story" itself is not intended to be understood as "history."
Sodom and Ghommorah? just figurative, God just wants people to be nice....you know, the sin wasn't "really" homosexuality, but unhospitality.
You would have to concede that homosexual gang rape is an "inhospitable" act, wouldn't you? The "hospitality" that the rulers of Sodom failed to show the visitors (angels) wasn't that they didn't leave a mint on their pillows. That's the point the hand wringing liberals leave out. By "hospitality" in the ancient setting, they were supposed to protect the sojourners from violence, robbery and crime. The "men of Sodom" were guilty of even baser crimes.
And, there is geological and archeological evidence that "cities" in the ancient pattern existed in the area that is now covered by the Dead Sea. With the Dead Sea shrinking at a rather fast pace, more discoveries will certainly turn up.
But the point is, we have evidence as to a "literal" judgment befalling communities in that area. We have no evidence that all of the continents were covered by a flood of water up to 5 miles deep just 4,000 years ago. And, why didn't anyone match up the genealogies like Bishop Ussher did until he performed the feat in 1640? Why didn't the mass of Christendom already have a "date" and "age" for the world long ago? You Young Earth literalism is actually a novelty as ideas go.
Lot's Wife... just figurative
The Red Sea Crossing....not real either
Manna from heaven....have YOU ever seen manna?
Virgin birth......impossible
Ressurection......just figurative
Eternal life.......
on and on it goes.
No, "on and on" YOU go. And by the fumbling manner that you handled Genesis 1 & 2, I'd have to say that you probably don't speak for many people who have actually studied this matter.
No offense intended. But you should limit your "firebrand" comments for the issues that you're a bit more familiar with.
Mr. Smith
08-22-2010, 08:06 PM
In summing up the creation account that you have cited from Genesis 1, as part of the segue to an alternate account in Chapter 2, the Author of Genesis says in Genesis 2:4:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..."
We haven't even moved more than just a few verses beyond the passage you cited and already the Bible itself contradicts your theory.
We've covered this so many times it's almost ad naseum. Just as you were wrong to have worked yourself up into a "vomiting" mode because you misheard John MacArthur on the matter of "God's counsel" (and not "council") - so you have also decided to become a firebrand for another issue that you really have never studied out.
Stay cool, Bro. I'm here to help!
Was there "really" a "rich man" and a "beggar named Lazarus" in Luke 16? The "rich man" character appears frequently in a number of parables in this chapter and even the broader context of Jesus' teachings at the feast in the home of the pharisee.
You blithely accept the idea that there was "really" no "rich man." And, the Lazarus we know from the Gospel of John was hardly a "beggar" since he owned a house and property. (In fact, many commentators have posited that our Lord's unnamed host in Luke 14:1 - Luke 17:10, may have been the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead in John 11. Thus Jesus may have deliberately introduced the name of his host into the parable as He disputed with the other pharisees present.
You would have to concede that homosexual gang rape is an "inhospitable" act, wouldn't you? The "hospitality" that the rulers of Sodom failed to show the visitors (angels) wasn't that they didn't leave a mint on their pillows. That's the point the hand wringing liberals leave out. By "hospitality" in the ancient setting, they were supposed to protect the sojourners. The "men of Sodom" were guilty of even baser crimes.
And, there is geological and archeological evidence that "cities" in the ancient pattern existed in the area that is now covered by the Dead Sea. With the Dead Sea shrinking at a rather fast pace, more discoveries will certainly turn up.
But the point is, we have evidence as to a "literal" judgment befalling communities in that area. We have no evidence that all of the continents were covered by a flood of water up to 5 miles deep just 6,000 years ago.
No, "on and on" YOU go. And by the fumbling manner that you handled Genesis 1 & 2, I'd have to say that you probably don't speak for many people who have actually studied this matter.
No offense intended. But you should limit your "firebrand" comments for the issues that you're a bit more familiar with.
Thanks Pel. I read his response to what I said and got brain-fried at that stubbornness and willful ignorance. I'm not even going to respond now that you trumped anything I could say by about two or three hemispheres.
Mr. Smith
08-22-2010, 08:11 PM
Mr. Badejo, seriously, and I mean totally seriously, there is an opportunity here for you to consume valuable information and learn something. Just like your grace journey, there is another journey available and you can travel it if you really, really want to consume truth. It's up to you. Take what Pelathais is saying and consume it with a desire for truth. There's a college education in logistics, reason, and TRUTH from a guy like him, if you're willing to admit that you just might NOT know everything. Come on, listen to what he has to say.
Jason B
08-22-2010, 08:15 PM
And Pel, we have already hashed out the difference between a Parable such as the rich man and Lazarus, and a literal historical event, such as the Flood. Nevertheless, you have appointed yourself the authority on all things figurative. ;)
Jason B
08-22-2010, 08:17 PM
Mr. Badejo, seriously, and I mean totally seriously, there is an opportunity here for you to consume valuable information and learn something. Just like your grace journey, there is another journey available and you can travel it if you really, really want to consume truth. It's up to you. Take what Pelathais is saying and consume it with a desire for truth. There's a college education in logistics, reason, and TRUTH from a guy like him, if you're willing to admit that you just might NOT know everything. Come on, listen to what he has to say.
I ALWAYS listen to what people have to say. Because I disagree doesn't mean I don't listen or study those things out myself. I like Pel, but its well documented we are completely at odds on this issue.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 08:17 PM
Evolution would have you believe that man evolved from apes, but the Bible clearly says that each species produces after it OWN kind, and not fish evolving into apes and apes evolving into man.
No, BroGary. "Evolution would have you believe" that man and apes share a common ancestor. Have you ever bothered to study the issue?
There can be genetic changes within a species like if you breed two different kinds of dogs, but not one species producing something not after it own kind as a completely different species.
You said earlier:
"the Bible clearly says that each species produces after it OWN kind"
... But now you say that there are "different kinds" of specimens found within a single "species." Which is it?
Here are some related links I found online:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.creationism.org/
Those clowns were refuted long ago on this forum.
Mr. Smith
08-22-2010, 08:21 PM
I ALWAYS listen to what people have to say. Because I disagree doesn't mean I don't listen or study those things out myself. I like Pel, but its well documented we are completely at odds on this issue.
You shouldn't be. Pel is right.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 08:21 PM
And Pel, we have already hashed out the difference between a Parable such as the rich man and Lazarus, and a literal historical event, such as the Flood. Nevertheless, you have appointed yourself the authority on all things figurative. ;)
No, I recognize the Bible's authority in this area and I am afraid to mess with that. Just take the Word for what it says. Don't try and make it say the opposite of what some atheist is saying and then call yourself an "apologist" or "defender of the Bible."
That's the pattern in which so many heresies and wacko stuff arises. Ussher ran into that problem during the English Enlightenment and made a fool of himself.
And besides, we obviously haven't "hashed out" the issue if you're still struggling with it.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 08:23 PM
You shouldn't be. Pel is right.
Jason's cool. But I think he could really be something special if he set aside this "weight." :thumbsup
BroGary
08-22-2010, 08:27 PM
No, BroGary. "Evolution would have you believe" that man and apes share a common ancestor. Have you ever bothered to study the issue?
You said earlier:
"the Bible clearly says that each species produces after it OWN kind"
... But now you say that there are "different kinds" of specimens found within a single "species." Which is it?
Those clowns were refuted long ago on this forum.
Non-humans can only produce non-humans, and not non-humans evolving into humans.
You can have different breeds of dogs, but that is not the same as different species.
They may have been refuted "in your mind", but I do not believe they were truely refuted.
Evolution was fabricated as part of a humanist effort to turn people away from the God of the Bible.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.creationism.org/
Mr. Smith
08-22-2010, 08:30 PM
Jason's cool. But I think he could really be something special if he set aside this "weight." :thumbsup
I totally agree. He's a sharp guy and willing to stand for something. But he's making progress.
coadie
08-22-2010, 08:37 PM
Mr. Spiritual Badejo, it has nothing to do with God's ability and everything to do with God's methodology. Have you considered that God is powerful enough to have use evolutionary methodology to create our existence?
When God said
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
I take it you do not understand evolution. You do seem to understand speciation. But that creates no new structures. Evolution has said that it is by reason of mutations that we have change over time. Of course out of 800,000 mutations, 1 is beneficial. The rest are detrimental and out of those most are fatal.
No one can show a way in which a 3 chamber heart can in a single step scoot the pulmonary artery to the aorta without killing the animal. But they say 4 chambered hearts came from 3 chambered hearts.
I can from memory give dozens of impossiblilties in evolution. The Darwinists do not have the fossils to prove what they claim.
Evolutionists argue life came from non life.
It has never been observed.
coadie
08-22-2010, 08:42 PM
Non-humans can only produce non-humans, and not non-humans evolving into humans.
You can have different breeds of dogs, but that is not the same as different species.
They may have been refuted "in your mind", but I do not believe they were truely refuted.
Evolution was fabricated as part of a humanist effort to turn people away from the God of the Bible.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.creationism.org/
Amen. If God was either passive or outside creation, His authority is limited or non existent.
But that brings up the non telological arguments.
coadie
08-22-2010, 08:48 PM
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
I know the folks that take biology clases get stumped when they say millions of years and can't explain how plants were created the day before sunshine for photosynthesis.
How did these plants live for millions of years without heat and sunlight?
pelathais
08-22-2010, 08:52 PM
Non-humans can only produce non-humans, and not non-humans evolving into humans.
You can have different breeds of dogs, but that is not the same as different species.
They may have been refuted "in your mind", but I do not believe they were truely refuted.
Evolution was fabricated as part of a humanist effort to turn people away from the God of the Bible.
Evolution was an observed process that was universally held by the educated masses in the West long before Charles Darwin came on the scene. It was C. Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin who help to organize the discussion and is generally credited with coining the term "evolution." There was obviously a long discussion already in the works that was wanting the minting of the term.
You seem to err on a couple of other points as well. "Humanism" during the Renaissance was simply a field of study where the subject of study was human beings. "Classical humanism" was and still is a branch of university study that was developed by Christians and for Christians.
That more recent groups of "neo-humanists" have turned toward atheistic and entirely materialistic studies shouldn't cause us to trash the term "humanist.' You wouldn't even have you King James Bible if it weren't for the long and hard labors of the humanist Desiderius Erasmus, for whom Erasmus Darwin was named.
You said different "kinds" of dogs earlier, after defining just what you thought a "kind" was according to your overly literalistic reading of Genesis 1. Now, you offer the term "breeds."
Could it be that you were actually on the path toward truth all along? What happens when a particular breed of dog is so "different" from other breeds that it can no longer mate with those other breeds? This is an event called "speciation."
One example of an observed instance of speciation would be the famous case of the mule. Horses and donkeys evolved from a common ancestor. Due to their geographic isolation from one another their genes "drifted" apart as well. In time, humans corralled both donkeys and horses and tried to hybridize them. The result was the infertile mule.
If the donkeys and horses had been kept isolated from one another for an even longer period of time, they would not be able to breed with each other at all.
Did God create both donkeys and horses? Two separate species? If so, what's a mule? An "abomination? But then, why do these two separate species (horses and donkeys) produce any kind of offspring at all?
It's like we're observing the "in between" of a complex process. You're "fixed species" model simply doesn't provide any answers here.
Christian evolutionary scientists: http://www.asa3online.org/home/
... which is somewhat redundant. If you don't understand and support evolutionary theory then you're really not a "scientist" at all.
coadie
08-22-2010, 09:00 PM
The Roman Catholic Church had never formally condemned the theory of evolution. However, in 1950, Pope Pius XII issued a papal encyclical letter Humani Generis which discouraged belief in evolution because it played into the hands of materialists and Atheists. Since approximately that time, the Church taught that the Genesis creation story should not be interpreted literally, but symbolically.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 09:06 PM
When God said
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
I take it you do not understand evolution. You do seem to understand speciation. But that creates no new structures. Evolution has said that it is by reason of mutations that we have change over time. Of course out of 800,000 mutations, 1 is beneficial. The rest are detrimental and out of those most are fatal.
No one can show a way in which a 3 chamber heart can in a single step scoot the pulmonary artery to the aorta without killing the animal. But they say 4 chambered hearts came from 3 chambered hearts.
I can from memory give dozens of impossiblilties in evolution. The Darwinists do not have the fossils to prove what they claim.
Evolutionists argue life came from non life.
It has never been observed.
If you're the same "coadie" then I should probably put you on "ignore" as this topic was the cause of your most recent "vacation."
I wish you no ill will and offer you the consideration that everything is "water under the bridge."
FWIW - my nephew was born earlier this month with a three chamber heart. We are waiting for him to put on a few more pounds before they correct the condition surgically. I'm told that the surgical procedure will be sort of like a "one step" type of operation.
Still, how was he born like this? Both of his parents have "typical" four chambered hearts like most mammals. Wouldn't they be expected to "reproduce after their own kind?"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747104/
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2009/09/02/secrets_of_the_4_chambers_revealed_by_reptile_hear ts.html
Turns out, if you look at the reptiles you will see the development of the heart from the three chambered amphibian type of heart into the mammalian four chamber heart.
We talked about this before... funny, I can't find that thread. Anyhoo...
When a specific enzyme is inhibited during fetal development a human being can actually end up with an "amphibian" three chambered heart. The "one step process" that coadie seeks is the removal of any factors that interfere with the expression of this enzyme.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 09:12 PM
The Roman Catholic Church had never formally condemned the theory of evolution. However, in 1950, Pope Pius XII issued a papal encyclical letter Humani Generis which discouraged belief in evolution because it played into the hands of materialists and Atheists. Since approximately that time, the Church taught that the Genesis creation story should not be interpreted literally, but symbolically.
Since 1950? Really? Ever read St. Augustine (354 - 430 AD). What about Origen? He was really big on the "symbolic" side of things (185 -254 AD).
coadie
08-22-2010, 09:15 PM
Where's the "figurative" even hinted in ANY scripture related to creation in the Bible? Please quote it so that I can consider it.
Everytime creation is the topic the days are presented as being literal days, not ages of untold millions of years.
The same school of thought denies the legitimacy of Noah and the Ark, making it to be a fairy tale. Once you start whittling down what God is able to do, there is ALOT of Bible to whittle down.
Noah and the Ark-just figurative. Probably wasn't even a man named Noah.
Sodom and Ghommorah? just figurative, God just wants people to be nice....you know, the sin wasn't "really" homosexuality, but unhospitality
Lot's Wife... just figurative
The Red Sea Crossing....not real either
Manna from heaven....have YOU ever seen manna?
Virgin birth......impossible
Ressurection......just figurative
Eternal life.......
on and on it goes.Every time the word "day"is used in the Old Testament and modified by an ordinal, it means 24 hour day.
God is not flakey with words.
God didn't define 6 days here differently that the definition of the 7th day.
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But 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:
11For 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.
Same writer
Same bible
Same book of the bible
Same God says:
10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
If an honest godly person interprets scripture correctly, under what basis does the duration of seven days change between Genesis chapter 2 and Genesis chapter 7?
Using Darwinism to interpret scripture was not available to the OT prophets and writers.
These same folowers of Darwin say the 6 days referred to in the 10 suggestions are different days than the 7 th day which is the sabbath day.
Long-agers generally teach that Genesis 1 means something other than what it says, such as that it is theological poetry, or an allegory involving metaphorical people.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 09:18 PM
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
I know the folks that take biology clases get stumped when they say millions of years and can't explain how plants were created the day before sunshine for photosynthesis.
How did these plants live for millions of years without heat and sunlight?
Well, "literally" there was already "light." That's all a plant needs in that regard. And with regard to "heat" - there would have been way too much for anything to be alive if that "light" God is described as creating on the "first day" is to be understood literally.
Here's a stumper for you though:
Genesis 1:25-27, says that humans were created after the animals. It also clearly states that both the man and the woman were created simultaneously.
Yet, Genesis 2:18-22, very clearly states that a human being was created first, then the animals and finally the woman.
So, literally, which is it?
pelathais
08-22-2010, 09:20 PM
... oh! By the way, "Hi" to kristian's_mom. And the answer is "yes."
coadie
08-22-2010, 09:24 PM
Acts 17:26And(G) he made from one man every nation of mankind to live(H) on all the face of the earth,(I) having determined allotted periods and(J) the boundaries of their dwelling place,
Hebrews 4:4 (King James Version)
4For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
Of course the Darwinist interpretation denies this verse:
5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 09:40 PM
...
God is not flakey with words.
...
DING! DING! DING! coadie and I agree! coadie and I agree!
:bliss
However, we still need tools to help us to understand those words. For example:
Matthew 27:9-10
"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."
Yet, as every student of the Old Testament knows, these are NOT the words of "Jeremy the prophet" (Jeremiah) but the words of Zechariah the prophet who lived almost 100 years later.
So, how can we demand that Genesis 1 - 11, be held to one standard of absolute wooden literalism while we waffle a bit on the historical account of our Lord's own crucifixion?
Do we demand that these be the words of Jeremiah even though they are clearly the words of Zechariah? (See Zechariah 11:12-13).
Or should we just abandon the faith and live like the men of Sodom (whether literally or figuratively, we'll let you choose)?
How about this? How about if we just accept the words of the Bible the same way that we accept the natural speech of those around us? This is NOT to say that the Bible isn't inspired. However, this approach does recognize the Bible as being given to us in human speech and not some "magical formula" that only a magi could read.
When someone in the Bible makes a sweeping generalization or an expansive reference like Matthew does here we should handle it in the same manner that we understand other human speech. When a later writer makes a generalization and quotes the words of Genesis 1, we should understand it the same way we understand Jesus' command to "go and do likewise" - - Likewise what? Likewise a story that Jesus had just made up (Luke 10:30-37).
The absence of "literalism" doesn't negate the importance of the command.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 09:43 PM
Acts 17:26And(G) he made from one man every nation of mankind to live(H) on all the face of the earth,(I) having determined allotted periods and(J) the boundaries of their dwelling place,
Hebrews 4:4 (King James Version)
4For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
Of course the Darwinist interpretation denies this verse:
5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
There is no "Darwinist" interpretation of the Bible. There are sound interpretations and there are unsound interpretations of the Bible.
A "sound interpretation" takes into account the fact that both the Bible's message is real and the world around us is real. The Bible's message is to impact the lives of people in this real world.
Creating a "just pretend" fantasy world will not impact people in the real world.
Mr. Smith
08-22-2010, 09:43 PM
When God said
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
I take it you do not understand evolution. You do seem to understand speciation. But that creates no new structures. Evolution has said that it is by reason of mutations that we have change over time. Of course out of 800,000 mutations, 1 is beneficial. The rest are detrimental and out of those most are fatal.
No one can show a way in which a 3 chamber heart can in a single step scoot the pulmonary artery to the aorta without killing the animal. But they say 4 chambered hearts came from 3 chambered hearts.
I can from memory give dozens of impossiblilties in evolution. The Darwinists do not have the fossils to prove what they claim.
Evolutionists argue life came from non life.
It has never been observed.
You are, however, unable to correctly use commas. But yeah, go ahead with your memorized dozens of impossibilities. I'll wait.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 09:52 PM
When God said
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
I take it you do not understand evolution. You do seem to understand speciation. But that creates no new structures. Evolution has said that it is by reason of mutations that we have change over time. Of course out of 800,000 mutations, 1 is beneficial. The rest are detrimental and out of those most are fatal.
No one can show a way in which a 3 chamber heart can in a single step scoot the pulmonary artery to the aorta without killing the animal. But they say 4 chambered hearts came from 3 chambered hearts.
I can from memory give dozens of impossiblilties in evolution. The Darwinists do not have the fossils to prove what they claim.
Evolutionists argue life came from non life.
It has never been observed.
You are, however, unable to correctly use commas. But yeah, go ahead with your memorized dozens of impossibilities. I'll wait.
Yeah really. coadie, help your readers a bit. I missed some important things that you said here.
This is not a contest. This is a discussion. If you need time to type it out - take the time. I'm not going to boast about a "victory" just because you didn't respond within 5 minutes of my last post.
And, we did the "quote from memory thing" remember? None of your examples were valid and you failed to answer what I posted about showing several clear examples of biological evolution.
For example... what about this "four chambered heart" thing that you just brought up again? You said that there was "no way" that it could have evolved from "simpler" hearts like the amphibians. Right now my nephew is being held up in prayer in several Apostolic churches because he has essentially a three chambered heart.
The cause of this birth defect is fairly well know and it involves the suppression and expression of various enzymes as described in the links I gave you. By "the roll of the dice" this little guy suffers from something that could have afflicted any one of the rest of us. It was random chance involving the expression of a gene during fetal development.
Please respond to that. Take your time. Take a few days, it's no big deal. We also covet your prayers.
coadie
08-22-2010, 09:54 PM
Well, "literally" there was already "light." That's all a plant needs in that regard. And with regard to "heat" - there would have been way too much for anything to be alive if that "light" God is described as creating on the "first day" is to be understood literally.
Here's a stumper for you though:
Genesis 1:25-27, says that humans were created after the animals. It also clearly states that both the man and the woman were created simultaneously.
Yet, Genesis 2:18-22, very clearly states that a human being was created first, then the animals and finally the woman.
So, literally, which is it?
God doesn't play word games son!
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
You made up the "simultaneously" part.
that is an attempt for dishonesty.
When people practice darwinistic manipulation of Genesis 1 and two, they insert their own words and meanings.
Question for Pelthais.
Give us the scripture and verse that in your Darwinist view is the first verse that is litterally true as written with no need for "interpretation"
When people fall under the spell of a non Christian biology class, they jump on the Darwinist band wagon.
There is no "stumper" for people that do flow charts.
Again, there is for people that castigate God's scriptures and play word games. They think they have a "gotcha"
You made another dishonest claim in reference to heat. God doesn't follow your presuppositions. would have been way too much for anything to be alive if that "light" God is described as creating on the "first day" is to be understood literally.
You are not all knowing and in your imagination think there would have been too much heat.
The agenda for darwinists to pound on the innerancy of the Word in the bible from Genesis 1:1 and onward to to take away from the authority of God.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And it was so
When a castigator of scripture attacks the authenticity of the word in Genesis, one of the code words is the use the word "literal" a lot. It is often associated with a bogus word definition.
and it was so.
Every thing they twist and change they are saying it was NOT so. They claim to know better hiow it really was.
coadie
08-22-2010, 09:58 PM
God smacks down Job.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Evolutionism is Not science. Sciences is "observable"
The crackpot religion of Darwinsim didn't observe anything in creation but pounce on the bible to twist it to how they think it should make sense to support their dogma./
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
When the castigators come out, the say you can't take this litterally and it surely was NOT so.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 10:13 PM
...
Question for Pelthais.
Give us the scripture and verse that in your Darwinist view is the first verse that is litterally true as written with no need for "interpretation"
When people fall under the spell of a non Christian biology class, they jump on the Darwinist band wagon.
There is no "stumper" for people that do flow charts.
Again, there is for people that castigate God's scriptures and play word games. They think they have a "gotcha"
You made another dishonest claim in reference to heat. God doesn't follow your presuppositions.
You are not all knowing and in your imagination think there would have been too much heat.
You're starting to go off the tracks again, but I will ignore it. In answer to your question, there is no Scripture that doesn't require "interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20-21, implies this).
In fact, all human language requires some "interpretation" to be correctly understood. You already know this and if we weren't arguing the point right now, you might even have been the one to bring it up. But, you box yourself into your own angry little corner. Lighten up a bit. Give yourself a break.
There's no such thing as a "non-Christian biology class." There is only accurate information and inaccurate information in biology. Biology studies natural life, not the things of God. If you want Theology, that's a different classroom.
I do not have a "Darwinist view" of the Bible. My methodology there is far more ancient than Victorian England or even the days of your Bishop Ussher.
My "Darwinism" is simply a facet of of understanding the natural world. To be more correct, my understanding of Biology involves what is commonly called the "Neo-Darwinist Synthesis." This is what you would learn in a Biology class at your local community college if you wanted to enroll and study it for yourself.
coadie
08-22-2010, 10:13 PM
Why should christians be so opposed to the idea of God using evolution to create life?
.
I will comment on your question directly. About 5 years ago, most non Christian Phd's I know stopped making the claim that life evolved from non life. They just claim there was life, it was simple and they are sure it was not created by God. Then they start with life and evolution takes over from there with claims of common ancestry. All life came from a single original life form.
This is known as the theory of abiogenesis.
Why should Christians jump on the evolution band wagon which completely refutes itself every few years? I could write a book of claims by evolutionists that are in old textbooks that have been removed by them or should have been. The Piltdown man was a hoax and still showed up in testbooks for years. There are still books being printed that claim miller Urey successfuully proved abiogenesis in the lab which he didn't and we all know he didn't
We do not need to re write the bible.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 10:20 PM
God smacks down Job.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
I've got a better question for you, though. Just where are those "foundations of the earth?" Literally, where are they?
Evolutionism is Not science. Sciences is "observable"
Then you have a ready answer for the example of observed speciation that I gave earlier? The horse-donkey-mule problem? You ignored that. Please go back and answer the questions.
The crackpot religion of Darwinsim didn't observe anything in creation but pounce on the bible to twist it to how they think it should make sense to support their dogma./
Charles Darwin never even addressed the Bible in his published works. How can you say he "attacked it?"
The man was clearly suffering from melancholy in his later years. Many historians have said that it was the result of the death of his daughter. Yet, if he had properly understood evolution and the genetic factors involved, he might have avoided marrying his first cousin and the daughter's congenital defects may have been avoided. Or not.
But Darwin himself isn't guilty of what you've charged here.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
When the castigators come out, the say you can't take this litterally and it surely was NOT so.
:blink
Twisp
08-22-2010, 10:41 PM
Why should christians be so opposed to the idea of God using evolution to create life?
What do you think the scriptures mean by this:
Genesis 1-
20And God said, LET THE WATERS BRING FORTH ABUNDANTLY the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, WHICH THE WATERS BROUGHT FORTH ABUNDANTLY, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
I reconcile it that the writers of the Bible had no idea of evolution, had no idea how any of this world came to be. Therefore, they imagined it as best they could. Thus, the perceived concise creation process some believe today.
pelathais
08-22-2010, 10:46 PM
I will comment on your question directly. About 5 years ago, most non Christian Phd's I know stopped making the claim that life evolved from non life. They just claim there was life, it was simple and they are sure it was not created by God. Then they start with life and evolution takes over from there with claims of common ancestry. All life came from a single original life form.
This is known as the theory of abiogenesis.
Why should Christians jump on the evolution band wagon which completely refutes itself every few years? I could write a book of claims by evolutionists that are in old textbooks that have been removed by them or should have been. The Piltdown man was a hoax and still showed up in testbooks for years. There are still books being printed that claim miller Urey successfuully proved abiogenesis in the lab which he didn't and we all know he didn't
We do not need to re write the bible.
The "Piltdown Man" hoax was uncovered by Darwinian evolutionists. In fact, most scientists were skeptical of the "find" from the very beginning for a number of reasons.
First of all - a real hominid with those features should not have ever been found in Britain. It just didn't fit the "Evolutionary Model." Next, the chemical tests of the "jaw" showed it to be rather recently deceased (in geologic terms). Scientists disproved the thing, sort of like Mythbusters on television.
Meanwhile, "Christians" were (and still are (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm)) attempting to disprove evolution by carving tracks into the stone along the Paluxy River in Texas (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html) and misreading other smeared prints in the same area.
With regard to the Miller-Urey experiment - it was hardly a failure. It was never intended to "create life." Rather, it was intended to find ways that complex organic molecules (the "building blocks of life") might arise naturally.
In this regard it was a complete success.
The only "problem" was that Miller postulated a chemically "reducing" environment (little or no free oxygen). Science wasn't certain about that point then. The existence of the red bed iron formations gives evidence that a reducing environment did exist on earth at one time and that this environment was dramatically altered by the introduction of free oxygen by living organisms.
So, Miller-Urey suffers some misunderstandings due to the advancement of science and understanding. In the end, it did show how under certain conditions complex organic compounds could be formed. These conditions would typically exist either off our world or at a time when our world did not have the current oxygen rich atmosphere.
Lo and behold! We find these same compound that Miller created in comets and meteorites. We also find them in deep sea volcanic vents where the sulfur rich environment creates "a world of its own."
pelathais
08-22-2010, 10:52 PM
I've gotta go ... thanks for the fun coadie. Remember -
1) Answer the "creation of horses, donkeys and mules" question. This must fit within a framework of the rigid "interpretation" of "after their kind" in Genesis 1.
2) Answer the "three/four chambered heart" conundrum that you brought up yourself. Respond to the information concerning vertebrate heart evolution that I provided.
3) Please remember my family and myself in your prayers.
Take care, Bro.
(Hiya Twisp! I "see" you).
Twisp
08-22-2010, 10:57 PM
(Hiya Twisp! I "see" you).
Boo Hiss!
Lol, I saw your reply in the Mosque thread, not ignoring it. It just takes me longer to respond than most. That and I tend to avoid the internets on the weekend. lol.
BroGary
08-22-2010, 11:08 PM
The Luciferian globalists promote the deception of evolution, Satan has been trying to get people to doubt God's Word since the garden of Eden. High level freemasonry acknowledges Lucifer as the one they serve, and it is interesting how many high level freemasons have been involved in promoting evolution.
Here is an excerpt from an article I found:
Years later, Charles Darwin would inherit his grandfather's ideas and the basic outlines for the proposal of his theory of evolution. Charles Darwin's theory elaborated upon the structure established by his grandfather, while the Philosophical Society became one of the greatest and most passionate supporters of his theory.
In short, Erasmus Darwin was the true pioneer of the theory we know of as the theory of evolution that has been propagandized throughout the world over the past 150 years.
Where did Erasmus Darwin discover the idea of evolution? Where did his interest in this subject come from?
After a thorough search for the answer to this question, we discover the interesting fact that Erasmus Darwin was a Mason. Though, Erasmus Darwin was no ordinary Mason, he was one of the highest ranking masters in the organization.
He was the master of the famous Canongate lodge in Edinburgh, Scotland.102 Moreover, he had close ties with the Jacobin Masons who were the organizers of the revolution in France at the time, and with the Illuminati, whose prime cause was fostering hostility to religion.103 That is, Erasmus Darwin was an important name in European Masonic anti-religious organizations.
Erasmus educated his son Robert (Charles Darwin's father), who too had been and made a member of the Masonic lodge.104 For this reason, Charles Darwin received the inheritance of Masonic teachings from both his father and his grandfather.
Erasmus Darwin hoped to have his son Robert develop and publish his theory, but it would be his grandson Charles who would undertake the enterprise. Although it came some time later, Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature was finally revised by Charles Darwin. Darwin's views did not have the weight of a scientific theory; it was merely the expression of a naturalist doctrine that accepts that nature has creative power.
Finally, Darwin appeared at a stage when the long struggle had begun in Europe to supposedly destroy faith in God and religion, replace it with the naturalist philosophy and a humanist model for human life. The most significant force behind this struggle was not this or that thinker, but the Masonic organization, of which so many thinkers, ideologues and political leaders were members.
BroGary
08-22-2010, 11:23 PM
Evolution and the Bible do not agree.
If humans evolved from non-human creatures, then they are no more than intelligent animals.
Also, if humans evolved from lesser developed creatures, instead of simply starting with God making Adam & Eve, then mankind would not have just one set of parents as those lesser creatures would have evolved from groups of non-humans. That would mean that not everyone originated from Adam & Eve and would not have inherited their sin nature and not be in need of salvation, but the Bible says all have sinned.
Evolution is so faulty both on a scientific as well as Biblical level that Christians would really have to be deceived to fall for it.
Socialite
08-23-2010, 01:53 AM
Why should christians be so opposed to the idea of God using evolution to create life?
What do you think the scriptures mean by this:
Genesis 1-
20And God said, LET THE WATERS BRING FORTH ABUNDANTLY the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, WHICH THE WATERS BROUGHT FORTH ABUNDANTLY, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Many Christians accept evolution (theistic evolution they call it). It's certainly not a matter of one's salvation or even heresy. There's many unknowns that we are free to speculate.
My primary concern with brothers who espouse one of the views of theistic evolution is the idea of direct creation. I believe direct creation to be essential for the whole idea of Imago Dei and to fit Gen 1:26.
But it's unfortunate when we create dogma in areas where there is such uncertainty.
coadie
08-23-2010, 06:09 AM
Many Christians accept evolution (theistic evolution they call it). It's certainly not a matter of one's salvation or even heresy. There's many unknowns that we are free to speculate.
My primary concern with brothers who espouse one of the views of theistic evolution is the idea of direct creation. I believe direct creation to be essential for the whole idea of Imago Dei and to fit Gen 1:26.
But it's unfortunate when we create dogma in areas where there is such uncertainty.
For that was Darwin's problem: to establish the plausibility of the very idea of evolution, Darwin felt that he had to undermine the older (and ultimately biblically based) doctrine of species fixity. Stasis, to Darwin, was an ugly inconvenience."
If we study genetics, we see stasis. If we believe Darwin, we can't have species replicated the same way again and again with DNA.
There is gnashing of teeth by evolutionists when we say man did not evolve from unclean beasts or apes.
jfrog
08-23-2010, 06:12 AM
Evolution and the Bible do not agree.
If humans evolved from non-human creatures, then they are no more than intelligent animals.
Also, if humans evolved from lesser developed creatures, instead of simply starting with God making Adam & Eve, then mankind would not have just one set of parents as those lesser creatures would have evolved from groups of non-humans. That would mean that not everyone originated from Adam & Eve and would not have inherited their sin nature and not be in need of salvation, but the Bible says all have sinned.
Evolution is so faulty both on a scientific as well as Biblical level that Christians would really have to be deceived to fall for it.
I'm dying to hear the faulty science in evolution.
coadie
08-23-2010, 06:13 AM
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb[19]
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument
It is fun to see Darwinists make a mandate and then contradict themselves.
jfrog
08-23-2010, 06:16 AM
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument
It is fun to see Darwinists make a mandate and then contradict themselves.
It sounds to me more like he set you straight than contradicted himself... Notice the word watertight?
coadie
08-23-2010, 06:18 AM
I'm dying to hear the faulty science in evolution.
Nice pun.
The crackpot theory of evolution actually says in the beginning life formed from non life. (abiogenesis) Not only did it form itself, it devised internally a scheme to multiply and self replicate. Science claims experiments must be observable. This formation of life from non life has never been observed.
Darwinism also claims survival of the fittest or the stronger killing the weaker and coupled with mutations and selection, new species cause themselves.
coadie
08-23-2010, 06:20 AM
It sounds to me more like he set you straight than contradicted himself...
You are also wrong. It is true the fossil records do not show the transitional species that Darwin said we would find in 150 years. Darwin said if we didn't find the transitionals, his theory was wrong.
jfrog
08-23-2010, 06:48 AM
Nice pun.
The crackpot theory of evolution actually says in the beginning life formed from non life. (abiogenesis) Not only did it form itself, it devised internally a scheme to multiply and self replicate. Science claims experiments must be observable. This formation of life from non life has never been observed.
Darwinism also claims survival of the fittest or the stronger killing the weaker and coupled with mutations and selection, new species cause themselves.
Abiogenesis is not the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't need abiogenesis to be true before it can be true because they are two separate theories that deal with two separate things.
Everything about us that makes us a species is governed by genetics. How much would your genetics have to change before you would stop being human? Well, with only a 1% change you might end up being a chimp.
We know that genetic changes and variations do occur. So given that the question now becomes, is there any natural limit to how much an organisms DNA can change? It shall be the Creationists job as scientists (if they really are) to find if such a limit exists and what that limit is and what causes that limit to exist. If no limit exists then you cannot say that evolution is impossible because it would be very possible without some limit on genetic change.
coadie
08-23-2010, 07:04 AM
"A New York man is linking the suicide of his 22-year-old son, a military veteran who had bright prospects in college, to the anti-Christian book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins after a college professor challenged the son to read it.
"Three people told us he had taken a biology class and was doing well in it, but other students and the professor were really challenging my son, his faith. They didn't like him as a Republican, as a Christian, and as a conservative who believed in intelligent design," the grief-stricken father, Keith Kilgore, told WND about his son, Jesse.
"This professor either assigned him to read or challenged him to read a book, 'The God Delusion,' by Richard Dawkins," he said.
Jesse Kilgore committed suicide in October by walking into the woods near his New York home and shooting himself. Keith Kilgore said he was shocked because he believed his son was grounded in Christianity, had blogged against abortion and for family values, and boasted he'd been debating for years.
Today the leading spokesperson for evolution and atheism is Richard Dawkins.
The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction—jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide. … 2
When it comes to children, I think of religion as a dangerous virus. It’s a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy, but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild. Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of religion.
One thing these evangelists for Darwin and atheism have in common is mocking genesis from the first verse onward.
The famous atheist, Bertrand Russell, said it was the atheist's despair in life that becomes " most gloomy" because what we do in this life has no consequences thus no significance and therefore ALL roads lead to the same ignoble death.
His book "Why I am not a Christian" is riddled with misconceptions re: Christianity. He did not look very diligently into the the Bible's tenets.
coadie
08-23-2010, 07:06 AM
Gould even said in another place that ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed
But as a paleontologist, Gould doesn't have experience with living soft tissue. Just a few remnants of skeletal bones.
jfrog
08-23-2010, 07:10 AM
Abiogenesis is not the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't need abiogenesis to be true before it can be true because they are two separate theories that deal with two separate things.
Everything about us that makes us a species is governed by genetics. How much would your genetics have to change before you would stop being human? Well, with only a 1% change you might end up being a chimp.
We know that genetic changes and variations do occur. So given that the question now becomes, is there any natural limit to how much an organisms DNA can change? It shall be the Creationists job as scientists (if they really are) to find if such a limit exists and what that limit is and what causes that limit to exist. If no limit exists then you cannot say that evolution is impossible because it would be very possible without some limit on genetic change.
Bump for coadie.
coadie
08-23-2010, 07:15 AM
Fairy tales for adults.
The context of Sunderland’s letter to Patterson also needs to be remembered. He was simply asking why Patterson didn’t show even one single picture of any proposed transitional form anywhere in his book. Patterson’s reply made it abundantly clear that if he did, it would be storytelling, not science! In fact, he went on to say in his original letter to Sunderland:
‘It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.’
Note what Patterson said in his response to the anticreationist in question:
‘I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. … I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist’s duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.
coadie
08-23-2010, 07:31 AM
Abiogenesis is not the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't need abiogenesis to be true before it can be true because they are two separate theories that deal with two separate things.
.
Actually you don't know what you are talking about. Abiogenesis is still being taught as a part of evolution theory. I see pretty much around 7 diifferent groups of evolutionists. How would you describe the group you fall into?
Charles Darwin "It is mere rubbish to talk about the origin of life; one might as well talk about the origin of matter."
Spontaneous generation of life was peaked in arguments about 5 years ago.
Most people studied using text books that pushed the Miller-Urey experiments. They were found to be false.
IN THE BEGINNING>
When the bishops from The first church of darwin claim the can explain species and life as we see it, I say start from the beginning. They won't because we all know they can't.
Now they say they never did push the theory of abiogenesis.
They lie.
"In tracking the emergence of the eukaryotic cell, one enters a kind of wonderland where scientific pursuit leads almost to fantasy. Cell and molecular biologists must construct cellular worlds in their own imaginations. ... Imagination, to some degree, is essential for grasping the key events in cellular history." -- B.D. Dyer and R.A. Obar, Tracing the History of Eukaryotic Cells, Columbia University Press 1994, pp. 2 & 3.
Imaginations?
Bible calls them sorcerors.
coadie
08-23-2010, 07:59 AM
Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have.
The theory remains virtually unchanged since its inception in the 1920s, and assumes that life originated at some point in earth's past under conditions no longer present. The tenet of evolution can be summed-up by the phrase "abiogenesis at first biogenesis ever since". It is taught today as a certainty although the exact mechanisms remain theoretical. Discussions in evolutionary biology textbooks go to great lengths to demonstrate how abiogenesis could have occurred under multiple primordial scenarios.
How are we coming with a godless creation?
It is also noteworthy that there is one aspect of evolution that is highly dependent on a theory of abiogenesis—universal common ancestry. There is absolutely no reason to believe that all life is descended from common ancestors unless it is predicated on a specific theory of abiogenesis. Think of it this way—why do evolutionists assume that multicellular life came from unicellular life? There's no fossil evidence of transition
http://www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html
Just another reminder, We have fossils. We do not have old DNA or soft tissue that can be used to show or deny development of new organs and structures. It is all faith and wishfull thinking or sorcery as the bible calls it.
Aquila
08-23-2010, 08:03 AM
Why should christians be so opposed to the idea of God using evolution to create life?
What do you think the scriptures mean by this:
Genesis 1-
20And God said, LET THE WATERS BRING FORTH ABUNDANTLY the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, WHICH THE WATERS BROUGHT FORTH ABUNDANTLY, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24And God said, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH THE LIVING CREATURE after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Personally, I don't believe in the Evolutionary Process, even if one claims it was God's "tool" to accomplish his goal. However, I know very faithful and spiritual Christians who believe this.
coadie
08-23-2010, 08:14 AM
Personally, I don't believe in the Evolutionary Process, even if one claims it was God's "tool" to accomplish his goal. However, I know very faithful and spiritual Christians who believe this.
Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom. In this well-researched work, Schroeder applies the same principle that works so successfully in his Creation Science Seminars.
I have taken 3 graduate classes in genetics from an Ivy League school. This book breaks it down for parents to discuss claims with students at their level.
I have enjoyed watching several church splits in The First Church of Darwin.
Withing 10 years, all the stuff they claim today will be counted as false and something niftier comes along.
Evolution claims matter and energy is self caused and by adding chance and time, we have complex life forms.
coadie
08-23-2010, 08:53 AM
Surely you're sharp enough to consider the figurative nature of the word, "Day" and the considerable evidence that the word represents an "Age."
"Evidence" From a psychologist point of view, this is imagined and wishfull thinking. Since for it to be science, it would have to be observed.
I love the WORD. The serpent was the first example of claiming what God says was "figurative" in expression.
It turned out that God's word to Adam was not merely figurative.
Genesis 3
1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The serpent was the first apologist to tell us to NOT take the word litterally.
How did that work out?
16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
It appears Adam got the death sentence the day he sinned.
We have apologists today that follow the lead of the serpent and battle against a literal reading and understanding of Gods word whether it is history or instructions.
Truth. Were the first chapters of Genesis true or not?
coadie
08-23-2010, 10:39 AM
There is no "Darwinist" interpretation of the Bible. There are sound interpretations and there are unsound interpretations of the Bible.
A "sound interpretation" takes into account the fact that both the Bible's message is real and the world around us is real. The Bible's message is to impact the lives of people in this real world.
Creating a "just pretend" fantasy world will not impact people in the real world.
So under Neo darwinism, we must pretend that Adam was not formed from the earth and the spirit of life was not breathed into him?
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Darwin as did Freud denied the existence of a soul.
The Materialist School began more than 2000 years before Darwin with Thales (640? - 546? BC), who was the founder of Greek philosophy.
http://www.edu365.cat
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
"The core of this synthetic theory restates the two most characteristic assertions of Darwin himself: first, that evolution is a two-stage process (random variation as raw material, natural selection as a directing force); secondly, that evolutionary change is generally slow, steady, gradual, and continuous. . . Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes to the most profound structural transitions in life." (Gould 1980)
"I formed thee" contradicts "random variation"
The law of non contradiction. These expressions can't both be true.
Keep caging your bets and use the word "real" But is Darwinism True?
Was Darwins notion of gemmules true? Ooops.
In America they do not have classes covering evolution in medical schools. If it was both a science and it was relevant, I am sure there would be a reason to study it. Mutations are real. We just can't find mutations creating new structures that are beneficial.
coadie
08-23-2010, 10:41 AM
Colin Patterson
Can you tell us something about evolution that is true?
The molecular patterns he observed, Patterson believes, are thus only data awaiting explanation.
"I therefore believe I was mistaken in thinking that I knew something about molecular evolution," he writes. "Instead, I know (or have learned) something about the properties of molecular data, and those properties are amongst the things that must be explained by evolutionary theory."
Patterson concludes:
...I mentioned a question ('Can you tell me anything you know about evolution?') that I have put to various biologists, and an answer that had been given: 'I know that evolution generates hierarchy.' In the framework of phylogenetic reconstruction and our current problems with it, another answer comes to mind: 'I know that evolution generates homoplasy' [or "convergence," in the older jargon of systematics]. In both cases, the answer is not quite accurate. It would be truer to say, 'I know that evolution explains hierarchy' or 'I know that evolution explains homoplasy.' We must remember the distinction between the cart--the explanation--and the horse--the data. And where models are introduced in phylogenetic reconstruction, we should prefer models dictated by features of the data to models derived from explanatory theories.
Failure of the wisdom of man. 'Can you tell me anything about evolution, any one thing that is true?'
coadie
08-23-2010, 12:11 PM
nuance
It is difficult for neo-Darwinism to explain the appearance of embryological coordinating genes before the appearance of the embryological steps they coordinate. It's like saying that the blueprints for automobile manufacturing plants were on hand before the invention of automobiles.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 12:35 PM
Boo Hiss!
Lol, I saw your reply in the Mosque thread, not ignoring it. It just takes me longer to respond than most. That and I tend to avoid the internets on the weekend. lol.
LOL. That's not what I meant. I just wanted to say "Hi" before signing off for the night.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 01:09 PM
The Luciferian globalists promote the deception of evolution, Satan has been trying to get people to doubt God's Word since the garden of Eden. High level freemasonry acknowledges Lucifer as the one they serve, and it is interesting how many high level freemasons have been involved in promoting evolution.
You should be able to rattle quite a few right off the top off your head then... gimme, say 5 or 10 names.
Here is an excerpt from an article I found:
Years later, Charles Darwin would inherit his grandfather's ideas and the basic outlines for the proposal of his theory of evolution. Charles Darwin's theory elaborated upon the structure established by his grandfather, while the Philosophical Society became one of the greatest and most passionate supporters of his theory. ...
hmm... no link for that article. BroGary, folks usually will include a link back to an article they cut-and-paste from so that others can evaluate the whole thing in context for themselves as well as identify the author and look at his/her motives in writing the piece.
In this case you have chosen a particular article that has been "cut-and-pasted" all over the Internet - AND the author is someone with well known motives of Jihad both in America and around the world.
How do you personally feel about Jihad, BroGary? Are you a big supporter? Here's your author after even the Turkish authorities found him to be too dangerous and unstable:
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/pelathais/AdnanOktar_hastane.jpg
The man in the center is your author, Adnan Oktar, during his "stay" at the Bakirkoy Mental Hospital in Istanbul.
Erasmus Darwin did not "invent evolution" through his ties to Scottish Free Masonry. During his life time the dream of an independent Scotland was already forever lost in the "Act of Union" with the "kingdoms" of Great Britain, Wales and Ireland. Masonry, then as now, was more of a drinking club where "gentlemen of leisure" could ruminate. As Scots, most of their ruminations no doubt centered around the fact that they were unable to successfully preserve their liberties. So much for Erasmus' supposed Machiavellian prowess.
Erasmus Darwin was a highly successful physician and surgeon (the field his grandson Charles was going to enter until he fainted at the first sight of a human dissection). Erasmus "learned his evolution" through the careful study of human anatomy, pathology and his medical practice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%B6nomia).
Your buddy, Adnan Oktar (whom you purposefully hid from us), "learned his evolution" while studying Jihad in a Turkish mental hospital.
Let everyone draw their own conclusions from this.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 01:25 PM
Evolution and the Bible do not agree.
If humans evolved from non-human creatures, then they are no more than intelligent animals.
Psalm 8:4-9
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
Ecclesiastes 3:18-21
I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Romans 9:20
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"
pelathais
08-23-2010, 01:39 PM
Also, if humans evolved from lesser developed creatures, instead of simply starting with God making Adam & Eve, then mankind would not have just one set of parents as those lesser creatures would have evolved from groups of non-humans. That would mean that not everyone originated from Adam & Eve and would not have inherited their sin nature and not be in need of salvation, but the Bible says all have sinned.
Science has an answer for your confusion - AND it fits the Bible's testimony quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
I know it sounds presumptuous to you right now, but I think that you really should drop these notions of yours and adopt a more Biblical world view. One that recognizes reality and embraces the truth of the Bible's teachings. Science AND the Bible. The problem really only exists in your head.
The earth, the fossils, history, the human body - everything testifies that God made this world - and that He made it all happened over the course of billions of years. God Himself left His "fingerprints" in the very atoms and their decay rates that tell us just how old the earth is.
Evolution is so faulty both on a scientific as well as Biblical level that Christians would really have to be deceived to fall for it.
No. Sadly, the deception is in the human tradition and the all too human condition of being Reactionary. When the Enlightenment arrived in Europe (a movement born of Christian thought and theology that also spawned the Reformation) there was a strong reaction against "the Light" and Bible Fundamentalism was reborn - after having been disproved in earlier centuries by Christians and all but abandoned.
Anglican Bishop James Ussher introduced the notion that the earth was just "6,000 years old" in 1648. (Anglican Bishops today propose the acceptation and even the ordination of homosexuals - where did they "get this idea?" Using your methodology, I suppose we can trace it back to the idea of a "6,000 year old earth! LOL).
I ask AGAIN! Why wasn't this notion of "Ussher's Chronology" advanced in the previous 1,618 years of Christian Theology?
Why did this novelty arise at this period of time? Why do some still cling to it as though it were some how some "ancient" doctrine? It's a comparative novelty.
coadie
08-23-2010, 01:42 PM
The Eugenie Scott Darwinist wants to placate religious believers by assuring them that they can be good followers of their faith as well as good Darwinists.
http://ncse.com/about
NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out. Eugenie is not only afraid, she is wicked. She is scared of classrooms allowing questions that embarass the Darwinists and expose dishonesty.
\
This means inclusive. You can have a golden calf.
Eugenie is America's leading atheist.
Kate Wilcox of Scientific American writes of Scott:
Thomas Henry Huxley was the 19th century biologist known as "Darwin's bulldog" for his defense of the great scientist's ideas. The 21st century has a counterpart in the woman who describes herself as "Darwin's golden retriever." Eugenie Scott has emerged as one of the most prominent advocates for keeping evolution an integral part of the curriculum in public schools.
http://www.icr.org/article/4749/
Dr. Scott has won numerous awards and many honorary degrees, mostly for her "public service" in defending evolutionism and disdaining creationism. One of her awards in 1999, oddly enough, was given by the Hugh Hefner Foundation (named for the founder of Playboy) for her efforts in defending the First Amendment! (She later sat as one of the judges on the 2006 Hefner Foundation committee.)
Neo darwinism is survival of the fittest. The hedonists dream.
Eugenie is just another culture warrior and evangelizes using converts that say this is not true:
John 1:3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Good old Jezebel spirit. She will attack when she sees a school allows questioning of Darwinism.
coadie
08-23-2010, 02:02 PM
More from the bible.
Dagon was the god of the Philistines. This image shows that the idol was represented in the combination of both man and fish. The name "Dagon" is derived from "dag" which means "fish."
Sorcery tells a half man half fish became a man.
In theory first there were fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and then mammals
Fish have scales and gills. Of course we can't work out how a 2 chambered fish heart can become a 4 chambered mammal heart.
There are no transitional fossils. It is expected we take it on faith.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 02:03 PM
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument
It is fun to see Darwinists make a mandate and then contradict themselves.
It's amazing that you have the presumption to "lay it on the line" when you haven't even responded to anything I've said here.
Remember? This is what caused you to bust a vein and be forced to take a "vacation" last time: I simply repeated my questions and asked you to address them before moving on.
BEFORE we address fossils, let's deal with the items you have ALREADY "laid on the line!"
YOU have repeatedly said:
...
I take it you do not understand evolution. You do seem to understand speciation. But that creates no new structures. Evolution has said that it is by reason of mutations that we have change over time. Of course out of 800,000 mutations, 1 is beneficial. The rest are detrimental and out of those most are fatal.
No one can show a way in which a 3 chamber heart can in a single step scoot the pulmonary artery to the aorta without killing the animal. But they say 4 chambered hearts came from 3 chambered hearts ...
I have responded with:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747104/ - "Xenopus" is an order of frogs.
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2009/09/02/secrets_of_the_4_chambers_revealed_by_reptile_hear ts.html
The expression or repression of a single enzyme during fetal development determines the development of either a three or a four chambered heart.
Amphibians preserve the "three chambered heart" in modern times. Mammals typically have a "four chambered heart." Reptiles exist as a "middle ground" between the two. Sounds like "evolution" to me.
Sometimes humans are born with a "three chambered heart" because either environmental or genetic factors interfere with the expression of the gene that produces this enzyme during fetal development. To understand this and other aspects of human heart disease, doctors and other researchers are focusing on the way that reptilian hearts develop to find ways to prevent and better treat human heart disease. (PUH-LEEZ! BroGary - DO NOT bring up your buddy David Icke on this point! :smack :ursofunny).
C'mon coadie... answer the question. Why was my nephew born with an "amphibian" style three chamber heart which is fixable by a single "one step" surgical process. You said that there wasn't any "one step" between the three and the four chambered hearts.
* You don't need to move aortas around or anything like that. You just need to graft in heart tissue to form another septum in the right place and thus form the "missing chamber. It's not a "chamber" that is "missing." It's a septum that has either grown or failed to grow during fetal development.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 02:20 PM
You are also wrong. It is true the fossil records do not show the transitional species that Darwin said we would find in 150 years. Darwin said if we didn't find the transitionals, his theory was wrong.
Everyone but coadie - take a look at this "list." ... and it's only a partial list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
There is a good discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Here is a fuller explanation focusing upon only "vertebrate fossils."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
pelathais
08-23-2010, 02:26 PM
Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom. In this well-researched work, Schroeder applies the same principle that works so successfully in his Creation Science Seminars.
I have taken 3 graduate classes in genetics from an Ivy League school. This book breaks it down for parents to discuss claims with students at their level.
...
:ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny No you haven't. :ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny
Of course, it would be easy for you to prove me wrong; and, quite frankly I'd be fascinated to see how someone with your distemper would get along in a real academic environment.
But still, the level of ignorance toward complex issues like genetics and the deception you have practiced in the past clearly indicates that you have almost certainly never successfully navigated the corridors of any reputable post secondary institution. But, I could be wrong... prove it.
Or better yet, why don't you just address my questions concerning your assertions about the "three chambered heart." This is right in your field of post graduate study. You should have been able to rattle something off last winter or spring (how long was your "vacation?") when we first discussed this.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 02:31 PM
Folks, can someone explain to me why coadie's type and style of presenting his side of this debate holds sway with so many OPs?
It really makes no sense at all. ... or did I just answer my own question?
Seriously, from others, why do you reject the prevalent view of biological evolution (if you do so)?
pelathais
08-23-2010, 02:33 PM
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument
It is fun to see Darwinists make a mandate and then contradict themselves.
coadie attempts to "represent" the views of a genuine "Ivy League" professor. Here's what that "Ivy Leaguer" had to say for himself on this issue:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb
pelathais
08-23-2010, 02:42 PM
The Eugenie Scott Darwinist wants to placate religious believers by assuring them that they can be good followers of their faith as well as good Darwinists.
...
Before we move on to Eugenie Scott, how about if you utilize your "Ivy League" "education" in genetics and respond to:
...
I ask AGAIN! Why wasn't this notion of "Ussher's Chronology" advanced in the previous 1,618 years of Christian Theology?
Why did this novelty arise at this period of time? Why do some still cling to it as though it were some how some "ancient" doctrine? It's a comparative novelty.
...
With regard to the Miller-Urey experiment - it was hardly a failure. It was never intended to "create life." Rather, it was intended to find ways that complex organic molecules (the "building blocks of life") might arise naturally.
In this regard it was a complete success.
...
...
1) Answer the "creation of horses, donkeys and mules" question. This must fit within a framework of the rigid "interpretation" of "after their kind" in Genesis 1.
2) Answer the "three/four chambered heart" conundrum that you brought up yourself. Respond to the information concerning vertebrate heart evolution that I provided.
...
Neo darwinism is survival of the fittest. The hedonists dream.
No, that is not what "Neo Darwinism" ever says. And, just how could a life long battle and struggle be "the hedonists dream?" I thought "hedonists" like Hefner just wanted to take it easy and "par-tay."
pelathais
08-23-2010, 02:45 PM
More from the bible.
Sorcery tells a half man half fish became a man.
In theory first there were fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and then mammals
Fish have scales and gills. Of course we can't work out how a 2 chambered fish heart can become a 4 chambered mammal heart.
There are no transitional fossils. It is expected we take it on faith.
SIGH!
I have responded with:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747104/ - "Xenopus" is an order of frogs.
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/...le_hearts.html
Now, coadie, you must respond to that.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 02:55 PM
I realize that "coadie" has now shifted into that gear that ultimately gets him banned from Christian and Apostolic forums. Sad.
But he is following the same pattern of deception that folks like Arlo Moehlenpah, Steve and Dana Grohman, Ken Ham, the currently incarcerated fraud "Dr Dino" Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and the now anonymous leaders of the "Institute for Creation Research." (Why the current anonymity, dudes?)
They just attempt to fill up the public discourse with unsupportable and ridiculous assertions. They will never respond to honest questions. If you try to "hold their feet to the fire" and insist upon a dialog - they act just like coadie and bust a vein.
Again, why do otherwise intelligent Oneness people even give any credence to this fraud?
Arlo? Steve? Why do you perpetrate such a fraud on Apostolic people?
I never get an answer. It's all just like Lee Stoneking's fraudulent claims to have earned a "Doctorate." You call them on it - you even call them on the phone and send email. No response at all to the charges of "fraud." What do these guys really know that they aren't telling?
pelathais
08-23-2010, 03:07 PM
More from the bible.
Sorcery tells a half man half fish became a man.
In theory first there were fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and then mammals
Fish have scales and gills. Of course we can't work out how a 2 chambered fish heart can become a 4 chambered mammal heart.
There are no transitional fossils. It is expected we take it on faith.
I counted 173 examples of "transitional fossils" discovered since the publication of "Origin of Species" given on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
coadie, or anyone - select just 10% of this list - 17 fossils "that don't exist" and demonstrate to us all just why they do not represent "transitional fossils" as Charles Darwin had predicted would be discovered.
You don't even have to have "studied" genetics at the post graduate level at an "Ivy League" university as coadie claims he has done.
(Still waiting for proof on that, too, coadie).
BroGary
08-23-2010, 03:23 PM
You should be able to rattle quite a few right off the top off your head then... gimme, say 5 or 10 names.
hmm... no link for that article. BroGary, folks usually will include a link back to an article they cut-and-paste from so that others can evaluate the whole thing in context for themselves as well as identify the author and look at his/her motives in writing the piece.
In this case you have chosen a particular article that has been "cut-and-pasted" all over the Internet - AND the author is someone with well known motives of Jihad both in America and around the world.
How do you personally feel about Jihad, BroGary? Are you a big supporter? Here's your author after even the Turkish authorities found him to be too dangerous and unstable:
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/pelathais/AdnanOktar_hastane.jpg
The man in the center is your author, Adnan Oktar, during his "stay" at the Bakirkoy Mental Hospital in Istanbul.
Erasmus Darwin did not "invent evolution" through his ties to Scottish Free Masonry. During his life time the dream of an independent Scotland was already forever lost in the "Act of Union" with the "kingdoms" of Great Britain, Wales and Ireland. Masonry, then as now, was more of a drinking club where "gentlemen of leisure" could ruminate. As Scots, most of their ruminations no doubt centered around the fact that they were unable to successfully preserve their liberties. So much for Erasmus' supposed Machiavellian prowess.
Erasmus Darwin was a highly successful physician and surgeon (the field his grandson Charles was going to enter until he fainted at the first sight of a human dissection). Erasmus "learned his evolution" through the careful study of human anatomy, pathology and his medical practice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%B6nomia).
Your buddy, Adnan Oktar (whom you purposefully hid from us), "learned his evolution" while studying Jihad in a Turkish mental hospital.
Let everyone draw their own conclusions from this.
I did not purposefully hide him, I did not even give him any specific thought, besides even if we don't agree with all the beliefs or actions of a writer does not negate everything they write.
The fact remains is that high level freemasonry is Luciferian and therefore want evolution promoted to help cause people to doubt the God of the Bible.
BroGary
08-23-2010, 03:28 PM
Science has an answer for your confusion - AND it fits the Bible's testimony quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
I know it sounds presumptuous to you right now, but I think that you really should drop these notions of yours and adopt a more Biblical world view. One that recognizes reality and embraces the truth of the Bible's teachings. Science AND the Bible. The problem really only exists in your head.
The earth, the fossils, history, the human body - everything testifies that God made this world - and that He made it all happened over the course of billions of years. God Himself left His "fingerprints" in the very atoms and their decay rates that tell us just how old the earth is.
No. Sadly, the deception is in the human tradition and the all too human condition of being Reactionary. When the Enlightenment arrived in Europe (a movement born of Christian thought and theology that also spawned the Reformation) there was a strong reaction against "the Light" and Bible Fundamentalism was reborn - after having been disproved in earlier centuries by Christians and all but abandoned.
Anglican Bishop James Ussher introduced the notion that the earth was just "6,000 years old" in 1648. (Anglican Bishops today propose the acceptation and even the ordination of homosexuals - where did they "get this idea?" Using your methodology, I suppose we can trace it back to the idea of a "6,000 year old earth! LOL).
I ask AGAIN! Why wasn't this notion of "Ussher's Chronology" advanced in the previous 1,618 years of Christian Theology?
Why did this novelty arise at this period of time? Why do some still cling to it as though it were some how some "ancient" doctrine? It's a comparative novelty.
I genuinely feel sorry for all of you who have been so easily deceived by the Luciferian globalists and are being used as pawns to help further their anti-Bible agenda.
I don't know if anyone has asked any of you evolutionists this direct question, but do any of you really believe that man was not created as man but evolved from lesser non-human creatures ?
OnTheFritz
08-23-2010, 03:56 PM
Pel, I don't have time to go through any of this at the moment, but am enjoying your posts. Coadie: keep up the half-fish, half-man posts. I'm enjoying your loony tunes take on the situation :thumbsup
coadie
08-23-2010, 04:04 PM
Pel, I don't have time to go through any of this at the moment, but am enjoying your posts. Coadie: keep up the half-fish, half-man posts. I'm enjoying your loony tunes take on the situation :thumbsup
Isn't it hilarious how superstitious people think animals have spirits and change?
Cat-fish, bull-frogs and a few others are "transitional" species.
coadie
08-23-2010, 04:11 PM
I genuinely feel sorry for all of you who have been so easily deceived by the Luciferian globalists and are being used as pawns to help further their anti-Bible agenda.
I don't know if anyone has asked any of you evolutionists this direct question, but do any of you really believe that man was not created as man but evolved from lesser non-human creatures ?
Furthermore, natural selection functions not only between races, but also among individuals within races. Here, oddly enough, Darwin maintained that savage man has an advantage over civilized man. In savage man, the intellectual and moral qualities are not as developed, but such lack actually works to weed out the unfit: "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health." Unfortunately, the very development of human compassion which serves to mark the Europeans as more civilized also works against the principle of survival of the fittest.
Darwin laid the ground work for Hitler. Hitler wanted to accelerate the superior races.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world.
Charles Darwin
OnTheFritz
08-23-2010, 05:02 PM
Isn't it hilarious how superstitious people think animals have spirits and change?
Cat-fish, bull-frogs and a few others are "transitional" species.
Umm hmm. Yep. Hilarious.
coadie
08-23-2010, 05:07 PM
I counted 173 examples of "transitional fossils" discovered since the publication of "Origin of Species" given on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
coadie, or anyone - select just 10% of this list - 17 fossils "that don't exist" and demonstrate to us all just why they do not represent "transitional fossils" as Charles Darwin had predicted would be discovered.
You don't even have to have "studied" genetics at the post graduate level at an "Ivy League" university as coadie claims he has done.
(Still waiting for proof on that, too, coadie).
That means we are several billions short for transitionals.
But where is the "transitional" for a 3 to 4 chambered heart?
Make something up???
coadie
08-23-2010, 05:10 PM
Before we move on to Eugenie Scott, how about if you utilize your "Ivy League" "education" in genetics and respond to:
No, that is not what "Neo Darwinism" ever says. And, just how could a life long battle and struggle be "the hedonists dream?" I thought "hedonists" like Hefner just wanted to take it easy and "par-tay."
Materialists don't have consequences for for acting like apes in the jungle.
That is why the evolutionists despise the concept of a Creator. He set rules for Adam and Eve. Just one.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 05:14 PM
That means we are several billions short for transitionals.
But where is the "transitional" for a 3 to 4 chambered heart?
Make something up???
You still haven't responded to my repeated requests for an answer to that one:
SIGH!
I have responded with:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747104/ - "Xenopus" is an order of frogs.
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/...le_hearts.html
Now, coadie, you must respond to that.
Try to focus, Little Buddy. Focus.
Even an amoeba will respond to external stimuli. I was hoping for a little more "evolved" answer from you.
By the way - we're all still keen on seeing some proof that you studied genetics at an "Ivy League school." You made the assertion. Now prove it.
coadie
08-23-2010, 05:18 PM
I realize that "coadie" has now shifted into that gear that ultimately gets him banned from Christian and Apostolic forums. Sad.
But he is following the same pattern of deception that folks like Arlo Moehlenpah, Steve and Dana Grohman, Ken Ham, the currently incarcerated fraud "Dr Dino" Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and the now anonymous leaders of the "Institute for Creation Research." (Why the current anonymity, dudes?)
They just attempt to fill up the public discourse with unsupportable and ridiculous assertions. They will never respond to honest questions. If you try to "hold their feet to the fire" and insist upon a dialog - they act just like coadie and bust a vein.
Again, why do otherwise intelligent Oneness people even give any credence to this fraud?
Arlo? Steve? Why do you perpetrate such a fraud on Apostolic people?
I never get an answer. It's all just like Lee Stoneking's fraudulent claims to have earned a "Doctorate." You call them on it - you even call them on the phone and send email. No response at all to the charges of "fraud." What do these guys really know that they aren't telling?
Who are these people you mention?
Is this because you can't address biological issues?
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument
Looks like Gould and wiki and yourself struggle to get your stories straight.
I know you are unable to take genetic samples on these "fossils" the wiki claims are transitional.
Wiki is not a science source worthy of mention.
When you speak of deceptions, are we talking Piltdown man?
pelathais
08-23-2010, 05:48 PM
Materialists don't have consequences for for acting like apes in the jungle.
That is why the evolutionists despise the concept of a Creator. He set rules for Adam and Eve. Just one.
I don't really have any confidence that coadie will supply any accurate information - let alone any coherent information on this topic. Last time we tried this he hopelessly spun out of control and into the abyss.
But, his rants do touch on items that some folks may simply not have had any opportunity to look into for themselves... so, we'll take advantage of this circus performance of his to look at some of these thoughts.
There is a common idea that "If man evolved from animals, what's wrong with him 'acting like an animal?'" What keeps humans (most humans) from deteriorating into an "animal state" of aggression of violence?
This is a question that's been debated since ancient times - even before the advent of the Bible and Christian thought on the matter. It is a complex but interesting discussion.
First of all, let's consider the scientific terminology on the matter of evolution. A "species" is usually defined as a specific category of organisms that are capable of breeding with one another. The word "species" is a noun.
Do you know what the adjective form of this same root word is? The root word for "species?" It's "special." Human beings are a "species," and they are "special." Of course, with regard to taxonomic categories, every "species" is "special" in it's own way. But focusing on the human species, we are immediately presented with the idea that we are a "special" and unique organism.
This isn't always understood. When the Phoenician explorers under Hanno attempted to first circumnavigate the African continent they record this experience:
" At the end of it was an island like the first one, with a lake in which was another island full of savages. The greater parts of these were women. They had hairy bodies and the interpreters called them Gorillas. We pursued some of the males but we could not catch a single one because they were good climbers and they defended themselves fiercely. However, we managed to take three women. They bit and scratched their captors, whom they did not want to follow. We killed them and removed the skins to take back to Carthage. We sailed no further, being short of supplies."
http://phoenicia.org/proutes.html
The unfortunate Phoenicians thought they were pursuing "savage" humans when attacking a band of gorillas. They simply had no idea what they were dealing with. They couldn't "tell the difference" between man and ape due to the similarities.
... continued ...
Bowas
08-23-2010, 05:54 PM
I quite agree. Science is pure rubbish as all we need to know is what has been handed down to us from our "Biblical scholars and teachers". I have even heard tell there are some out there claiming the sciences (so called) are claiming that not only is the earth not flat, but in fact the sun, moon and stars do not revolve around the earth. Hahaha. Boy, if only we had a way to excummicate them.
Anyway, let's not let the sciences cloud what we have always been taught, even though it may not actually say it specifically in the Bible, we have an image to maintain and everyone knows Christians and science do not mix. After all, it does say "come out from amoung them" and "we are a peculiar people" so lets live up to it to the fullest.
I will start by stating, "I am more peculiar than you, so there!!!"
pelathais
08-23-2010, 05:57 PM
... continued ...
Human beings have evolved in communities and have developed traits and behaviors whereby they will actually sacrifice their own individuality and even their lives in favor of the group. This is called "altruism."
We also see altruism in animal species. The plover bird will walk along the ground and fake injury to lure predators away from its nest. Mothers of many species will often fight to the death to protect their young. The "strategy" here is one of survival of the species over the survival of the individual.
In human beings, the greatest heroes of every culture is the hero who sacrifices himself/herself for the good of the community or other groups. The ultimate example here is, of course, Jesus Christ. He sacrificed Himself for the good of all humanity.
So, why don't most people go out and "run in the jungle like apes" as coadie desires to see? It's because people are not apes. They are human beings. Human beings act and behave differently than apes because we are a different species than apes.
We could also look a bit more closely at the "apes in the jungle" and we would find that their behavior is actually rather complex and despite some very brutal behavior, they will practice forms of altruism as well.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 06:05 PM
Who are these people you mention?
Is this because you can't address biological issues?
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument
Looks like Gould and wiki and yourself struggle to get your stories straight.
I know you are unable to take genetic samples on these "fossils" the wiki claims are transitional.
Wiki is not a science source worthy of mention.
When you speak of deceptions, are we talking Piltdown man?
You know very well who most of them are, so put down the crack pipe, click on the following link concerning what Stephen J. Gould really said, and go from there.
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=954084
coadie attempts to "represent" the views of a genuine "Ivy League" professor. Here's what that "Ivy Leaguer" had to say for himself on this issue:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb
I'm still waiting for you to actually engage and respond to anything that I've said (again). In the mean time keep rattling on. You are shaming and embarrassing more people into examining this issue than I ever could by reasoning with them. That's how I came to the conclusions that I am sharing now. I was humiliated by having to share the platform and pulpit with a bunch of hillbillies who had never even bothered to investigate this matter for themselves. And then they make false claims about "studying" at "Ivy League schools" and such. I honestly couldn't take the shame and embarrassment any longer.
Jason B
08-23-2010, 06:13 PM
I'm dying to hear the faulty science in evolution.
"No one + No thing =everything" -John MacArthur on Evolution
Jason B
08-23-2010, 06:14 PM
Pel, do you believe God literally created ADAM as the first human being?
jfrog
08-23-2010, 06:22 PM
"No one + No thing =everything" -John MacArthur on Evolution
Is that man even a scientist? Does he have a degree in any of the sciences? Does he have a degree in biology or anything related? If not then why listen to him on matters of science?
pelathais
08-23-2010, 06:24 PM
Pel, do you believe God literally created ADAM as the first human being?
Yes. "Literally created."
To be clear, I also believe that God "literally created" you and I in a similar manner, "from the dust of the earth."
Jason B
08-23-2010, 06:28 PM
Yes. "Literally created."
To be clear, I also believe that God "literally created" you and I in a similar manner, "from the dust of the earth."
So you reject the theory that ADAM was simply a metaphoric term for humanity (but there was not personal ADAM who related to God), but you believe that all else in the first few chapters of Genesis was essentially poetic or figurative?
pelathais
08-23-2010, 06:29 PM
"No one + No thing =everything" -John MacArthur on Evolution
Is that man even a scientist? Does he have a degree in any of the sciences? Does he have a degree in biology or anything related? If not then why listen to him on matters of science?
I'm certain that he's a very nice man, however Jason; given the amount of vomit that MacArthur compels you to expel on other issues, is he really the best source of information for you?
Timmy
08-23-2010, 06:32 PM
Yes. "Literally created."
To be clear, I also believe that God "literally created" you and I in a similar manner, "from the dust of the earth."
Did He form Eve from one of Adam's ribs?
coadie
08-23-2010, 06:32 PM
Is that man even a scientist? Does he have a degree in any of the sciences? Does he have a degree in biology or anything related? If not then why listen to him on matters of science?
Now now.
Charles Darwin did get a degree. The bad news it was in theology.
:spit
He of course didn't use a microscope. Kids in middle school today have microscopes.
Charles Darwin had a very captivating story telling writing style.
coadie
08-23-2010, 06:34 PM
I'm certain that he's a very nice man, however Jason; given the amount of vomit that MacArthur compels you to expel on other issues, is he really the best source of information for you?
:grampa
coadie
08-23-2010, 06:39 PM
So you reject the theory that ADAM was simply a metaphoric term for humanity (but there was not personal ADAM who related to God), but you believe that all else in the first few chapters of Genesis was essentially poetic or figurative?
Instead of saying it isn't true, they use words like poetic, metaphor, parable and figurative.
John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 06:42 PM
So you reject the theory that ADAM was simply a metaphoric term for humanity (but there was not personal ADAM who related to God), but you believe that all else in the first few chapters of Genesis was essentially poetic or figurative?
I don't quite follow what you are saying, asking or telling me what I believe here.
I believe that all human beings are literally descended from one single breeding pair as described in Genesis 1, and Genesis 2. The accounts of creation in Genesis are a compilation of different original works that were composed by Hebrew writers during the pre-Exilic Kingdom period of Israel's history. These accounts were redacted (compiled together with a supporting narrative) in the time of Ezra the Scribe as an etiology for the claims to the land that the returning Exiles were seeking to assert.
"Adam" can be a "metaphoric term for humanity" (Psalm 8:4, Hebrew = "what is 'adam' that thou art mindful of him...?"). However, modern genetic studies have clearly proven that all of the human race alive today (and alive in antiquity) descended from a single breeding pair of "parents.' Literally, as in "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare..."
That's how you and I ultimately got here, Brother.
coadie
08-23-2010, 06:44 PM
"No one + No thing =everything" -John MacArthur on Evolution
Matter plus chance plus time are the 3 ingredients in evolution. From the primordial soup to athletes. Muck to mallards.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 06:48 PM
Did He form Eve from one of Adam's ribs?
How was Jason "formed?" From the biological contributions of others.
The Biblical account is true - it just was never intended to be understood as a literal account like God making things from an Easy Bake Oven kit.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 06:50 PM
Instead of saying it isn't true, they use words like poetic, metaphor, parable and figurative.
John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
Scroll back further and respond to some of the questions and posts I directed to you before you take up anything new or else I'm going to call you a "Ninny."
Jason B
08-23-2010, 06:54 PM
I don't quite follow what you are saying, asking or telling me what I believe here.
I believe that all human beings are literally descended from one single breeding pair as described in Genesis 1, and Genesis 2. The accounts of creation in Genesis are a compilation of different original works that were composed by Hebrew writers during the pre-Exilic Kingdom period of Israel's history. These accounts were redacted (compiled together with a supporting narrative) in the time of Ezra the Scribe as an etiology for the claims to the land that the returning Exiles were seeking to assert.
"Adam" can be a "metaphoric term for humanity" (Psalm 8:4, Hebrew = "what is 'adam' that thou art mindful of him...?"). However, modern genetic studies have clearly proven that all of the human race alive today (and alive in antiquity) descended from a single breeding pair of "parents.' Literally, as in "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare..."
That's how you and I ultimately got here, Brother.
Pel, I wasn't trying to tell you what you believe. I was asking WHY you believe in the literal account of the creation of Adam and Eve, yet don't take the creation account as literal. I don't think you can seperate them.
Am I understanding you correctly that you believe the creation account is not original to Genesis but was put in AFTER the Babylonian Captivity? Therefore it is not part of Moses' writings, but an interpolation to the Hebrew scriptures?!
coadie
08-23-2010, 06:55 PM
I realize that "coadie" has now shifted into that gear that ultimately gets him banned from Christian and Apostolic forums. Sad.
But he is following the same pattern of deception that folks like Arlo Moehlenpah, Steve and Dana Grohman, Ken Ham, the currently incarcerated fraud "Dr Dino" Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and the now anonymous leaders of the "Institute for Creation Research." (Why the current anonymity, dudes?)
They just attempt to fill up the public discourse with unsupportable and ridiculous assertions. They will never respond to honest questions. If you try to "hold their feet to the fire" and insist upon a dialog - they act just like coadie and bust a vein.
Again, why do otherwise intelligent Oneness people even give any credence to this fraud? Which fraud? soup to goo to you?
Arlo? Steve? Why do you perpetrate such a fraud on Apostolic people?
I never get an answer. It's all just like Lee Stoneking's fraudulent claims to have earned a "Doctorate." You call them on it - you even call them on the phone and send email. No response at all to the charges of "fraud." What do these guys really know that they aren't telling?
When did you talk to any of those people? I googled them
None are atheists and none appear to buy into Darwinism. That means you think they are inferiior to you.
On the now shuttered Dawkins discussion boards, the atheists/evolutionists had a cocky arrogance that is like Dawkins.
Dawkins won't debate in public.
I can't recall someone evangelizing for evolution that doesn't claim to be intellectually superior.
In addition to the monster egos, why are they so insecure in regards to schools commenting on creation in class?
Jason B
08-23-2010, 06:56 PM
How was Jason "formed?" From the biological contributions of others.
The Biblical account is true - it just was never intended to be understood as a literal account like God making things from an Easy Bake Oven kit.
:pullhair
coadie
08-23-2010, 07:03 PM
Pel, I wasn't trying to tell you what you believe. I was asking WHY you believe in the literal account of the creation of Adam and Eve, yet don't take the creation account as literal. I don't think you can seperate them.
Am I understanding you correctly that you believe the creation account is not original to Genesis but was put in AFTER the Babylonian Captivity? Therefore it is not part of Moses' writings, but an interpolation to the Hebrew scriptures?!
This is cherry picking the bible.
Hugh Ross is a heavy duty Old earth advocate.
On a tape Dr. Ross says, "Science and the Bible totally agree concerning the initial condition of planet earth, that the earth began with an atmosphere dominated by ammonia and methane." Where does the Bible say that?
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm
pelathais
08-23-2010, 07:08 PM
Pel, I wasn't trying to tell you what you believe. I was asking WHY you believe in the literal account of the creation of Adam and Eve, yet don't take the creation account as literal. I don't think you can seperate them.
Am I understanding you correctly that you believe the creation account is not original to Genesis but was put in AFTER the Babylonian Captivity? Therefore it is not part of Moses' writings, but an interpolation to the Hebrew scriptures?!
The creation accounts (there are two distinct though related accounts) predate the Exile. These accounts along with many other inspired Hebrew literary works, which includes the Law of Moses, were collected together by the Sopherim (scribes) lead by Ezra the Scribe (Sopher - Ezra 7:1-6) in the post Exile period (around 444 BC).
Also, when it comes to the "literal creation" of Adam and Eve I am speaking of the process whereby their much more primitive progenitors developed along the lines as described by the evolutionary model. This is how God literally created them - and you and I.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 07:09 PM
When did you talk to any of those people? I googled them
None are atheists and none appear to buy into Darwinism. That means you think they are inferiior to you.
On the now shuttered Dawkins discussion boards, the atheists/evolutionists had a cocky arrogance that is like Dawkins.
Dawkins won't debate in public.
I can't recall someone evangelizing for evolution that doesn't claim to be intellectually superior.
In addition to the monster egos, why are they so insecure in regards to schools commenting on creation in class?
Ninny.
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=954158&postcount=112
coadie
08-23-2010, 07:18 PM
How was Jason "formed?" From the biological contributions of others.
The Biblical account is true - it just was never intended to be understood as a literal account like God making things from an Easy Bake Oven kit.
So you know the intentions of the scripture? Toss in an easy bake oven for special effects.
Sounds like Joseph Smith when he re wrote genesis. He knew what God had intended.
So there was no Literal Garden of Eden.
No literal fall of man.
No killing by cain.
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
When people go for evolution theory, they now have the authority to call this information as false.
1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
The serpent says to not take this litterally.
16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
They reject the curse. You can do or eat anything that feels good or tastes good. ( Pel says it wasn't intended to be understood literally)
coadie
08-23-2010, 07:24 PM
The creation accounts (there are two distinct though related accounts) predate the Exile. These accounts along with many other inspired Hebrew literary works, which includes the Law of Moses, were collected together by the Sopherim (scribes) lead by Ezra the Scribe (Sopher - Ezra 7:1-6) in the post Exile period (around 444 BC).
Also, when it comes to the "literal creation" of Adam and Eve I am speaking of the process whereby their much more primitive progenitors developed along the lines as described by the evolutionary model. This is how God literally created them - and you and I.
Give us a reason to take your assertions literally.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
They make up that death was around but not really death death.:bliss
pelathais
08-23-2010, 07:38 PM
Give us a reason to take your assertions literally.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
They make up that death was around but not really death death.:bliss
You haven't answered or responded to a single thing I've said since last night, Ninny.
The question about the composition of the Bible's creation accounts that Jason asked is fair - if asked by anyone else but you. Why don't you respond to last night's "three chambered heart" debacle? You really muffed that one.
With your "Ivy League" studies in genetics (as you claimed to have but cannot prove) you should have immediately known about the expression of the gene that determines whether a heart will be amphibian or mammalian - or something in between like a reptilian heart structure.
... but you don't have a clue about a thing related to genetics other than that it's a word to be thrown around. You're just another of a long line of "Young Earth Creationist" frauds that have plagued the church since Henry Morris invented the deceit back in the 1960s.
coadie
08-23-2010, 07:50 PM
Pel, I wasn't trying to tell you what you believe. I was asking WHY you believe in the literal account of the creation of Adam and Eve, yet don't take the creation account as literal. I don't think you can seperate them.
Am I understanding you correctly that you believe the creation account is not original to Genesis but was put in AFTER the Babylonian Captivity? Therefore it is not part of Moses' writings, but an interpolation to the Hebrew scriptures?!
When they say this is not intended to be taken litterally, they are actually saying God did Not say what it says he said and it really Was not so!
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
God cursded the ground and after the flood and Noahs sacrifiice, God removes the curse on the ground.
When folks start slicing out inconvenient scriptures, most aren't smart enough to know that they have to take out other verses also.
Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
20And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
22While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
I can't find an evolutionist that believe the biblical account of the flood.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 07:51 PM
Give us a reason to take your assertions literally.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
They make up that death was around but not really death death.:bliss
You haven't answered or responded to a single thing I've said since last night, Ninny.
The question about the composition of the Bible's creation accounts that Jason asked is fair - if asked by anyone else but you. Why don't you respond to last night's "three chambered heart" debacle? You really muffed that one.
With your "Ivy League" studies in genetics (as you claimed to have but cannot prove) you should have immediately known about the expression of the gene that determines whether a heart will be amphibian or mammalian - or something in between like a reptilian heart structure.
... but you don't have a clue about a thing related to genetics other than that it's a word to be thrown around. You're just another of a long line of "Young Earth Creationist" frauds that have plagued the church since Henry Morris invented the deceit back in the 1960s.
coadie
08-23-2010, 08:00 PM
You haven't answered or responded to a single thing I've said since last night, Ninny.
The question about the composition of the Bible's creation accounts that Jason asked is fair - if asked by anyone else. Why don't you respond to last night's "three chambered heart" debacle? You really muffed that one.
With your "Ivy League" studies in genetics (as you claimed to have but cannot prove) you should have immediately known about the expression of the gene that determines whether a heart will be amphibian or mammalian - or something in between like a reptilian heart structure.
... but you don't have a clue about thing related to genetics other than that it's a word to be thrown around. You're just another of a long line of "Young Earth Creationist" frauds that have plagued the church since Henry Morris invented the deceit back in the 1960s.
