pgardner2358 Posted June 11, 2018 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/30/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted June 11, 2018 What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will. If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man. If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. 142 As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence. Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one? Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145 The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7) Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man. What does the scientific record say? The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.149 And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB) Probably some lines of ... man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. 162 Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur! What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrew‑spirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul? God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NASB) In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10) But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8) 1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit. 2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit. What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... “The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:”... What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls‑ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions). Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ‑have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153 The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain‑to‑body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements. It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167 The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences? It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man's intellectual powers gave him a free will. This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre‑Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait. How did God solve this problem? The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X‑chromosome and the Y-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X‑chromosome and 1 Y‑chromosome; normal females have 2 X‑chromosomes. 178 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21‑23) It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring. The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife? It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she? Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries! If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 On 6/11/2018 at 9:24 AM, pgardner2358 said: What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will. If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Why such an arbitrary date like 4004 BC? Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man. If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. Quote Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. 142 As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence. The BB is a hypothesis, not a theory. It rests on assumptions that simply cannot be tested. It is more a statement of faith than it is a fact of science. The only person who was present at the creation of the universe is God. He is the one who created it and is the only qualified to tell us how it came into being, so we should believe an all-powerful, all-wise God who cannot lie, instead of fallible little men who don't really know anything about how the universe was created. Quote Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one? No, and the wording of the creative account precludes Evolution. Quote Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145 See, that is a textual argument that requires textual evidence. Allegories are teaching tools, not interpretative tools. You don't use allegories to interpret a text. You use allegories to teach moral lessons. That is why an allegory is full of symbols. Moreover an allegory tells you what each element symbolizes. If the creation account were an allegory, then the author would tell you what each day symbolized and what each creative event symbolized and what each created element (trees, animals, dry land, fish, man/woman, etc) symbolize. But that is not contained in Genesis. Thus the "allegory" argument fails. Quote The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146 No, there is nothing in the created account that is evolutionary in nature. Quote And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7) Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man. No, because the nature of man's creation precludes him from being part of any evolutionary process. The wording of the text indicates that God created man from the dust of the ground IN HIS IMAGE. Man is a special creation, created separately and on a completely different day than the animals or any other part of the created order. He wholly separated from the rest of creation. Man is the point, the reason for creation. Man is made in the image of God. He is not a higher animal. He is in a completely different class wholly disconnected from any other class of being that God created. Quote And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB) Probably some lines of ... man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. 162 Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur! No, they don't concur. Quote What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... “The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:”... No, that is not true. Adam was the first human, not the first human to be like us. The Bible does not support that kind of silly notion. That is something you are trying to pencil into the text, via evolution. That is not the product of a true and faithful reading of Scripture. Quote What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls‑ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions). Free will is not an "evolved" characteristic. It is part of being made in the image of God. God made Adam and Eve that way from the start. Quote Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ‑have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153 The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain‑to‑body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements. Free will doesn't come from attaining a certain level of intelligence. It comes from being crated in God's image. Gods' creation of Adam included all of that from the start, as Adam was the first human being. Quote It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167 No, what is more probable is that God simply created Adam directly from the dust of the earth and made Adam in His image with free will and all of his intellectual faculties fully developed from the very moment Adam became a living human being. That makes far more sense than your evolutionary notions. Quote How did God solve this problem? He didn't. The problem didn't exist. The "problem" is the fruit of your carnal, unregenerate imagination and nothing more. And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21‑23) Quote It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring. Eve was not a "clone." Quote The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife? Cain's wife was his sister (Occam's razor). Quote If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit. No, that is not the answer. The story of the ark of Noah was about salvation and salvation was offered to anyone willing to get on the boat. God saved Noah and his family through His grace. Anyone who had been willing to heed the preaching of Noah for 120 years while Noah was building the ark, anyone willing to enter the ark would have been saved. In fact, had the people repented at the preaching of Noah, the flood would have been averted, but that did not happen and the world was judged. God didn't choose to save only Noah and his family; they were the only ones willing to be obedient. Your carnal thinking only clouds your ability to rightly interpret Scripture. We are not going to let science and evolutionists hi-jack the interpretation of Scripture to make it fit their carnal, unregenerate theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiards Ball Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,502 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 662 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 On 6/11/2018 at 10:24 AM, pgardner2358 said: What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will. If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man. If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. 