Jump to content
IGNORED

Intelligent Design, Science & Religion


bcbsr

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Have you forgotten, I am a fundamentalist, and we we accept all of God's word without question.

You accept your own understanding of what it says, but that's quite a different thing.

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You OTOH  reject a simple concept that refutes evolution."after their kind.,"[/quote]

Notice is says God creates kinds of living things, but doesn't say how.   He left evidence for us to find out.   And notice it doesn't say animals reproduce after their kind.   As you learned, we see evolution in every new organism, each with mutations that were present in neither parent.

In this case, the changes in size and shape of beaks under natural selection was documented by the Grants on Daphne Major in the Galapagos.   Directly observed and documented.

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Here is a perfect exampled  of what is not evidence. 

Of course it's evidence.   They observed a change in allele frequencies in response to natural selection.    No point in denying the fact.

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Since the original finches were not about to become extinct, there was no need for their beaks to change. 

Those that didn't change, died.    That's how it works.

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Also, to get a new beak, the parents would have to have  gene for the new beak.

No.   A mutation in sperm or egg cells will not change the parent, but will change their offspring.   This goes back to your lack of understanding of genetics.

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Don't show me WHO accepts it, show me the evidenced they use to support it.  I really doubt if anyone with AIG  accepts natural selection.

Some evolutionists find that claim surprising. But visitors to the Creation Museum’s new exhibit “Natural Selection Is Not Evolution” will learn how natural selection fits nicely within the biblical worldview.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/a-different-view-of-natural-selection/

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Another thing I have show that is possible, but as usual nothing I say can overcome your ignorance of what is possible.  So I will try to teach you one more time---All that is needed for a evening and morning is light and the earth rotation.

No.   Morning is when the Sun appears, and evening is when it sets.   Even ancient Christians recognized this.  If you don't use words as they are used by everyone else, you'll always be miscommunicating.

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Not true.  "After their kind," rules out evolution.

Not if God uses evolution to create new kinds of species.

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Since there was not  life, except  for "God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, before Gen 1:1, life was created ex nihilo.

God disagrees; He says the earth brought forth living things, as He intended.    That is creation from the earth, not from nothing.

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Again you are showing your theology is ignorant of Hebrews.  "Created" means "out of nothing."  Heb 11:3 reinforces this.

It's not Hebrew.   It's Latin.    Literally, "from nothing."   Creation of animals was, according to god, de terra, not ex nihilo.

 

5 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Not given a living soul, he became a living soul.

Hence, you aren't a body.   You are a soul who has a body.   But our souls are given directly by God.   In this, we differ from other animals, which are formed from existing creation.    Our bodies are also not created ex nihilo, but our souls are.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/10/2020 at 8:29 PM, The Barbarian said:

You accept your own understanding of what it says, but that's quite a different thing.

So do you , but I have an understanding  language on my side, you don;'t.

Notice is says God creates kinds of living things, but doesn't say how.   He left evidence for us to find out. 

This highlight what I just said---In Hebrew "created" means ex nihilo. If you knew the Bible better you would know that concept is  reinforced in  the (Heb 11:3)NT.

 And notice it doesn't say animals reproduce after their kind. 

It certainly does.  It says it  6 times.

It certainly does.  It said  it   As you learned, we see evolution in every new organism, each with mutations that were present in neither parent.

I can't learn anything from your unsupported opinions.

  I have learned something from you; you have no idea what mutations can and can't do.  You can't give me  one scientific truth that a mutation can change the specie.

In this case, the changes in size and shape of beaks under natural selection was documented by the Grants on Daphne Major in the Galapagos.   Directly observed and documented.

Not true.  All the did was observe the different beaks on different specie of finches.  The didn't show what caused  the beaks changed.  In fact as  long as it would take for the beaks to change, that kind of finch would have  become extinct.

Of course it's evidence.   They observed a change in allele frequencies in response to natural selection.    No point in denying the fact.

They observed  no such thing.  They only observed different kinds of finches and drew the conclusion, with no real evidence, that the beaks had evolved.  Again they offered no explanation as what caused the beaks to change. 

Those that didn't change, died.    That's how it works.

And that is what  make natural selection about survival of a species, not about a change of species.  In fact Darwin also called it "survival of the fittest,"  not the change of the species.

No.   A mutation in sperm or egg cells will not change the parent, but will change their offspring.   This goes back to your lack of understanding of genetics.

Thanks for confirming you don't have a clue about mutations.  Mutations will not, can not, change the offspring's species..  They can only change a trait the offspring would have received without the mutation.

Some evolutionists find that claim surprising. But visitors to the Creation Museum’s new exhibit “Natural Selection Is Not Evolution” will learn how natural selection fits nicely within the biblical worldview.

Post the Biblical evidence that support your OPINION.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/a-different-view-of-natural-selection/

No.   Morning is when the Sun appears, and evening is when it sets.   Even ancient Christians recognized this.  If you don't use words as they are used by everyone else, you'll always be miscommunicating.

No morning is when light appears and evening is when it disappears.

Not if God uses evolution to create new kinds of species.

There is no Scripture that supports that OPINION, and "after their kind refuted that idea.

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

That idea is one  of the most ignorant arguments one can make.  There is no need to have somethings said that is not true, and certainly "after their kind" substantiates that kinds do not change.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

God disagrees; He says the earth brought forth living things, as He intended.    That is creation from the earth, not from nothing.

He only says that about cattle, creeping things and beasts.  Gen 1:25 says God made them and it says after their kind.

It's not Hebrew.   It's Latin.    Literally, "from nothing."   Creation of animals was, according to god, de terra, not ex nihilo.

The OT, is in Hebrew, not Latin. 

 

Hence, you aren't a body.   You are a soul who has a body.  