Wow:toofunny
You are extremely defensive about the change of a 3 chambered heart into a 4 chamber model.
No proof? No evidence?
Just a fairy tale?
The reptile lung, with its bidirectional air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its unidirectional flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them.
Breath taking.When you get a secular education, they leave a lot to the imagination.
coadie
08-23-2010, 08:08 PM
You haven't answered or responded to a single thing I've said since last night, Ninny.
The question about the composition of the Bible's creation accounts that Jason asked is fair - if asked by anyone else but you. Why don't you respond to last night's "three chambered heart" debacle? You really muffed that one.
With your "Ivy League" studies in genetics (as you claimed to have but cannot prove) you should have immediately known about the expression of the gene that determines whether a heart will be amphibian or mammalian - or something in between like a reptilian heart structure.
... but you don't have a clue about a thing related to genetics other than that it's a word to be thrown around. You're just another of a long line of "Young Earth Creationist" frauds that have plagued the church since Henry Morris invented the deceit back in the 1960s.
Plagued the church? Can you name churches that have this Plague and describe it? Be specific. Are the Christian colleges and universities that teach biblical creation also falling under this "plague"?
Who is Henry Morris?
Are the churches that taught the Creation chapters in Genesis as they were written also under the plagues or curses before Darwin and the biological enlightenment?
BroGary
08-23-2010, 08:14 PM
Isn't it hilarious how superstitious people think animals have spirits and change?
Cat-fish, bull-frogs and a few others are "transitional" species.
That brings up another excellent point showing how silly it is to think that God created man thru evolution, unlike the animals, God created man with an eternal soul that has a conscience, to know right from wrong and not just act on mere instinct like the wild animals do.
pastor febus
08-23-2010, 08:20 PM
I could not help but see this very interesting conversation. We are having one just like it at "heaven and earth"thread. I am glad that there is finally somone questioning the young earth motif in this apostolic setting.
I personally do not believe that Genesis1 is a literal rendering of Creation. It is prophetic/Covenantal. Look at Genesis 2:1-4 that is the summary of the creation of heaven and earth. The content of the passages point to the creation of:
1. hosts (multitudes,armies)
2. Generations (birthings,people)
Heaven and earth are Gods covenant people.
The same writer (Moses) who penned, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Also adressed Israel and said:Deu 32:1 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
I think he knew what he was doing.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 08:44 PM
Plagued the church? Can you name churches that have this Plague and describe it? Be specific. Are the Christian colleges and universities that teach biblical creation also falling under this "plague"?
Who is Henry Morris?
Are the churches that taught the Creation chapters in Genesis as they were written also under the plagues or curses before Darwin and the biological enlightenment?
First go back and respond to:
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953921&postcount=27
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953923&postcount=29
"I've got a better question for you, though. Just where are those "foundations of the earth?" Literally, where are they?" from http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953947&postcount=43
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953952&postcount=45
Then why don't you take the "Transitional Fossil Challenge" and refute even just a few on this list you ignored?
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=954090&postcount=84
And then finally, prove to us that you have taken "3 graduate classes in genetics from an Ivy League school" as you claimed.
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=953995&highlight=genetics+League#post953995
What school? Who were your instructors? What were the courses? What texts were you required to use? Prove it.
Really dude, you come across like such a hick fraud that it's no wonder you have trouble keeping from being banned on the boards where you post. Answer the questions, back up your assertions (above) and then we can move on.
Norman
08-23-2010, 08:45 PM
Does the Bible really say that God only created two people?
pelathais
08-23-2010, 08:50 PM
That brings up another excellent point showing how silly it is to think that God created man thru evolution, unlike the animals, God created man with an eternal soul that has a conscience, to know right from wrong and not just act on mere instinct like the wild animals do.
Yes. At some point in time God "breathed" into the man that had been formed from the elements of the earth and that man "became a living soul." That man was also the ancestor of us all (Genesis 2:7).
coadie
08-23-2010, 08:53 PM
That brings up another excellent point showing how silly it is to think that God created man thru evolution, unlike the animals, God created man with an eternal soul that has a conscience, to know right from wrong and not just act on mere instinct like the wild animals do.
created man thru evolution
A bit of contradiction.
Evolution is matter, chance and time. It is NOT creation.
If God created thru evolution, it couldn't be random chance.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 08:58 PM
Does the Bible really say that God only created two people?
Romans 5:14, is often brought up to try and argue that there were other people alive at the same time as Adam and Eve's "fall." I've tried to look at it that way but haven't really been able to see a method to where such an inference can be extrapolated into a Bible-wide theme.
Not to say that there's not a way, I just haven't seen it.
coadie
08-23-2010, 08:59 PM
I could not help but see this very interesting conversation. We are having one just like it at "heaven and earth"thread. I am glad that there is finally somone questioning the young earth motif in this apostolic setting.
I personally do not believe that Genesis1 is a literal rendering of Creation. It is prophetic/Covenantal. Look at Genesis 2:1-4 that is the summary of the creation of heaven and earth. The content of the passages point to the creation of:
1. hosts (multitudes,armies)
2. Generations (birthings,people)
Heaven and earth are Gods covenant people.
The same writer (Moses) who penned, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Also adressed Israel and said:Deu 32:1 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
I think he knew what he was doing.
Would you correct this scripture for me?
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But 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:
11For 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.
31Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.
32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
Which scripture is to be taken as written?
35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 09:00 PM
created man thru evolution
A bit of contradiction.
Evolution is matter, chance and time. It is NOT creation.
If God created thru evolution, it couldn't be random chance.
There's a mathematical explanation that you're missing here - but you would already know that if you had actually taken genetic courses at the graduate level at an Ivy League school.
We've been over this math before, several times on these pages.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 09:12 PM
Wow:toofunny
You are extremely defensive about the change of a 3 chambered heart into a 4 chamber model.
No proof? No evidence?
Just a fairy tale?
Breath taking.When you get a secular education, they leave a lot to the imagination.
Still waiting for you to respond to:
First go back and respond to:
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953921&postcount=27
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953923&postcount=29
"I've got a better question for you, though. Just where are those "foundations of the earth?" Literally, where are they?" from http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953947&postcount=43
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953952&postcount=45
Then why don't you take the "Transitional Fossil Challenge" and refute even just a few on this list you ignored?
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=954090&postcount=84
And then finally, prove to us that you have taken "3 graduate classes in genetics from an Ivy League school" as you claimed.
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=953995&highlight=genetics+League#post953995
What school? Who were your instructors? What were the courses? What texts were you required to use? Prove it.
Really dude, you come across like such a hick fraud that it's no wonder you have trouble keeping from being banned on the boards where you post. Answer the questions, back up your assertions (above) and then we can move on.
You can't can you? You are such a transparent fraud and liar, coadie. It's people like you that turn off so many souls to the things of God.
Proverbs 25:14 - "Whoso boasteth himself of a false gift is like clouds and wind without rain. "
2 Peter 2:15-19; Jude 1:12-13 and Jude 1:16.
That's you coadie. Sad.
coadie
08-23-2010, 09:23 PM
Does the Bible really say that God only created two people?
20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
coadie
08-23-2010, 09:27 PM
Still waiting for you to respond to:
You can't can you? You are such a transparent fraud and liar, coadie. It's people like you that turn off so many souls to the things of God. Proverbs 25:14 - "Whoso boasteth himself of a false gift is like clouds and wind without rain. "
2 Peter 2:15-19; Jude 1:12-13 and Jude 1:16.
That's you coadie. Sad.
You're just another of a long line of "Young Earth Creationist" frauds that have plagued the church since Henry Morris invented the deceit back in the 1960s.
You attack churches and people.
kristian's_mom
08-23-2010, 09:31 PM
Posted a question, came back and the thread is 14 pages long.
pelathais
08-23-2010, 09:33 PM
You attack churches and people.
No. You lied. You did not study genetics at a graduate level at an Ivy League school as you boasted. You simply lied. That's not an "attack." That's a fact. You would have at least addressed that by now if you were telling the truth. Instead, you prevaricate.
You lie to churches and to people on this forum, and you don't even feel any guilt about it. But let someone call you on one of your lies and you pop yet another vein.
Twisp
08-23-2010, 09:37 PM
LOL. That's not what I meant. I just wanted to say "Hi" before signing off for the night.
Lol. Outstanding!
coadie
08-23-2010, 09:42 PM
No. You lied. You did not study genetics at a graduate level at an Ivy League school as you boasted. You simply lied. That's not an "attack." That's a fact. You would have at least addressed that by now if you were telling the truth. Instead, you prevaricate.
You lie to churches and to people on this forum, and you don't even feel any guilt about it. But let someone call you on one of your lies and you pop yet another vein.
Where do you get your information?
At which university have i taught? Which years?
pelathais
08-23-2010, 09:44 PM
Posted a question, came back and the thread is 14 pages long.
It's a long argument.
I have tried for some time to get the loudest voices that have been speaking out against biological evolution in the OP world to step up to the plate and actually answer some questions publicly. Arlo Moehlenpah just laughs nervously on the phone (I've known him for almost 30 years) and responds to my email requests with these weird answers like "I CANT TypE!!" Seriously.
Everyone behaves just like coadie has here over the past 24 hours. And give him this, he is behaving a bit better than he did last time. Last time he was banned with about the longest banning I've ever seen on AFF.
The idea that biological evolution HAS occurred is so grounded in fact that to deny it one must degenerate to the types of stunts and fraud that coadie has perpetuated here. Either that, or ignore the question like most everyone else does.
Yet there is a beauty in the history of life on this planet. There is a lot of sorrow and grief as well; but the sorrow is the same sadness that every generation of organisms must face at some point. Jesus Christ gives a hope that this sorrow will ultimately be defeated. To me, it's a wonderful hope.
BroGary
08-23-2010, 09:45 PM
The cleverly devised fable of evolution reminded me of these verses:
1 Timothy 6:20, 21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
2 Timothy 4:3,4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Romans 1:18-23
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
coadie
08-23-2010, 09:50 PM
No. You lied. You did not study genetics at a graduate level at an Ivy League school as you boasted. You simply lied. That's not an "attack." That's a fact. You would have at least addressed that by now if you were telling the truth. Instead, you prevaricate.
You lie to churches and to people on this forum, and you don't even feel any guilt about it. But let someone call you on one of your lies and you pop yet another vein.
Which vein?
Name the churches I have lied to.
Get an evolutionist wound up and they start making false witness.
I have fun with the darwiniacs. I don't name my schools and they have nothing to attack. Just hand waving.
Now can you settle down and ponder how the bird flow thru lungs came from reptile lungs without a spontaneous pneumo thorax and asphyxiation?
Jason B
08-23-2010, 09:55 PM
The creation accounts (there are two distinct though related accounts) predate the Exile. These accounts along with many other inspired Hebrew literary works, which includes the Law of Moses, were collected together by the Sopherim (scribes) lead by Ezra the Scribe (Sopher - Ezra 7:1-6) in the post Exile period (around 444 BC).
Also, when it comes to the "literal creation" of Adam and Eve I am speaking of the process whereby their much more primitive progenitors developed along the lines as described by the evolutionary model. This is how God literally created them - and you and I.
If that means what I am understanding it to mean, that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read from christian.
Are you saying (hopefully I'm misunderstanding) that the slime, the monkeys, or whatever eventually BECAME man (called Adam) is how God created man?
(sorry for not being more involved in this thread, been busy on another one, and I cant keep up with yours and coadies back & forth)
coadie
08-23-2010, 10:02 PM
The cleverly devised fable of evolution reminded me of these verses:
1 Timothy 6:20, 21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
2 Timothy 4:3,4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Romans 1:18-23
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Romans 1 explains this.
In a recent post Denyse O’Leary linked to a news story coverning Pekka Eric Auvinen, the Finnish student who killed eight in a shooting spree at his school. Apparently Auvinen was an ardent Darwinist who considered himself to be an instrument of natural selection. He wrote: “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgaces of human race and failures of natural selection.”
One of O’Leary’s interlocutors more or less accused her of cherry picking her data to push her personal religious agenda. Apparently this person believes this case is an aberation, and it is unfair to suggest a connection between Darwin’s theory and a school shooter’s self understanding as an instrument of natural selection. Not so.
The Darwinists and the brainwashing.
from darwin to hitler: evolutionary ethics, eugenics, and racism in germany. by. richard weikart
The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
First Edition
Darwin deserves a lot of credit for racist agendas. Race warfare from Darwin
And class warfare in Mein kampf
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
coadie
08-23-2010, 10:05 PM
If that means what I am understanding it to mean, that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read from christian.
Are you saying (hopefully I'm misunderstanding) that the slime, the monkeys, or whatever eventually BECAME man (called Adam) is how God created man?
(sorry for not being more involved in this thread, been busy on another one, and I cant keep up with yours and coadies back & forth)
That is Darwinian evolution.
Common ancestry.
kristian's_mom
08-23-2010, 10:11 PM
I see our whole existence as one big chain of events. Every small thing that happens has a reason, and is necessary for the outcome that God ultimately intends. We can only see and understand one piece of the puzzle at a time, it is impossible for us to put every single piece together and see the bigger picture.
God knows all the variables and he knows exactly the outcome of what one small, seemingly insignificant change can have on the bigger picture. He manipulates events for the greater good of ALL.
If God created the world through evolution, he would still have been involved in the process every small step of the way. Every slight change in DNA that yielded a new species would have been perfectly guided by his hand. I do not see evolution as an enemy of the Bible in any way.
The fact of the matter is, we have found evidence that dates our existence and the earth a lot older than what we thought. You can't ignore that. One can only come to the conclusion that what we previously thought to be true was wrong.
We did not know about things like cells and dna until very recently. If God was going to explain to us how he created the world, would he take the time to tell us in scientific terms? Would he try to explain how he fused atoms together? What holds them together? Or would he merely just say "I created you from the earth"? Most people these days don't understand things like that, much less our ancestors.
coadie
08-23-2010, 10:14 PM
I see our whole existence as one big chain of events. Every small thing that happens has a reason, and is necessary for the outcome that God ultimately intends. We can only see and understand one piece of the puzzle at a time, it is impossible for us to put every single piece together and see the bigger picture.
God knows all the variables and he knows exactly the outcome of what one small, seemingly insignificant change can have on the bigger picture. He manipulates events for the greater good of ALL.
If God created the world through evolution, he would still have been involved in the process every small step of the way. Every slight change in DNA that yielded a new species would have been perfectly guided by his hand. I do not see evolution as an enemy of the Bible in any way.
The fact of the matter is, we have found evidence that dates our existence and the earth a lot older than what we thought. You can't ignore that. One can only come to the conclusion that what we previously thought to be true was wrong.
We did not know about things like cells and dna until very recently. If God was going to explain to us how he created the world, would he take the time to tell us in scientific terms? Would he try to explain how he fused atoms together? What holds them together? Or would he merely just say "I created you from the earth"? Most people these days don't understand things like that, much less our ancestors.
Darwin didn't know about DNA. Actaully the words to describe science were not even invented.
Bowas
08-24-2010, 05:29 AM
If that means what I am understanding it to mean, that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read from christian.
Are you saying (hopefully I'm misunderstanding) that the slime, the monkeys, or whatever eventually BECAME man (called Adam) is how God created man?
(sorry for not being more involved in this thread, been busy on another one, and I cant keep up with yours and coadies back & forth)
A simple read of the account actually declares man was formed from the DUST, which is even lower than the "slime' and/or "monkeys".
So one can say, dust (or natural elements) became man.
DividedThigh
08-24-2010, 07:31 AM
once again evolution which was the product of darwins lunacy tries to worm its way in to our minds, of course god didnt use evolution, he created from nothing and can as he is all powerful with no limits, i believe, dt
coadie
08-24-2010, 07:55 AM
once again evolution which was the product of darwins lunacy tries to worm its way in to our minds, of course god didnt use evolution, he created from nothing and can as he is all powerful with no limits, i believe, dt
The biblical expression is demon possessed.
Sir George Pickering wrote, 'The symptoms of psychoneurosis are the patient's own answer to his otherwise intolerable conflict
Here is Darwin's own description of his symptoms:
‘Age 56-57. - For twenty-five years extreme spasmodic daily & nightly flatulence: occasional vomiting, on two occasions prolonged during months. Vomiting preceded by shivering, hysterical crying[,] dying sensations or half-faint. & copious and very palid urine. Now vomiting & every passage of flatulence preceded by ringing of ears, treading on air & vision. focus & black dots[,] Air fatigues, specially risky, brings on the Head symptoms[,] nervousness when E[mma]. leaves me...'. From late 1863 to April 1864 he was ‘spreadeagled every day on a sofa, steadily going downhill, wishing he were dead one day, wanting to live and do a little more work on the next.'
Colp: When I first began in 1959, I noticed that the many biographies of him had little to say about the causes and nature of the illness that dominated his life. In To Be an Invalid, I published the first comprehensive account of his illness. I showed that as a youth he suffered brief psychosomatic symptoms from transient mental stresses, and as an adult he suffered protracted psychosomatic illness 'altered sensations, cardiac palpitations, headaches, and trembling' mainly from working on his controversial theory of evolution. He had told a friend that to abandon Church teachings on the immutability of species was 'like confessing a murder.' He delayed writing the Origin of Species for more than twenty years, until a younger naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, forced his hand. His endless agonizing, guilt, and self-flagellation over writing and publishing could be described as obsessive. When his theory was accepted and he stopped working on it, his health improved.
http://darwin-legend.org/html/darwins-illness.htm
His minions still adore him.
When you mentioned "Darwins lunacy" you didn't know it was real and obvious to the people around him. Darwin was mad at God. He married his first cousin and had children with birth defects. One died young as I recall. And 2 died as infants. In the last decade, he couldn't speak in public or go out.
Darwin reminds me of Nebuchadnezzar.
Timmy
08-24-2010, 10:39 AM
How was Jason "formed?" From the biological contributions of others.
The Biblical account is true - it just was never intended to be understood as a literal account like God making things from an Easy Bake Oven kit.
Well, if God didn't put the first man to sleep and remove one of his ribs and turn that rib into the first woman, I don't see how that story can be true, in any meaningful sense. Metaphors can only stretch so far before they snap. What would the intended meaning of this one be, if not literal?
pelathais
08-24-2010, 05:43 PM
Which vein?
Name the churches I have lied to.
Get an evolutionist wound up and they start making false witness.
I have fun with the darwiniacs. I don't name my schools and they have nothing to attack. Just hand waving.
Now can you settle down and ponder how the bird flow thru lungs came from reptile lungs without a spontaneous pneumo thorax and asphyxiation?
You lied when you said that you had studied genetics at the graduate level at an Ivy League University. You simply lied. You've already demonstrated that you have less than a high school level of understanding when it comes to science and your "writing" wouldn't even get you a janitorial position at a trade school.
A babbling nut case like yourself with a long history of hysterical rants isn't likely to get me riled. Your imaginations about this are more amusing than anything else.
How about you answer the questions? Or move on.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 05:53 PM
First go back and respond to:
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953921&postcount=27
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953923&postcount=29
"I've got a better question for you, though. Just where are those "foundations of the earth?" Literally, where are they?" from http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953947&postcount=43
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=953952&postcount=45
Then why don't you take the "Transitional Fossil Challenge" and refute even just a few on this list you ignored?
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=954090&postcount=84
And then finally, prove to us that you have taken "3 graduate classes in genetics from an Ivy League school" as you claimed.
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=953995&highlight=genetics+League#post953995
What school? Who were your instructors? What were the courses? What texts were you required to use? Prove it.
Really dude, you come across like such a hick fraud that it's no wonder you have trouble keeping from being banned on the boards where you post. Answer the questions, back up your assertions (above) and then we can move on.
coadie and BroGary... I am still waiting for either of you to actually engage in a dialog here. Please address the questions.
But you can't can you? Neither of you has ever studied this issue. And, I don't just mean "studied" from a real academic view point, neither of you even understands the Young Earth arguments as well.
Clouds without rain. Answer the questions.
Gary, did God create donkeys AND horses on the sixth day (according to Genesis chapter 1, before man - but after man in Genesis chapter 2)? Either way, just what did God create with regard to donkeys and horses?
And, why can donkeys and horses breed and produce offspring, but the offspring are invariably sterile?
Answers, please.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 06:01 PM
If that means what I am understanding it to mean, that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read from christian.
Are you saying (hopefully I'm misunderstanding) that the slime, the monkeys, or whatever eventually BECAME man (called Adam) is how God created man?
(sorry for not being more involved in this thread, been busy on another one, and I cant keep up with yours and coadies back & forth)
Don't apologize for not "being more involved." Lately, you've been at your "best" when you haven't been involved. Did you ever come to terms with the way you had "vomited" in error over the John MacArthur thing? Did you read Galatians 1, and get up to speed? I see that you've added a quote by him to your sig line. I guess you listened to me for once and repented of "stupid."
Also, please work on your own poor language skills if you wish to use them to taunt me. You do end up looking very foolish.
Really, the three of you guys just need to keep babbling away here and more and more Apostolic people will abandon your pseudo-science and Scripture wrangling.