142 As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence. Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one? Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145 The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7) Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man. What does the scientific record say? The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.149 And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB) Probably some lines of ... man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. 162 Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur! What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrew‑spirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul? God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NASB) In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10) But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8) 1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit. 2. The Hebrew word translated 'breath' may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit. What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... “The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:”... What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls‑ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions). Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ‑have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153 The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain‑to‑body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements. It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167 The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences? It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man's intellectual powers gave him a free will. This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre‑Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait. How did God solve this problem? The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X‑chromosome and the Y-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X‑chromosome and 1 Y‑chromosome; normal females have 2 X‑chromosomes. 178 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21‑23) It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring. The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife? It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she? Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries! If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit. I agree--science should never conflict with the Bible, unless the science is wrong, as it was when it said the Earth was flat but the Bible described a spherical Earth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 99 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,065 Content Per Day: 7.97 Reputation: 21,395 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted July 30, 2018 Key point to evolutionary direction: it is a faith based product with no logical incentives other than to rid themselves of God! It ignores thermodynamic law. Mathematical computation of probabilities are of such only fools continue in evolution: Rom 1:20-25 20 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: 21 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. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 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. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. KJV This is their judgment by God. They are fools... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 2 hours ago, enoob57 said: Key point to evolutionary direction: it is a faith based product with no logical incentives other than to rid themselves of God! It ignores thermodynamic law. Mathematical computation of probabilities are of such only fools continue in evolution: You might want to consider what PhD Biochemist and Young Earth Creationist Todd Wood has to say about evolution, even though he rejects it. Quote Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.) Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 51 minutes ago, one.opinion said: You might want to consider what PhD Biochemist and Young Earth Creationist Todd Wood has to say about evolution, even though he rejects it. Fortunately, we have a Bible that is 100% true as written, and we don't have to rely on it having evidence, but not necessarily true. So to put any degree of faith in the "evidence" for something that is already understood to be ultimately untrue, is irrational. It is as irrational as purposefully traveling down a winding road that you already know is a dead end simply because it looks like it would get you to your destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.34 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 "They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause" - Genesis, The Chamber of 32 Doors (The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, Cletus said: Truth can not be derived from trying to take Gods written word and fit it into a mans narrative or belief system. The only way to arrive on the shores of Truth is to read the bible for what it says, line by line, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, and book by book. You cant take The Bible and try to fit it in with mans theories or ideas and discover anything. God is specific with His words. there is so much assumption and theory pressed into scripture in the OP that its really hard to know where to begin. the main part that stuck out to me is the part about God cloning eve from Adam. So now we are to believe God took this part from Adams side and ran it thru some lab equipment and eve grew in a test tube? The bible says God made her. He created her. not cloned. this type of assumption is what i am speaking of in my first paragraph. If you are going to implant a theory into Gods word and in doing so change what it says it will only be to pat yourself on the back and say i have figured it out, but that is not taking God at His Word... and He does not lie. this approach to scripture wont work. the bible and science do run parallel. However todays science is not science its just theories that cant be proven, and the more testing and research done only cause more roadblocks for scientists to prove these theories. this is because these theories are in contradiction to whats true, which can be found in the Holy Bible. When you read the bible and then apply what is scientifically sound you will then see a parallel. That's why the evolution fans have to muddy the water about what the Bible says, and re-interpret it to fit their ungodly, unchristian, carnal belief system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted July 30, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 30, 2018 Todd Wood has learned enough of the science to admit that "gobs and gobs" of evidence support evolution. He chooses to not accept the evidence at face value since it contradicts his interpretation of the Bible. I can respect that approach. But it is simply unproductive to argue anything to the effect of "science disproves evolution". That's all I'm saying at this point. I'm not really feeling the need to argue Biblical interpretation ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Todd Wood has learned enough of the science to admit that "gobs and gobs" of evidence support evolution. He chooses to not accept the evidence at face value since it contradicts his interpretation of the Bible. I can respect that approach. But it is simply unproductive to argue anything to the effect of "science disproves evolution". That's all I'm saying at this point. I'm not really feeling the need to argue Biblical interpretation ? Evidence that supports evolution is a dead end. It really doesn't matter if there is "evidence." In the end, it cannot be squared with the Bible as written. You have to change (not interpret) what the Bible says, in order to make evolution fit. Christians that support evolution are wildly dishonest about that. Even Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, were honest about the incompatibility of the Bible with Evolution. It's sad that Atheists can actually be far more honest about this than some Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts