Science and the Bible...

[thereselittleflower]

2 minutes ago, *Zion* said:

Yes.  Do you understand the Word of God? Because that is my final authority.  Not biology.

The word of God does not say that we are physically made in God's image.

 

[*Zion*]

Yes it does.  Literally.

[thereselittleflower]

1 minute ago, *Zion* said:

Yes it does.  Literally.

prove it

 

[*Zion*]

Wow.

 

 

Genesis 1:27

27 So God created man in His own image, in the image and likeness of God He created him; male and female He created them.

John 1:14

And the Word (Christ) became flesh (human, incarnate) and tabernacled (fixed His tent of flesh, lived awhile) among us; and we [actually] saw His glory (His honor, His majesty), such glory as an only begotten son receives from his father, full of grace (favor, loving-kindness) and truth.

 

 

Of course you want more proof, but I can't call down a sign from heaven for you. I don't seek such things, I am just happy to believe though I have not seen.  Take it or leave it, but your argument will be with the Word of God, not with me.

[Reinitin]

Ithink science pretty much is just men figuring out what a perfect work is completed by God Word.

[Goldenshark123]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but there isn't really a debate any more. Evolution has been proven 100% true by many pieces of evidence such as the fossil record, DNA ect. A more interesting question would be if it's possible that a supernatural creator oversaw evolution, perhaps helping it along a bit. I myself do not belive in god, as there is no evidence to prove he is, but I am always open to new ideas and evidence. This is what I find a little annoying in some (by no means all) religious people. They will not change their minds even if all evidence points the other way. That is the beauty of science that we base our conclusions on actual evidence.

[gdemoss]

Yes!  Evolution is absolutely 100% correct from the skewed vatage point of mans synthetic knowledge rooted in his own perception of the reality he tests.  Unfortunately, this is where self reliance must lead man for the way that seems right unto a man leads to eternal death.

[ARGOSY]

On 2/24/2016 at 0:07 AM, siegi91 said:

 

That is the problem. We are not so unique.

i don't know. I find it difficult to believe that God created the Universe for man, and then reused the main design of "lower" life forms for what constitutes His main creative purpose.

I would have really done something unique. Something that poses no doubt whatsoever about our origin. I think that postulating a naturalistic common origin with these "lower" forms is more plausible.

 

 

Siegi you seem to be an intelligent person.  But then you should understand how subjective your argument is.  For another person this earth is filled with a wonderful variety of beautiful life-forms which speak of the very creativity of the creator God.  You believe its all too similar to reflect a creator God.  I find that subjective, I see huge variety, even between us and apes. And we are uniquely intelligent with a high emotional capacity compared to most other species on earth, so of all species  the focus is on mankind.

Subjectivity aside, if you compare the genomes across species, even apes and humans, you will find nothing that favors long-term evolution over creationism.   Even if you isolate e-coli in multiple unique environments and try and INDUCE mutations no unique functions on a genetic level EVER develop. And this is across millions of generations in a mutating environment. Sometimes a dormant function may be re-stimulated by re-activating a lost trigger, but that is about it. 

Instead we see species rapidly adapting to new environments just by using the latent potential that already exists in the alleles in every gene position of a population. And we see species LOSING functionality that may help protect them against a certain disease (eg the Duffy gene). It's as if biology is downgrading and simplifying under the pressure of increased disease, rather then evolving increased complexity. This fits in with a creation at one time sustained by God, and now separated and deteriating. This "devolving" is what is actually observed. So there definitely is natural selection, and rapid evolution, but not in the manner envisaged by evolutionists to explain modern life-forms.

Once again I am highlighting how evolution is a faith-based belief, not backed up by genetic or fossil evidence. Neither does the geologic column favor evolution, its an unproven theory that is so easily embraced because mankind searches for an excuse to abandon faith in God.

 

[ARGOSY]

2 hours ago, Goldenshark123 said:

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but there isn't really a debate any more. Evolution has been proven 100% true by many pieces of evidence such as the fossil record, DNA ect. A more interesting question would be if it's possible that a supernatural creator oversaw evolution, perhaps helping it along a bit. I myself do not belive in god, as there is no evidence to prove he is, but I am always open to new ideas and evidence. This is what I find a little annoying in some (by no means all) religious people. They will not change their minds even if all evidence points the other way. That is the beauty of science that we base our conclusions on actual evidence.

Please provide some evidence. Anything. I see nothing in the geologic column , DNA, the fossil record or anywhere else that favors evolution over creationism on an empirical level. Even though they have tried to induce mutations in laboratories, no gaining of unique functions on a genetic level has ever been observed in nature or the laboratory.  Therefore the theory of evolution remains merely an interesting explanation for the appearance of modern complex species without any evidence to back it up.

 

Sure species can evolve very rapidly given selection pressure, but this is without the complexity inducing mutations claimed by evolutionists.  The main cause of rapid changes to a species' morphology or physiology are normally from changes to allele frequencies and allele combinations in a population. ie using latent ability that has not evolved but already existed.

 

Over to you, I would like to see this evidence you so confidently claim.

[ARGOSY]

3 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Deleted post

Deleted post