If this were some sort of real debate, coadie, BroGary and Jason Badejo would have been relegated to the Monkey House at the Zoo by now. C'mon guys! Get up to speed and engage the material.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 06:10 PM
I see our whole existence as one big chain of events. Every small thing that happens has a reason, and is necessary for the outcome that God ultimately intends. We can only see and understand one piece of the puzzle at a time, it is impossible for us to put every single piece together and see the bigger picture.
God knows all the variables and he knows exactly the outcome of what one small, seemingly insignificant change can have on the bigger picture. He manipulates events for the greater good of ALL.
If God created the world through evolution, he would still have been involved in the process every small step of the way. Every slight change in DNA that yielded a new species would have been perfectly guided by his hand. I do not see evolution as an enemy of the Bible in any way.
The fact of the matter is, we have found evidence that dates our existence and the earth a lot older than what we thought. You can't ignore that. One can only come to the conclusion that what we previously thought to be true was wrong.
We did not know about things like cells and dna until very recently. If God was going to explain to us how he created the world, would he take the time to tell us in scientific terms? Would he try to explain how he fused atoms together? What holds them together? Or would he merely just say "I created you from the earth"? Most people these days don't understand things like that, much less our ancestors.
That's a very wise and intelligent approach to the issue.
JamDat
08-24-2010, 06:17 PM
once again evolution which was the product of darwins lunacy tries to worm its way in to our minds, of course god didnt use evolution, he created from nothing and can as he is all powerful with no limits, i believe, dt
I was listening to Todd Friel today and a moment of old earth vs. young earth came up. One of the Presbyterian denominations entertained the argument in their magazine.
Todd said a couple of things that made pretty good sense to me. Something along the line of when science sets up it's throne over God it's time to get rid of the science. I was a little embarrassed that he took that position until he said let science explain being raised from the dead after three days.
DT you're right on. I too believe.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 06:20 PM
once again evolution which was the product of darwins lunacy tries to worm its way in to our minds, of course god didnt use evolution, he created from nothing and can as he is all powerful with no limits, i believe, dt
Of course God "can do" whatever He wants to do. But that is not the question. The question is, "What did God do?"
The evidence simply doesn't fit the "Young Earth Creationist" model. For example, just look at how hard it is to get the "Young Earth Creationist" "experts" on AFF to even discuss the evidence.
You folks just keep falling back and saying essentially that the world outside your door step isn't real and that you don't even want to talk about. You will however throw out oneliners and "profess to be wise" about the things of God.
No wonder so many millions reject the Apostolic Faith. We're so weighted down with so much of our own nonsense that thinking people reject our entire message long before we've ever gotten to the Gospel part of it.
Of course, there are plenty of other groups with the same problem.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 06:25 PM
I was listening to Todd Friel today and a moment of old earth vs. young earth came up. One of the Presbyterian denominations entertained the argument in their magazine.
Todd said a couple of things that made pretty good sense to me. Something along the line of when science sets up it's throne over God it's time to get rid of the science. I was a little embarrassed that he took that position until he said let science explain being raised from the dead after three days.
DT you're right on. I too believe.
The question here is not, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?"
The question here involves whether or not biological evolution has occurred. You've ignored the question under discussion without even engaging the issue. What "science" has "erected a throne over God?" Go to MedPub or one of the other online search engines for scientific journals and search for that phrase. See if you can even find any sort of discussion along those lines.
The problem your Presbyterians are wrestling with is that one group thinks their own brand of theology exists as a "throne over God." They need to first submit themselves to the things of God and realize that God created us - and not the other way around. The same problem seems to exist here.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 06:33 PM
Well, if God didn't put the first man to sleep and remove one of his ribs and turn that rib into the first woman, I don't see how that story can be true, in any meaningful sense. Metaphors can only stretch so far before they snap. What would the intended meaning of this one be, if not literal?
With respect Timmy, you suffer from the same debilitating affliction that plagues so many of our friends here. You read the Bible like a Fundamentalist.
The answer to your question takes us off of the "evidence for evolution" theme. A course in Literary Analysis might be helpful. Look especially at the types of "genres." If you misidentify the genre of the literature you will fail to understand the story. The ancient people weren't a bunch of "cave man" dumbies. They thought out their writings and composed them with deliberation.
Wheaton professor John H. Walton also has some helpful books on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Near-Eastern-Thought-Testament/dp/0801027500/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282696249&sr=8-5
coadie
08-24-2010, 06:36 PM
Well, if God didn't put the first man to sleep and remove one of his ribs and turn that rib into the first woman, I don't see how that story can be true, in any meaningful sense. Metaphors can only stretch so far before they snap. What would the intended meaning of this one be, if not literal?
Eve's rib? Darwinist cowards run from that question.
The evolutionists/atheists say the historical accouint in Genesis is not true. That means details are also untrue.
When I ask a Darwinist that claims to believe some parts of the scripture when the scripture starts becoming true, I never see a response.
Pretend science is when they make the story as Pelathais does out of speculation and wishfull thinking.
When the Word said Adam named her Eve, the mother of all living that clashes with non biblical Darwinism where Eve's parents were apes.
coadie
08-24-2010, 06:39 PM
With respect Timmy, you suffer from the same debilitating affliction that plagues so many of our friends here. You read the Bible like a Fundamentalist.
.
http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Near-Eastern-Thought-Testament/dp/0801027500/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282696249&sr=8-5
Why should the bible be "translated" by Darwiniac fundamentalists for us?
Debilitating affliction?You really think you are superior when you do your put downs.
Do you go to a church?
coadie
08-24-2010, 06:50 PM
I was listening to Todd Friel today and a moment of old earth vs. young earth came up. One of the Presbyterian denominations entertained the argument in their magazine.
Todd said a couple of things that made pretty good sense to me. Something along the line of when science sets up it's throne over God it's time to get rid of the science. I was a little embarrassed that he took that position until he said let science explain being raised from the dead after three days.
DT you're right on. I too believe.
Ravi Zacharius once mentioned Science followed God and used biblical terms to define science. The world today uses science to define and limit religion. This reversal came the time of Freud, Darwin and some other rabid actors in the 1800's.
Physics, chemistry geology are hard sciences. The evolution part of biology is the lunatic fringe of soft science. It does a shabby job of trying to write history and uses interpolation with its limits.
JamDat
08-24-2010, 06:53 PM
The question here is not, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?"
The question here involves whether or not biological evolution has occurred. You've ignored the question under discussion without even engaging the issue. What "science" has "erected a throne over God?" Go to MedPub or one of the other online search engines for scientific journals and search for that phrase. See if you can even find any sort of discussion along those lines.
The problem your Presbyterians are wrestling with is that one group thinks their own brand of theology exists as a "throne over God." They need to first submit themselves to the things of God and realize that God created us - and not the other way around. The same problem seems to exist here.
I understand the heat in this thread, but I don't pretend to understand everything everyone is writing.
Please don't take what I wrote to be offensive against you. I was only trying to communicate what I had heard on the radio that I thought might be interesting to some here.
coadie
08-24-2010, 07:21 PM
I understand the heat in this thread, but I don't even pretend to understand everything everyone is writing.
Please don't take what I wrote to be offensive against you. I was only trying to communicate what I had heard on the radio that I thought might be interesting to some here.
Keep listening to the radio. An increasing number of Americans are rejecting evolution dogma. While the cold liberal churches went toward it, now people learn the truth. The evolutionists/atheists are fighting to keep mention of Creation out of schools. I suspect some would like to get it out of churches. Darwins deadly Legacy was written by D James Kennedy.
Teaching children that they are hairless apes with trousers is dishonest.
coadie
08-24-2010, 07:24 PM
You lied when you said that you had studied genetics at the graduate level at an Ivy League University. You simply lied. You've already demonstrated that you have less than a high school level of understanding when it comes to science and your "writing" wouldn't even get you a janitorial position at a trade school.
A babbling nut case like yourself with a long history of hysterical rants isn't likely to get me riled. Your imaginations about this are more amusing than anything else.
How about you answer the questions? Or move on.
Richard Dawkins says this
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
pelathais
08-24-2010, 07:33 PM
I understand the heat in this thread, but I don't pretend to understand everything everyone is writing.
Please don't take what I wrote to be offensive against you. I was only trying to communicate what I had heard on the radio that I thought might be interesting to some here.
Fair enough. Sorry if that seemed a bit stronger than I intended.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 07:40 PM
Richard Dawkins says this
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Well, that's evidence that you've met Richard Dawkins and prompted him to make that remark; but we're still waiting for you to answer the questions that you've been running from for two days now and we're still looking for evidence that you studied genetics at the graduate level at an Ivy League university as you've claimed.
C'mon coadie. Can't you engage the material? You flubbed the genetics issue regarding the "three and four chambered heart" problem badly.Why don't you try again. And remember - just this past Saturday I held a baby in my arms who was born with a "three chambered heart." As soon as he puts on a couple more pounds the docs are going to graft a septum in that will grow into a "four chambered heart."
Can you address this information?
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/46974/title/From_three_to_four_chambers
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/evolution-of-th-5.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747104/
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2009/09/02/secrets_of_the_4_chambers_revealed_by_reptile_hear ts.html
BroGary
08-24-2010, 07:58 PM
Eve's rib? Darwinist cowards run from that question.
The evolutionists/atheists say the historical accouint in Genesis is not true. That means details are also untrue.
When I ask a Darwinist that claims to believe some parts of the scripture when the scripture starts becoming true, I never see a response.
Pretend science is when they make the story as Pelathais does out of speculation and wishfull thinking.
When the Word said Adam named her Eve, the mother of all living that clashes with non biblical Darwinism where Eve's parents were apes.
the mother of all living
yep, that alone shows how unbiblical evolution really is.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 08:02 PM
the mother of all living
yep, that alone shows how unbiblical evolution really is.
This is the third or fourth time that I've posted this, and yet you just don't seem to be engaged in this discussion at all.
Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Take that shriveled knot at the end of your brain stem and employ it in the task of reading this short article. Then you can say, "Science supports the Bible!" and do a little dance.
:bliss
pelathais
08-24-2010, 08:05 PM
the mother of all living
yep, that alone shows how unbiblical evolution really is.
By the way Gary; you keep posting, but have you worked up the nerve to try and answer that "horse/donkey/mule" question yet? You brought up the question in the first place with your assertions about "kinds."
How about answering some questions?
coadie
08-24-2010, 08:11 PM
the mother of all living
yep, that alone shows how unbiblical evolution really is.
Mother of all living. Pelthais says that scripture is not true:
Also, when it comes to the "literal creation" of Adam and Eve I am speaking of the process whereby their much more primitive progenitors developed along the lines as described by the evolutionary model. This is how God literally created them - and you and I.
They say the bible is a lie. That is why I don't get feelings hurt when I get called a liar by the Darwinists. Post #117
Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.
Wild gueses say there are 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 08:15 PM
Mother of all living. Pelthais says that scripture is not true:
They say the bible is a lie. That is why I don't get feelings hurt when I get called a liar by the Darwinists. Post #117
Wild gueses say there are 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe.
I guess "Mama coadie" wasn't the "mother of coadie" because she had biological antecedents as well. So, just how did you arrive on our planet?
And you did lie. Anyone who has ever read the papers of a graduate student in any accredited university and compared that writing to yours and looked at the way in which you "express" your ideas knows that you lied as well.
And notice, it's technically "against the rules" to call another poster on AFF a "liar." Yet you've lied so much and for so long that you actually exist as an except to the rule.
jfrog
08-24-2010, 08:26 PM
the mother of all living
yep, that alone shows how unbiblical evolution really is.
It clashes just as hard with her not giving birth to all those other animals, as in the case of Creationism ;)
pelathais
08-24-2010, 08:27 PM
Quote:
Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.
Wild gueses say there are 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe.
Sir Fred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang) was arguing in favor of a Hindu cosmology where there was no "creation" at all. He believed that the cosmos had always existed in order to fit his own religious ideas about the "Ages of Rama" in to our universe. This doctrine requires that the universe be at least 25 TRILLION years old!
I suppose we now know who coadie's god is:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Lord_Rama_with_arrows.jpg
coadie
08-24-2010, 08:27 PM
This is the third or fourth time that I've posted this, and yet you just don't seem to be engaged in this discussion at all.
Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Take that shriveled knot at the end of your brain stem and employ it in the task of reading this short article. Then you can say, "Science supports the Bible!" and do a little dance.
:bliss
Real universities don't use wikipedia for References.
From The above wiki
there were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but somewhere in all their lines of descent there is at least one man (and men do not pass on their mothers' mitochondrial DNA to their children).
If there were other women around at the time of Eve that were not her offspring, that statment disagrees with the bible.
Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.
No Pelthais. It says other women were around during the time of Eve that were not descendents of her.
You misquoted wiki and wiki or the bible are true. Not both of them.
Not alive at the same time as "Adam"
Pelthais says science supports the bible
Wiki isn't science and his cut and paste didn't support his claim again.
Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like Eve, "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, Eve lived much earlier than Adam – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier than Adam – due to the greater variability in male fecundity
I am tired of reading this balogna. Eve had her rib taken from Adam. Pelthais says wiki is true and wiki agrees with the bible. Get the stories straight.
How in the world does Pelthais tell us wiki is true when God caught Eve giving fruit to Adam who had been dead 50,000 years.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 08:30 PM
It clashes just as hard with her not giving birth to all those other animals, as in the case of Creationism ;)
Yeah. Good point. Eve is the mother of the slime molds and pond scum? She's the mother of ALL living? She's the mother of elephants and kangaroos according to coadie's interpretation. coadie takes "devolution" further than even did Devo did.
Don't try and and "interpret" this passage either. Just read it and believe!
coadie
08-24-2010, 08:37 PM
I guess "Mama coadie" wasn't the "mother of coadie" because she had biological antecedents as well. So, just how did you arrive on our planet?
And you did lie. Anyone who has ever read the papers of a graduate student in any accredited university and compared that writing to yours and looked at the way in which you "express" your ideas knows that you lied as well.
And notice, it's technically "against the rules" to call another poster on AFF a "liar." Yet you've lied so much and for so long that you actually exist as an except to the rule.
Not alive at the same time as "Adam"
Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like Eve, "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, Eve lived much earlier than Adam – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier than Adam – due to the greater variability in male fecundity
5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
934
Pelthais:
Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.
wiki says Adam and Eve were not alive the same time. Your claim that wiki supports the bible is false. It is impossible that God took a rib from Adam 80,000 years before he was created him .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
pelathais
08-24-2010, 08:41 PM
Real universities don't use wikipedia for References.
From The above wiki
If there were other women around at the time of Eve that were not her offspring, that statment disagrees with the bible.
No Pelthais. It says other women were around during the time of Eve that were not descendents of her.
You misquoted wiki and wiki or the bible are true. Not both of them.
Not alive at the same time as "Adam"
Pelthais says science supports the bible
Wiki isn't science and his cut and paste didn't support his claim again.
I am tired of reading this balogna. Eve had her rib taken from Adam. Pelthais says wiki is true and wiki agrees with the bible. Get the stories straight.
How in the world does Pelthais tell us wiki is true when God caught Eve giving fruit to Adam who had been dead 50,000 years.
Whoa! Thanks coadie. You actually appear to be engaging the discussion on this point. Except I did not "cut-and-paste" anything. I merely posted a link. Reality is so elusive to you. Why? Drugs? Alcohol? Blunt force trauma? An open head wound?
Wikipedia is a handy web source for web based discussions. Almost nobody has a subscription or access at home to the journals that "real universities" use for citations. But then again, you've never set foot inside a university, have you?
And, the problems you have (above) in understanding human development does not negate the fundamental agreement I cited between the Bible and science. The wiki article obviously has no idea what the names of the individuals associated with the genetic markers were. Blanche? Joan? Freida? They have no idea. They simply import names associated with a broad and common societal understanding. I know that such complexities are beyond your scope. Do try and keep up.
Was the Biblical Eve "the mother" of the e.coli living inside your intestines? Was she "the mother" of the Tree of Life which was alive and living in the garden with her? Was she the mother of Adam? If not, at what point can we say she was NOT "the mother" of something that is or was alive?
BroGary
08-24-2010, 08:41 PM
By the way Gary; you keep posting, but have you worked up the nerve to try and answer that "horse/donkey/mule" question yet? You brought up the question in the first place with your assertions about "kinds."
How about answering some questions?
horses, donkeys, mules, all basically the same species, but to actually think that man evolved from ape-like creatures is so far out as to be incredible.
BroGary
08-24-2010, 08:44 PM
This is the third or fourth time that I've posted this, and yet you just don't seem to be engaged in this discussion at all.
Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Take that shriveled knot at the end of your brain stem and employ it in the task of reading this short article. Then you can say, "Science supports the Bible!" and do a little dance.
:bliss
the mother of all living
that means that Eve herself did not have a mother or else she would not have been the mother of ALL living.
jfrog
08-24-2010, 08:50 PM
the mother of all living
that means that Eve herself did not have a mother or else she would not have been the mother of ALL living.
But she wasn't the mother of Adam was she. So she was not the Mother of one living person. Did the bible get this wrong or is it just not literal?
jfrog
08-24-2010, 08:58 PM
This is the third or fourth time that I've posted this, and yet you just don't seem to be engaged in this discussion at all.
Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Take that shriveled knot at the end of your brain stem and employ it in the task of reading this short article. Then you can say, "Science supports the Bible!" and do a little dance.
:bliss
I read the article. Coadie and BroGary actually do have a bit of a point about that article... It actually seems to go against the notion of a single breeding pair.
coadie
08-24-2010, 08:58 PM
Yeah. Good point. Eve is the mother of the slime molds and pond scum? She's the mother of ALL living? She's the mother of elephants and kangaroos according to coadie's interpretation. coadie takes "devolution" further than even did Devo did.
Don't try and and "interpret" this passage either. Just read it and believe!
Strawman
When you start making stuff up, you call the bible a lie.
Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
When you claim man had ape progenitors and creation was from a common ancester, you tell us this is a lie.:
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Man was made in the Image of God. The new testament shows geneology back to Adam and God. Not monkees.
One of the disturbing patterns of atheists/evolutionists is that they twist scripture and create strawman arguments to refute. The word says Eve was the mother of all living. It also says animals, plants etc created offspring after their own kind. By twisting the Word they despise, they create strawman arguments to refute.
God's Word mentions Adam and Eve begat Seth, Cain and Abel.
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God's definition that Eve was the mother of all living was living souls.
The bible twisting atheists/evolutionists practicing twisting the Word and creating false arguments. Darwin tried to create a materilistic model of Creation.
I am very familiar with Sigmund Freud who tried to create a model of man without a soul, sin and other biblical elements.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 08:58 PM
Also, I never claimed "wiki supports the Bible." Try to get your train of thought back on track. I merely used Wikipedia because it's handy in a forum like this. The article itself does give evidence that a proper interpretation of Genesis is NOT at variance with the Bible's message.
Whether or not the Wikipedia Foundation "supports the Bible," you'll have to ask them.
jfrog
08-24-2010, 09:02 PM
Strawman
When you start making stuff up, you call the bible a lie.
Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
When you claim man had ape progenitors and creation was from a common ancester, you tell us this is a lie.:
Man was made in the Image of God. The new testament shows geneology back to Adam and God. Not monkees.
One of the disturbing patterns of atheists/evolutionists is that they twist scripture and create strawman arguments to refute. The word says Eve was the mother of all living. It also says animals, plants etc created offspring after their own kind. By twisting the Word they despise, they create strawman arguments to refute.
God's Word mentions Adam and Eve begat Seth, Cain and Abel.
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God's definition that Eve was the mother of all living was living souls.
The bible twisting atheists/evolutionists practicing twisting the Word and creating false arguments. Darwin tried to create a materilistic model of Creation.
I am very familiar with Sigmund Freud who tried to create a model of man without a soul, sin and other biblical elements.
In Genesis 1:30 God says that animals have life. Looks like your definition that the bible only calls men living is flawed...
coadie
08-24-2010, 09:06 PM
I read the article. Coadie and BroGary actually do have a bit of a point about that article... It actually seems to go against the notion of a single breeding pair.
like 40,000 years appart?
That Wiki article has many of statements that directly clash with the bible.
The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents
I have never met an evolutionist that did not deny the Noahs flood as written in the bible.
We have 2 parents, 3 children and three duaghters in law.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 09:07 PM
horses, donkeys, mules, all basically the same species, but to actually think that man evolved from ape-like creatures is so far out as to be incredible.
Then why do the horse/donkey hybridization produce infertile offspring? If they were the same species or "kind" - the Bible says that they should continue to produce "after their kind." Genesis 1:25.
It's because of a phenomena involving "Genetic Drift." The ancestors of the donkeys lived and reproduced in geographic isolation for thousands of years. Meanwhile, the ancestors of the horses did the same.
Though both species shared a common ancestor, they "drifted apart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift)" genetically to the point that they could no longer produce fertile offspring when they were brought back together. This is an example of evolution "in the works." If human beings had not transported the two species back into proximity with one another and cross bred them they would have continued to drift even further apart.
Since they are unable to produce fertile offspring (though there is the occasional and very, very rare fertile mule) the process of speciation between horses and donkeys may already be permanent. They have evolved into two different "kinds" that produce offspring "after their own kind" now.
BroGary
08-24-2010, 09:07 PM
But she wasn't the mother of Adam was she. So she was not the Mother of one living person. Did the bible get this wrong or is it just not literal?
To make it more plain, Adam and Eve did not have a mother, so you can't be the mother of someone who did not have a mother, but from the time when motherhood started with Eve, she was the mother of all from the time procreation started with her.
coadie
08-24-2010, 09:12 PM
In Genesis 1:30 God says that animals have life. Looks like your definition that the bible only calls men living is flawed...
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. I did put in the word living soul.
Took it right out of the bible. You deleted that part so you could call the argument flawed.
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God's definition that Eve was the mother of all living was living souls. Just cut and paste my statements
Please read with better accuracy.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
BroGary
08-24-2010, 09:13 PM
Then why do the horse/donkey hybridization produce infertile offspring? If they were the same species or "kind" - the Bible says that they should continue to produce "after their kind."
It's because of a phenomena involving "Genetic Drift." The ancestors of the donkeys lived and reproduced in geographic isolation for thousands of years. Meanwhile, the ancestors of the horses did the same.
Though both species shared a common ancestor, they "drifted apart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift)" genetically to the point that they could no longer produce fertile offspring when they were brought back together. This is an example of evolution "in the works." If human beings had not transported the two species back into proximity with one another and cross bred them they would have continued to drift even further apart.
Since they are unable to produce fertile offspring (though there is the occasional and very, very rare fertile mule) the process of speciation between horses and donkeys may already be permanent. They have evolved into two different "kinds" that produce offspring "after their own kind" now.
They are still basically the same species, and the idea of man evolving from non-human creatures is so unbiblical as to be silly to even consider it as anything other than a fable instigated by Satan who has fought against truth from the beginning, and has managed to deceive even many christians.
Jason B
08-24-2010, 09:13 PM
Don't apologize for not "being more involved." Lately, you've been at your "best" when you haven't been involved. Did you ever come to terms with the way you had "vomited" in error over the John MacArthur thing? Did you read Galatians 1, and get up to speed? I see that you've added a quote by him to your sig line. I guess you listened to me for once and repented of "stupid."
Also, please work on your own poor language skills if you wish to use them to taunt me. You do end up looking very foolish.
Really, the three of you guys just need to keep babbling away here and more and more Apostolic people will abandon your pseudo-science and Scripture wrangling.
If this were some sort of real debate, coadie, BroGary and Jason Badejo would have been relegated to the Monkey House at the Zoo by now. C'mon guys! Get up to speed and engage the material.
Pelathias, come down off your high horse.
I never ONCE intended to "taunt" you, can you say the same towards me?
If your saying Adam and Eve were the product of evolution and not direct creation by the hand of God, then I stand by my statement that it is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard a Christian say.
I apologize for my lack of proper typing skills, why would you insult me over a typo?
Furthermore, when it comes to scriptural wrangling, on this subject, you are the king.
jfrog
08-24-2010, 09:16 PM
To make it more plain, Adam and Eve did not have a mother, so you can't be the mother of someone who did not have a mother, but from the time when motherhood started with Eve, she was the mother of all from the time procreation started with her.
You do realize that the very fact you have to go into a long discourse to try and explain that verse to where it is compatible with your theology gives others the license to go into long discourses and explain why it is compatible with theirs. The fact is that verse is not straightforward and requires interpretation and qualification such as your mother of all living that has a mother. Or such as coadies explanation that animals are not part of all living even though Genesis 1:30 says they are alive. The point was and still is that yall should have never brought it up as evidence against Pel's position.
Jason B
08-24-2010, 09:16 PM
Well, if God didn't put the first man to sleep and remove one of his ribs and turn that rib into the first woman, I don't see how that story can be true, in any meaningful sense. Metaphors can only stretch so far before they snap. What would the intended meaning of this one be, if not literal?
That is exactly right. If we're going to believe the Bible, it starts at Genesis 1. As I've said before, Timmy, again points out.
If were going by the BIBLE the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation, a young earth, and that God directly created Adam and Eve.
Believe it if you want to (Pel), or don't. But to attempt to put Darwinism into the Genesis account is the pinnacle of foolishness.
"Professing themselves to be wise........"
coadie
08-24-2010, 09:17 PM
horses, donkeys, mules, all basically the same species, but to actually think that man evolved from ape-like creatures is so far out as to be incredible.
Sorcerors.
Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom
By John Schroeder
The book shows you how evolutionists throw out important data, and tell your child to accept and believe some unknown processes that fill in the gaps for all their missing data. Mainly that your child evolved from a rock in the ocean, and then perhaps from some snake-like creature that finally developed legs. How this happened they can't explain. They only point to specie adaptation for various environments and then tell you that is "proof" of species totally changing into higher species.
jfrog
08-24-2010, 09:19 PM
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. I did put in the word living soul.
Took it right out of the bible. You deleted that part so you could call the argument flawed.
Just cut and paste my statements
Please read with better accuracy.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Again, the bible calls animals living. (Genesis 1:30). I'll just repeat myself again if thats what you are going to do.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 09:22 PM
If we are supposed to understand Genesis 1:25, in a very literal fashion then donkeys and horses should be able to reproduce fertile offspring. Either that, or they should NOT be able to produce any offspring at all. They exist in a crazy "in between" realm that only an evolutionary model can explain.
Many YEC's and other "special creationists" have already come around to accepting this and other examples of "Micro-Evolution," though it does put one on the "slippery slope" toward "Macro-Evolution" as well.
All that's needed to rectify the conflict here is a simple application of hermeneutics that everyone already employs. Consider the "Sixth Day" in Genesis 1.
Genesis 1:24-31 at least appears to be in conflict with Genesis 2:15-25.
How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction? Did God create the man before or after the animals?
Most Bible believers will look at the Genesis 2, account and see it as being the same story as Genesis 1, just told from a different angle. When the writer says in Genesis 2:19, that the animals were created "from the ground" and present to the man they apply a more expansive understanding regarding the time frame.
Genesis 2:19, doesn't say "when" the animals were created. It simply says they were created, and this information is provided after the information concerning the creation of the man. There is only a contradiction here if we demand that every word and every thought be applied with an unreasonably rigid literalism.
Jason B
08-24-2010, 09:25 PM
If that means what I am understanding it to mean, that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read from a christian.
Are you saying (hopefully I'm misunderstanding) that the slime, the monkeys, or whatever eventually BECAME man (called Adam) is how God created man?
(sorry for not being more involved in this thread, been busy on another one, and I cant keep up with yours and coadies back & forth)
Pel,
you insulted me, but never answered the question I asked, care to answer?
Am I understanding you correctly that you view God as the creator of Adam and Eve ONLY in the sense that God originally created the organisms that would one day become humanity?
BroGary
08-24-2010, 09:25 PM
To make it more plain, Adam and Eve did not have a mother, so you can't be the mother of someone who did not have a mother, but from the time when motherhood started with Eve, she was the mother of all from the time procreation started with her.
The Bible shows that Adam was not the son of another creature, human or prehuman, bur was a direct and specific creation of God.
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 09:26 PM
Pelathias, come down off your high horse.
I never ONCE intended to "taunt" you, can you say the same towards me?
If your saying Adam and Eve were the product of evolution and not direct creation by the hand of God, then I stand by my statement that it is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard a Christian say.
I apologize for my lack of proper typing skills, why would you insult me over a typo?
Furthermore, when it comes to scriptural wrangling, on this subject, you are the king.
Go back and read your earlier post. Or better yet, read this one. Your tone in both is one of taunting.
If I have stooped to your level, I am sorry. From the heights of this horse it is difficult to see when to apply Proverbs 26:4, and when to apply Proverbs 26:5.
:thumbsup
RandyWayne
08-24-2010, 09:28 PM
That is exactly right. If we're going to believe the Bible, it starts at Genesis 1. As I've said before, Timmy, again points out.
If were going by the BIBLE the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation, a young earth, and that God directly created Adam and Eve.
Believe it if you want to (Pel), or don't. But to attempt to put Darwinism into the Genesis account is the pinnacle of foolishness.
"Professing themselves to be wise........"
I am not going to address the subject of biological evolution per say, but will mention the whole foolishness of the "young Earth" doctrine.
Take a look at this picture (and please try to ignore the gal to the left).
http://cjonline.com/files/editorial/images/additional/38/IMG_0516.jpg
What we are looking at is a car crash (obviously). We are ALSO looking at the skid marks that the car made before it crashed. In all likelyhood none of the first responders actually saw the crash took place but it is amazing how much detail they can reconstruct based on the evidence surrounding the wreck. The speed the car was going as well as the angle, even WHEN it happened to a rough degree. Now comparing this the evidence we see in the Universe we find that in order to accept a "young Earth/young Universe" we would have to believe that God created the wreck (or stars and planets) AND then proceeded to create the skid marks and all signs of things that actually happened for those stars and planets and galaxies to form for the sole purpose of creating a false history of things that never actually happened.
BroGary
08-24-2010, 09:30 PM
You do realize that the very fact you have to go into a long discourse to try and explain that verse to where it is compatible with your theology gives others the license to go into long discourses and explain why it is compatible with theirs. The fact is that verse is not straightforward and requires interpretation and qualification such as your mother of all living that has a mother. Or such as coadies explanation that animals are not part of all living even though Genesis 1:30 says they are alive. The point was and still is that yall should have never brought it up as evidence against Pel's position.
I would hardly call what I wrote as a long discourse :-)
The verse is straightforward, you just seemed to have needed it to be made plainer.
coadie
08-24-2010, 09:30 PM
You do realize that the very fact you have to go into a long discourse to try and explain that verse to where it is compatible with your theology gives others the license to go into long discourses and explain why it is compatible with theirs. The fact is that verse is not straightforward and requires interpretation and qualification such as your mother of all living that has a mother. Or such as coadies explanation that animals are not part of all living even though Genesis 1:30 says they are alive. The point was and still is that yall should have never brought it up as evidence against Pel's position.
You need a teaching moment. Eve is the mother of all living souls as is written in Genesis 2
You are dishonest. I did not say Eve was the mother of all that was alive.
You take 1:30 and drop part of the verse
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Atheists/evolutionists selectively ignore verses that do not fit their dogma.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
jfrog, I get your tactics for years on the atheeeeist boards. Darwinists on this board act just like the atheists elsewhere.
You misquote, make up quotes and misquote scripture. Leaving out verses no wonder Darwinists don't Love or respect the Word of God.
jfrog
08-24-2010, 09:31 PM
The Bible shows that Adam was not the son of another creature, human or prehuman, bur was a direct and specific creation of God.
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
That's my point. Adam was somehow a specific creation of God, but if we take Eve being the mother of ALL living literally and with no exceptions then she somehow must also be the mother of Adam. I think we all reject that notion, but on what grounds can we reject it because the logic used to reach this point is sound. I reject the notion because I consider it an obvious exception which is what you seem to be trying to get at. However this also means that I can also reject other implications of Eve being the mother of ALL living as being obvious exceptions.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 09:34 PM
That is exactly right. If we're going to believe the Bible, it starts at Genesis 1. As I've said before, Timmy, again points out.
If were going by the BIBLE the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation, a young earth, and that God directly created Adam and Eve.
Believe it if you want to (Pel), or don't. But to attempt to put Darwinism into the Genesis account is the pinnacle of foolishness.
"Professing themselves to be wise........"
As I pointed out, you and Timmy suffer from the same affliction. You read the Bible from a Fundamentalist view point. For this reason you both err. The fact that you both will then go and reach different conclusions as to whether or not you should accept the Bible's message is irrelevant.
You erred with your hermeneutics.
And what is that last comment supposed to mean? Do you continue to taunt? The sad fact of the matter is you are the one who pops in and pontificates, blasting away at those who don't see it just as you do.
Jason B
08-24-2010, 09:36 PM
I am not going to address the subject of biological evolution per say, but will mention the whole foolishness of the "young Earth" doctrine.
What we are looking at is a car crash (obviously). We are ALSO looking at the skid marks that the car made before it crashed. In all likelyhood none of the first responders actually saw the crash took place but it is amazing how much detail they can reconstruct based on the evidence surrounding the wreck. The speed the car was going as well as the angle, even WHEN it happened to a rough degree. Now comparing this the evidence we see in the Universe we find that in order to accept a "young Earth/young Universe" we would have to believe that God created the wreck (or stars and planets) AND then proceeded to create the skid marks and all signs of things that actually happened for those stars and planets and galaxies to form for the sole purpose of creating a false history of things that never actually happened.
Randy, how can be so so sure that car didn't skid at a rate of 1/1,000,000th of an inch for 4 billion years and finally strike the tree?
Secondly, your "theory" doesn't take into account the possible effects of a cataclysmic global flood.
Which, if I remember correctly, neither you, nor Pelathias believe the flood account found in Genesis either.
jfrog
08-24-2010, 09:36 PM
You need a teaching moment. Eve is the mother of all living souls as is written in Genesis 2
You are dishonest. I did not say Eve was the mother of all that was alive.
You take 1:30 and drop part of the verse
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Atheists/evolutionists selectively ignore verses that do not fit their dogma.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
jfrog, I get your tactics for years on the atheeeeist boards. Darwinists on this board act just like the atheists elsewhere.
You misquote, make up quotes and misquote scripture. Leaving out verses no wonder Darwinists don't Love or respect the Word of God.
The bible never says that Eve is the mother of all living souls. That is an interpretation of scripture coadie. Learn the difference. I can just as easily interpret that to mean that Eve is the Mother of all living things. Which is the correct interpretation? Who knows? But trying to make major arguments off such a subjective verse that even you and Gary have to explain sure doesn't seem like a solid approach.
BroGary
08-24-2010, 09:37 PM
That's my point. Adam was somehow a specific creation of God, but if we take Eve being the mother of ALL living literally and with no exceptions then she somehow must also be the mother of Adam. I think we all reject that notion, but on what grounds can we reject it because the logic used to reach this point is sound. I reject the notion because I consider it an obvious exception which is what you seem to be trying to get at. However this also means that I can also reject other implications of Eve being the mother of ALL living as being obvious exceptions.
Adam was created by God fully developed as a human, Eve was made by God from Adam's rib, therefore neither one had mothers, so it is obvious that being the mother of all living souls means all those who were not directly created by God (Adam and Eve).
coadie
08-24-2010, 09:40 PM
I would hardly call what I wrote as a long discourse :-)
The verse is straightforward, you just seemed to have needed it to be made plainer.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
You can't have honest arguments with people that select which verses to ignore
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
When people practice castigating scripture, they cherry pick phrases and ignore inconvenient verses in the same chapters.
20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
God created man in His image, breathed life into him and he became a living soul. He can't wrap his head around humans are living souls and animals are living. They are diifferent kinds.
jfrog
08-24-2010, 09:41 PM
Adam was created by God fully developed as a human, Eve was made by God from Adam's rib, therefore neither one had mothers, so it is obvious that being the mother of all living souls means all those who were not directly created by God (Adam and Eve).
Exactly. But you just created one exception for the rule that Eve is the mother of all living. Are you sure there are no other exceptions?
pelathais
08-24-2010, 09:46 PM
Randy, how can be so so sure that car didn't skid at a rate of 1/1,000,000th of an inch for 4 billion years and finally strike the tree?
Secondly, your "theory" doesn't take into account the possible effects of a cataclysmic global flood.
Which, if I remember correctly, neither you, nor Pelathias believe the flood account found in Genesis either.
We can know that the car didn't skid for 4 billion years because the grass would have grown to cover the tracks faster than the tracks were being made.
Jason B
08-24-2010, 09:47 PM
As I pointed out, you and Timmy suffer from the same affliction. You read the Bible from a Fundamentalist view point. For this reason, you both err. Because you both will then go and reach different conclusions as to whether or not you should accept the Bible's message is irrelevant.
My "affliction" is that I believe the Bible for wha it says. I really can't understand why someone would study the Bible if they didn't believe it to be reliable or accurate to what it says. I have an even harder time believing that the same person would accept the same to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God. I believe your taking your liberalism too far, and in the end you will have the same view of the Bible that Not4Sale has, effectively leaving you with no source of divine authority, but your own conscience. I hope I'm wrong, but you seem dead set comitted to defend scientific THEORIES rather than admit what scripture actually does teach.
You erred with your hermeneutics.
Lets see, the Bible says 6 days, I believe it to be just that. 6 days to you means approximately 4.23 billion years. Hermeneutics?
And what is that last comment supposed to mean? Do you continue to taunt?
No, not a taunt, a warning. You are trading the widsom of God for the foolishness of the world.
I haven't called you a non christian. I have not insulted you. I have not taunted you, and I have not attacked you.
I have said you are doing violence to the scripture with your doctrine which is based on Darwin, and that you are erring in following wordly "wisdom" and rejecting the clear testimony of scripture. I have a problem with the doctrine you are promoting, not necessarily with you. But your sharpness is indeed disappointing.
The sad fact of the matter is you are the one who pops in and pontificates, blasting away at those who don't see it just as you do.
Really? What is the comment in reference to.
AFF has its typical liberals. They want freedom of speech, but then when someone states their more conservative opinion, all of a sudden they're a pontificating fool.
RandyWayne
08-24-2010, 09:49 PM
Randy, how can be so so sure that car didn't skid at a rate of 1/1,000,000th of an inch for 4 billion years and finally strike the tree?
Secondly, your "theory" doesn't take into account the possible effects of a cataclysmic global flood.
Which, if I remember correctly, neither you, nor Pelathias believe the flood account found in Genesis either.
One real world analogy is the Hawaiian islands. We see where the hot spot under the Earths crust has slowly been moving under the Pacific ocean leaving a trail. The current state of Hawaii is where it is currently located but it has been moving for many millions of years and we can see its path.
coadie
08-24-2010, 09:49 PM
The bible never says that Eve is the mother of all living souls. That is an interpretation of scripture coadie. Learn the difference. I can just as easily interpret that to mean that Eve is the Mother of all living things. Which is the correct interpretation? Who knows? But trying to make major arguments off such a subjective verse that even you and Gary have to explain sure doesn't seem like a solid approach.
are you telling me people do not have souls?
Do you have a soul?
I take it you are unable to use scripture to interpret scripture.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Seems to me if God says this
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Now it is in your court te prove why she would be like her husband/help meet and not have a soul.
For extra points, God told them to replentish the earth, can you show me using scripture how their offspring do not have souls. Are the offspring the same kind?
Jason B
08-24-2010, 09:53 PM
One real world analogy is the Hawaiian islands. We see where the hot spot under the Earths crust has slowly been moving under the Pacific ocean leaving a trail. The current state of Hawaii is where it is currently located but it has been moving for many millions of years and we can see its path.
Randy how do we KNOW it has been moving for millions of years. All of this stuff is simply based on what people THINK but not what people KNOW.
coadie
08-24-2010, 09:55 PM
One real world analogy is the Hawaiian islands. We see where the hot spot under the Earths crust has slowly been moving under the Pacific ocean leaving a trail. The current state of Hawaii is where it is currently located but it has been moving for many millions of years and we can see its path.
It has? Tell us who plotted the location millions of years ago.
I will call my friend who is a Geophysicist with Exxon and let him know. His sesmic budget is millions on millions and he doesn't belive it.
I am finding more and more exploration geologists that have reaserch budgets and have records see the massive contradiction in many old earth claims.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 10:01 PM
My "affliction" is that I believe the Bible for wha it says. I really can't understand why someone would study the Bible if they didn't believe it to be reliable or accurate to what it says. I have an even harder time believing that the same person would accept the same to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God. I believe your taking your liberalism too far, and in the end you will have the same view of the Bible that Not4Sale has, effectively leaving you with no source of divine authority, but your own conscience. I hope I'm wrong, but you seem dead set comitted to defend scientific THEORIES rather than admit what scripture actually does teach.
...
The fact that you don't understand does not negate the reality and truth of the matter. Just because you want to dismiss reality and the world that some how appears to exist around us doesn't mean that this world doesn't exist.
I came at this from a YEC and Fundamentalist background. I was come from a background where 6 generations of my paternal ancestors were preachers (skipping my father's generation - and his on again and off again atheism gave me plenty to think about). When I couldn't even address the tough questions I was being asked in my ministry with the tools that Fundamentalism gave me, I didn't throw out the Bible. I rejected Fundamentalism.
Big difference.
You appear to equate Fundamentalism with "The Word of God." You demand literalism - try this:
Reconcile the contradiction between Genesis 1:24-27 and Genesis 2:18-20 concerning just who was created first, the man or the animals? Give a literal explanation for that problem. Remember, both accounts have to be LITERAL.
Then, turn to Matthew 27:9. Literally, how do you interpret this verse? Did "Jeremy the prophet" actually pen Zechariah 11:12-13?
coadie
08-24-2010, 10:03 PM
Randy how do we KNOW it has been moving for millions of years. All of this stuff is simply based on what people THINK but not what people KNOW.
This is circular reasoning. Science requires actual observation. Extrapolation back in time is very dangerous.
Circular is in dating. How old are the fossils? 10 milion yeqars. How do you know, the rock is that old. How do you know the rock is that old? the fossils are that old
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/coelacanth.html
The primitive-looking coelacanth (pronounced SEEL-uh-kanth) was thought to have gone extinct with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. But its discovery in 1938 by a South African museum curator on a local fishing trawler fascinated the world and ignited a debate about how this bizarre lobe-finned fish fits into the evolution of land animals.
Extinct 65 million years ago and still around today. Lie for the cause of darwin. We have no honest reason to believe 65 million years.
coadie
08-24-2010, 10:10 PM
The fact that you don't understand does not negate the reality and truth of the matter. Just because you want to dismiss reality and the world that some how appears to exist around us doesn't mean that this world doesn't exist.
I came at this from a YEC and Fundamentalist background. I was come from a background where 6 generations of my paternal ancestors were preachers (skipping my father's generation - and his on again and off again atheism gave me plenty to think about). When I couldn't even address the tough questions I was being asked in my ministry with the tools that Fundamentalism gave me, I didn't throw out the Bible. I rejected Fundamentalism.
Big difference.
You appear to equate Fundamentalism with "The Word of God." You demand literalism - try this:
Reconcile the contradiction between Genesis 1:24-27 and Genesis 2:18-20 concerning just who was created first, the man or the animals? Give a literal explanation for that problem. Remember, both accounts have to be LITERAL.
Then, turn to Matthew 27:9. Literally, how do you interpret this verse? Did "Jeremy the prophet" actually pen Zechariah 11:12-13?
The dismiss reality strawman!
What is fundamentalism? Darwin fundies?
Jason B
08-24-2010, 10:15 PM
Reconcile the contradiction between Genesis 1:24-27 and Genesis 2:18-20 concerning just who was created first, the man or the animals? Give a literal explanation for that problem. Remember, both accounts have to be LITERAL.
Where is the contradiction? Genesis 2:1-3 basically cap off the first chapter of Genesis 1. (of course we are aware chapter divisions are not necessarily divinely appointed).
Genesis 2:4-17 seems to lay out the garden of Eden, and the conditons that man was given to live in it.
Genesis 2:18-20 seem to be recap chapter 1 while emphasizing the obvious, that amongst the animal kingdom there was not a helpmeet for Adam. The remainder of the chapter tells how God HIMSELF created Eve from Adam (which account you reject).
I don't see the issue here.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 10:18 PM
Lets see, the Bible says 6 days, I believe it to be just that. 6 days to you means approximately 4.23 billion years. Hermeneutics?
The Bible also says "the day" singular (Genesis 2:4). Literally, which is it?
No, not a taunt, a warning. You are trading the widsom of God for the foolishness of the world.
Why do you think "the wisdom of God" is limited to a method of interpretation that only gained traction in 1648? How did the church get along before this great "illumination" of Fundamentalism?
I haven't called you a non christian.
No, but you have insulted me.
I have not insulted you.
Wait a minute... what? "Ridiculous?"
I have not taunted you, and I have not attacked you.
Denial is more than a river in Egypt, as they say. Because you have now chosen to ignore the reality of your own comments does not change that reality. It's sort of like listening to you say that the stars are not tens of thousand and millions of light years away. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
I have said you are doing violence to the scripture with your doctrine which is based on Darwin, and that you are erring in following wordly "wisdom" and rejecting the clear testimony of scripture.
Can you show me an example of anything Darwin even wrote on the subject of Bible hermeneutics or the "proper" interpretation of Genesis? I've actually looked and found nothing.
I have a problem with the doctrine you are promoting, not necessarily with you. But your sharpness is indeed disappointing.
I went out of my way to say nice things about you after you launched one of your acerbic salvos two nights ago. The rejoinder I received from you wasn't the words of a friend. It was mocking in tone and offered nothing to the overall discussion.
Really? What is the comment in reference to.
AFF has its typical liberals. They want freedom of speech, but then when someone states their more conservative opinion, all of a sudden they're a pontificating fool.[/QUOTE]
By adopting a very ancient outlook and applying it to a very ancient book I am a "liberal?" Yet when you adopt a novel teaching that popped up a mere 350 years ago you think you're a "conservative?" Not so my friend. You have adopted the "new ways."
You might as well wear a wig and high heeled shoes (like the Fundamentalists of 1648). Meanwhile, I will shave my head and grow my beard, don my loin cloth (okay, the wife says I have to at least wear the cargo shorts) and sit as a student of the ancient scribes, and listen to their voices.
coadie
08-24-2010, 10:19 PM
Where is the contradiction? Genesis 2:1-3 basically cap off the first chapter of Genesis 1. (of course we are aware chapter divisions are not necessarily divinely appointed).
Genesis 2:4-17 seems to lay out the garden of Eden, and the conditons that man was given to live in it.
Genesis 2:18-20 seem to be recap chapter 1 while emphasizing the obvious, that amongst the animal kingdom there was not a helpmeet for Adam. The remainder of the chapter tells how God HIMSELF created Eve from Adam (which account you reject).
I don't see the issue here.
There is no issue. It is a presupposition by the sceptics that it must be chronological and that they do not match.
The bible doesn't have internal contradictions. The canned lists from the sceptics are what they use and have failed them in the past.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 10:19 PM
The dismiss reality strawman!
What is fundamentalism? Darwin fundies?
Open a window, dude. The smoke from your crack pipe is the only "air" you appear to be breathing.
coadie
08-24-2010, 10:26 PM
pelathais
I suppose we now know who coadie's god is:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Lord_Rama_with_arrows.jpg[/QUOTE]
This is what we expect from non Christians.
You sure seem nasty today. Does it make you feel better and superior?
pelathais
08-24-2010, 10:32 PM
Randy how do we KNOW it has been moving for millions of years. All of this stuff is simply based on what people THINK but not what people KNOW.
The Hawaiian Islands are crumbling, being worn down by the sea and as their own weight slowly sinks into the silt of the sea floor.
The magma that is erupting on the Big Island of Hawaii has a particular make up of silica and basalts that indicates it comes from rather deep beneath the crust. It's markedly different than the lava that erupts from other volcanoes around the Pacific Rim.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Hawaii_hotspot.jpg/350px-Hawaii_hotspot.jpg
Tracing back from The Big Island - we see the Hawaiian Islands get increasingly smaller. This is due to the measurable rates of erosion. Moving even further back (toward the Northwest) we are soon underwater and tracking a string of undersea sea mounts that also get generally smaller due to settlement in the silt of the sea floor (erosion caused by waves drops off as you go deeper so the sea mounts themselves remain as relics of what used to be islands).
The lava in these underwater sea mounts is identical to the lava that is erupting right now hundreds, even thousands of miles away on the Big Island of Hawaii. It has the same composition as the lava on the Hawaiian Islands. Because we can see the progression in size due to erosion we know that the crust is moving slowly over the hot spot and not thousands miles in a single year as some YECs claim.
coadie
08-24-2010, 10:34 PM
Open a window, dude. The smoke from your crack pipe is the only "air" you appear to be breathing.
You have an extremely ungodly attitude. Do you know what causes this?
It appears you are claiming I am smokling crack using a pipe.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 10:36 PM
This is what we expect from non Christians.
You sure seem nasty today. Does it make you feel better and superior?
"Nasty?" From you? :ursofunny
coadie
08-24-2010, 10:37 PM
The Hawaiian Islands are crumbling, being worn down by the sea and as their own weight slowly sinks into the silt of the sea floor.
The magma that is erupting on the Big Island of Hawaii has a particular make up of silica and basalts that indicates it comes from rather deep beneath the crust. It's markedly different than the lava that erupts from other volcanoes around the Pacific Rim.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Hawaii_hotspot.jpg/350px-Hawaii_hotspot.jpg
Tracing back from The Big Island - we see the Hawaiian Islands get increasingly smaller. This is due to the measurable rates of erosion. Moving even further back (toward the Northwest) we are soon underwater and tracking a string of undersea sea mounts that also get generally smaller due to settlement in the silt of the sea floor (erosion caused by waves drops off as you go deeper).
The lava in these underwater sea mounts is identical to the lava that is erupting right now hundreds, even thousands of miles away on the Big Island of Hawaii.
He asked for proof of Millions of years. You went off on some other wild topic. We know you don't have proof. You are a good wiki scholar and google scholar.
coadie
08-24-2010, 10:41 PM
Open a window, dude. The smoke from your crack pipe is the only "air" you appear to be breathing.
This is a Freudian defense mechanism called projection
pelathais
08-24-2010, 10:41 PM
It has? Tell us who plotted the location millions of years ago.
I will call my friend who is a Geophysicist with Exxon and let him know. His sesmic budget is millions on millions and he doesn't belive it.
I am finding more and more exploration geologists that have reaserch budgets and have records see the massive contradiction in many old earth claims.
No you're not. Neither did you study genetics at the graduate level in an Ivy League school. :ursofunny
Here's the testimony of a real petroleum geologist who started out as a Young Earth Creationist. Even if you can't understand the big words look at the pictures.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
Glenn went on to become one of the largest contributors to the legendary TalkOrigins FAQ.
http://talkorigins.org/
pelathais
08-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Where is the contradiction? Genesis 2:1-3 basically cap off the first chapter of Genesis 1. (of course we are aware chapter divisions are not necessarily divinely appointed).
Genesis 2:4-17 seems to lay out the garden of Eden, and the conditons that man was given to live in it.
Genesis 2:18-20 seem to be recap chapter 1 while emphasizing the obvious, that amongst the animal kingdom there was not a helpmeet for Adam. The remainder of the chapter tells how God HIMSELF created Eve from Adam (which account you reject).
I don't see the issue here.
When were the animals created? Before or after the man? Which was created first? There is a glaring contradiction that has elicited comment from ancient times.
Jason B
08-24-2010, 10:46 PM
When were the animals created? Before or after the man? Which was created first? There is a glaring contradiction that has elicited comment from ancient times.
it seems pretty plan that animals were created first, man was created as the crowning jewel of the creation, he alone being created unique, while everything else was spoken into existence.
coadie
08-24-2010, 10:49 PM
No you're not. Neither did you study genetics at the graduate level in an Ivy League school. :ursofunny
Here's the testimony of a real petroleum geologist who started out as a Young Earth Creationist. Even if you can't understand the big words look at the pictures.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
Glenn went on to become one of the largest contributors to the legendary TalkOrigins FAQ.
http://talkorigins.org/
Neither did you study genetics at the graduate level in an Ivy League school.
3 classes. You seem to desire to lie about this. Little ego flaring up?
Darwinists are living in a world of imagination. Sorcery is when people claim powers to know something that is unseen.
What methods do you prefer to determine what people have studied?
coadie
08-24-2010, 10:54 PM
it seems pretty plan that animals were created first, man was created as the crowning jewel of the creation, he alone being created unique, while everything else was spoken into existence.
It is simple. The author of confusion doesn't like simple.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 10:55 PM
it seems pretty plan that animals were created first, man was created as the crowning jewel of the creation, he alone being created unique, while everything else was spoken into existence.
And yet,
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Man was "alone." To address that situation the LORD God created animals. That's a different sequence than Genesis 1.
Now, I don't see a problem here because I am not demanding a literal interpretation to every statement. The way I see it, the animals were created first and existed before the man was created (As per Genesis 1). My question here involved hermeneutics.
You see, you are already using the same hermeneutics that I use in Genesis 2. The account of the creation of the animals is not seen as a literal event occurring AFTER the creation of the man. Instead, the writer is harkening back and retelling an event that already had taken place.
You have already abandoned a literal interpretation by the time you get to Genesis 2.
pelathais
08-24-2010, 10:55 PM
Neither did you study genetics at the graduate level in an Ivy League school.
3 classes. You seem to desire to lie about this. Little ego flaring up?
Darwinists are living in a world of imagination. Sorcery is when people claim powers to know something that is unseen.
What methods do you prefer to determine what people have studied?
Prove it. As I said, you may have. However, the way that you write and the manner in which even the least complex ideas go right over your head makes me want to challenge your assertion. The way in which you fumbled the "three/four chambered heart" issue clearly indicates that you have little or no exposure at all to genetic research and study.
If you did, what a waste of resources.
coadie
08-24-2010, 10:56 PM
When were the animals created? Before or after the man? Which was created first? There is a glaring contradiction that has elicited comment from ancient times.
You are a self propelled self contradiction generater.
Bring out wiki. They have all the ancient times stuff.
We look forward to being impressed.
coadie
08-24-2010, 10:58 PM
Open a window, dude. The smoke from your crack pipe is the only "air" you appear to be breathing.
Prove it
pelathais
08-24-2010, 11:01 PM
You are a self propelled self contradiction generater.
Bring out wiki. They have all the ancient times stuff.
We look forward to being impressed.
Prove it
:ursofunny
You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into the mire. Why don't you just quit the act? Repent. Invent a new screen name and come clean. Bury "coadie" and his bizarre rants and outrageous claims in the dirt.
RandyWayne
08-24-2010, 11:05 PM
Randy how do we KNOW it has been moving for millions of years. All of this stuff is simply based on what people THINK but not what people KNOW.
In the same vein that the analysts know how fast a car was moving when it lost control we can likewise backtrack geological events. Would you say that God created the car crash and the skid marks? Would you say God created a geological formation -and all the signs leading up to its creation?
RandyWayne
08-24-2010, 11:08 PM
Atomic "skid marks":
Half Lives for Radioactive Elements
Radioactive Parent
Stable Daughter
Half life
Radioactive Parent - Stable Daughter - Half life
Potassium 40 -- Argon 40 -- 1.25 billion yrs
Rubidium 87 -- Strontium 87 -- 48.8 billion yrs
Thorium 232 -- Lead 208 -- 14 billion years
Uranium 235 --- Lead 207 -- 704 million years
Uranium 238 -- Lead 206 -- 4.47 billion years
Carbon 14 -- Nitrogen 14 -- 5730 years
coadie
08-25-2010, 06:42 AM
This is the third or fourth time that I've posted this, and yet you just don't seem to be engaged in this discussion at all.
Evolutionary biology teaches that all human beings are descended from a single "breeding pair" of humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Take that shriveled knot at the end of your brain stem and employ it in the task of reading this short article. Then you can say, "Science supports the Bible!" and do a little dance.
:bliss
Using wiki to tell us the bible is not true.
This 'article" from wiki calls the bible full of false doctrine
Doctrine of original sin.
Wiki says EVE was the first human female. She mothered males and females and they call her the mitochondrial origin of humanity.
Wiki says the first human male, Christians call him Adam was as many as 80,000 years later.
God said he formed Adam before Eve. Darwinists say not true at all
If Eve had offspring, the sex partners were not male humans. Monkee sex.
Wiki says she did not become extinct but no male humans to date and have sex with.
So wiki says there was death before Adam arrived.
Pelthais says wiki is true and this verse must be false.
1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
When Pelthais attacks the truth of Genesis 1 and genesis 2, he either isn't smart enough to know that other scriptures support those verses and they would also have to be deleted. Or, Pelthais claims the New Testament verses are also false.
I believe God. I believe the Word.
Science supports the Bible!" and do a little dance.
Obviously Pelthais doesn't understand science or wiki is not science.
Action item for Pelthais.
Explain how eve had eggs frozen so that she could have a child with Adam 80,000 years later and be the first breeding pair of humans.
Mitochondrial Eve lived much earlier than the out of Africa migration that is thought to have occurred between 95,000 to 45,000 BP
Pelthais uses this from wiki to claim the geneology of Jesus from adam to the cross is not true. It began with apes and common ancestry.
"Y-Chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line ancestor of all living men, was much more recent than Mitochondrial Eve, but is also likely to have been long before the Identical ancestors point
When they jump on the Darwin band wagon, there are a lot of scriptures in the New testament that they claim are lies.
coadie
08-25-2010, 06:46 AM
Atomic "skid marks":
Half Lives for Radioactive Elements
Radioactive Parent
Stable Daughter
Half life
Radioactive Parent - Stable Daughter - Half life
Potassium 40 -- Argon 40 -- 1.25 billion yrs
Rubidium 87 -- Strontium 87 -- 48.8 billion yrs
Thorium 232 -- Lead 208 -- 14 billion years
Uranium 235 --- Lead 207 -- 704 million years
Uranium 238 -- Lead 206 -- 4.47 billion years
Carbon 14 -- Nitrogen 14 -- 5730 years
And you don't have the original values for these chemicals. You speculate and extrapolate to arrive at the original values.
We have fun with these dating schemes because it is like measuring the distance to the moon with a 12 inch ruler.
Who made the elements?
jfrog
08-25-2010, 06:48 AM
Using wiki to tell us the bible is not true.
This 'article" from wiki calls the bible full of false doctrine
Doctrine of original sin.
Wiki says EVE was the first human female. She mothered males and females and they call her the mitochondrial origin of humanity.
Wiki says the first human male, Christians call him Adam was as many as 80,000 years later.
God said he formed Adam before Eve. Darwinists say not true at all
If Eve had offspring, the sex partners were not male humans. Monkee sex.
Wiki says she did not become extinct but no male humans to date and have sex with.
So wiki says there was death before Adam arrived.
Pelthais says wiki is true and this verse must be false.
1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
When Pelthais attacks the truth of Genesis 1 and genesis 2, he either isn't smart enough to know that other scriptures support those verses and they would also have to be deleted. Or, Pelthais claims the New Testament verses are also false.
I believe God. I believe the Word.
Obviously Pelthais doesn't understand science or wiki is not science.
Action item for Pelthais.
Explain how eve had eggs frozen so that she could have a child with Adam 80,000 years later and be the first breeding pair of humans.
Mitochondrial Eve lived much earlier than the out of Africa migration that is thought to have occurred between 95,000 to 45,000 BP
Pelthais uses this from wiki to claim the geneology of Jesus from adam to the cross is not true. It began with apes and common ancestry.
When they jump on the Darwin band wagon, there are a lot of scriptures in the New testament that they claim are lies.
There is one small problem with your theory that any of the stuff Pel has said or that Wikipedia has said disproves the bible. Wikipedia says the MOST RECENT male ancestor didn't live at the same time as the MOST RECENT female ancestor. It says nothing about the MOST ANCIENT male and female ancestor.
coadie
08-25-2010, 06:52 AM
In the same vein that the analysts know how fast a car was moving when it lost control we can likewise backtrack geological events. Would you say that God created the car crash and the skid marks? Would you say God created a geological formation -and all the signs leading up to its creation?
Your analogy won't work. The car has reached stasis.
Darwinism says the molecules lined up and the car self created itself without external intelligence and created it's own energy from nothing to reach velocity.
coadie
08-25-2010, 07:26 AM
There is one small problem with your theory that any of the stuff Pel has said or that Wikipedia has said disproves the bible. Wikipedia says the MOST RECENT male ancestor didn't live at the same time as the MOST RECENT female ancestor. It says nothing about the MOST ANCIENT male and female ancestor.
You need to cut and past from wiki.
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor for all modern humans
Yesterday you proved to me you couldn't quote the bible or other posters with accuracy.
The date when Mitochondrial Eve lived is estimated by determining the MRCA of a sample of mtDNA lineages. In 1980, Brown first proposed that modern humans possessed a mitochondrial common ancestor that may have lived as recently as 180 kya. In 1987, Cann et al. suggested that mitochondrial Eve may have lived between 140-280 kya.
If this is true, you are saying the bible is false.
There were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today,
More from wiki.
Like Eve, "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, Eve lived much earlier than Adam – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier than Adam – due to the greater variability in male fecundity.[11]
The darwinist apologists say the bible is a lie. Adam the first human male with descendants living today and eve the original woman with descendants living today lived tens of thousands of years apart.
This is how they peddle false doctrine and say evolution is true, the bible is false and there was death before Adam.
Is wiki article true or false?
coadie
08-25-2010, 07:40 AM
Discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson, Lucy is special because she lived so long ago (3.2 millions years) and because almost half of her skeleton was found. (Most fossil finds are just fragments -- sometimes a tooth or a piece of a skull.) Johanson named her after the Beatles' song, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/lucy.html
We have enough bones to fill a casket that are classified as bones between humans and apes during transformation. Of course there are books and books written on stories making claims how some apes had offspring that evolved into humans.
The deal killer is they have no actual DNA. They can't produce actual DNA but claim to know what it would be like. No proof. Just voodoo.
A lot of zealots are working hard to take a stab at proving a godless creation.
jfrog
08-25-2010, 08:47 AM
You need to cut and past from wiki.
Yesterday you proved to me you couldn't quote the bible or other posters with accuracy.
If this is true, you are saying the bible is false.
There were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today,
More from wiki.
The darwinist apologists say the bible is a lie. Adam the first human male with descendants living today and eve the original woman with descendants living today lived tens of thousands of years apart.
This is how they peddle false doctrine and say evolution is true, the bible is false and there was death before Adam.
Is wiki article true or false?
Read these words very carefully. MOST RECENT. Mitrochondial Eve was the MOST RECENT.... It doesn't say she was the MOST ANCIENT. It's not making a claim that she was the start of humanity. It's making a claim that we are all related to her and nothing more. We could also all be related to a much older woman but Mitrochondrial Eve is the MOST RECENT...
coadie
08-25-2010, 09:43 AM
Read these words very carefully. MOST RECENT. Mitrochondial Eve was the MOST RECENT.... It doesn't say she was the MOST ANCIENT. It's not making a claim that she was the start of humanity. It's making a claim that we are all related to her and nothing more. We could also all be related to a much older woman but Mitrochondrial Eve is the MOST RECENT...
More gibber jabber
Afraid to answer?
Is wiki article true or false?
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.