Are you a SDA?  That is one of their ideas.  You and they have it backwards. I am a body that has a soul.  Notice, Gen 2:7, the man was formed first, then given his soul.

But our souls are given directly by God.   In this, we differ from other animals, which are formed from existing creation.    Our bodies are also not created ex nihilo, but our souls are.

You are partially right.  All of the animals except cattle, creeping things a beasts were created ex nihilo

Love, peace, joy

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Just now, omega2xx said:

This highlight what I just said---In Hebrew "created" means ex nihilo. If you knew the Bible better you would know that concept is  reinforced in  the (Heb 11:3)NT.

No.   If it did, that would be in conflict with God's word that He didn't create life ex nihilo.    If you knew the Bible better, you'd have realized that.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Your fellow creationists don't agree with you on this, BTW:

They sometimes try to defend the acceptance of millions of years by saying that bara refers to supernatural creation ex nihilo (Latin for “out of nothing”) but that asah means to make out of pre-existing material and therefore allows for creation over a long period of time. 

...

But this argument will not stand when we look carefully at the use of these words in Genesis 1 and in other biblical passages related to creation.

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/did-god-create-bara-or-make-asah-in-genesis-1/

And notice it doesn't say animals reproduce after their kind. 

7 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

It certainly does.  It says it  6 times.

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind.

It says God made them according to their kinds, not that they reproduce according to their kinds.

As you learned, we see evolution in every new organism, each with mutations that were present in neither parent.

10 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I can't learn anything from your unsupported opinions.

I already showed you that.   But I'm a very patient guy...

Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.

Published online 27 August 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.864

13 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Not true.  All the did was observe the different beaks on different specie of finches.  The didn't show what caused  the beaks changed.  In fact as  long as it would take for the beaks to change, that kind of finch would have  become extinct.

No, they documented evolutionary changes in beaks within species of finches.    Learn about it here:

On a desert island in the heart of the Galapagos archipelago, where Darwin received his first inklings of the theory of evolution, two scientists, Peter and Rosemary Grant, have spent twenty years proving that Darwin did not know the strength of his own theory. For among the finches of Daphne Major, natural selection is neither rare nor slow: it is taking place by the hour, and we can watch.

https://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X

As you learned, Answers in Genesis confirms natural selection.   Since it's directly observed, there's no point in denying the fact.

Morning is when the Sun appears, and evening is when it sets.   Even ancient Christians recognized this.  If you don't use words as they are used by everyone else, you'll always be miscommunicating.

18 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

No morning is when light appears and evening is when it disappears.

So the moon rising is morning, and when it sets, it's evening?   Sorry, that's just not true.

AIG admits the observed fact of speciation:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

 

20 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

That idea is one  of the most ignorant arguments one can make.  There is no need to have somethings said that is not true, and certainly "after their kind" substantiates that kinds do not change.

You and the other creationists need to get your stories straight, then.    Let us know when you figure out what you guys think.

God disagrees; He says the earth brought forth living things, as He intended.    That is creation from the earth, not from nothing.

24 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

He only says that about cattle, creeping things and beasts. 

You're wrong again...

Gen 1:20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

It's not Hebrew.   It's Latin.    Literally, "from nothing."   Creation of animals was, according to god, de terra, not ex nihilo.

27 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

The OT, is in Hebrew, not Latin. 

Actually, the version from which the Bible was prepared was Koine Greek, not Hebrew or Latin.  But it remains true that "ex nihilo" means "from nothing", and as you just learned, God says that life came from the earth and water, not from nothing.

29 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Are you a SDA?

No.  But I respect you guys for your piety and Christian behavior.  You just got Genesis wrong.

30 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You and they have it backwards. I am a body that has a soul.  

God says otherwise:

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

You are a soul, according to God.   He says it directly.  Do you deny it?   I thought SDAs agreed with God on this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.   If it did, that would be in conflict with God's word that He didn't create life ex nihilo.    If you knew the Bible better, you'd have realized that.

If you will not use the meaning  of "created> in Hebrew, you are just blowing smoke, and the OT is written in Hebrew  not Latin.

Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God CREATED (ex nihilo) the heavens and the earth

Gen 1:21 - And God CREATED (ex nihilo) the great sea monsters and every living creature  that moves and every winged bird AFTER THEIR  KIND es, with which the waters swarmed AFTER THEIR KIND, NOT according to their kind and God saw it was good.  I don't know what version you use, but you need to get a more accurate  one.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Your fellow creationists don't agree with you on this, BTW:

Most do, some don't.  This is not about evolution/creation BTW.  It is about the correct  interpretation of Genesis.  To do that you must use Hebrew, not Latin.

They sometimes try to defend the acceptance of millions of years by saying that bara refers to supernatural creation ex nihilo (Latin for “out of nothing”) but that asah means to make out of pre-existing material and therefore allows for creation over a long period of time. 

Ex nihilo might be Latin, but "created" in Hebrew also means out of nothing.  There was nothing before Gen 1:1 so everything we have now, except for a few things were created ex nihilo.  That is just common sense.  The use of asah is limited, bara refers to something only God can do.  asah does not mean or even imply  a  long period of time and  it does not refer to creation.  You  are contradicting yourself.  You are violating good interpretation  practices.  Evolution needs long periods of time so you try to shoehorn that concept into the definition. To think God needs millions of years for something He made  to appear is absured

God said, "let there be  light," and there was  light

But this argument will not stand when we look carefully at the use of these words in Genesis 1 and in other biblical passages related to creation.

What passages support your view?

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/did-god-create-bara-or-make-asah-in-genesis-1/

And notice it doesn't say animals reproduce after their kind. 

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind.

It says God made them according to their kinds, not that they reproduce according to their kinds.

This get more amusing.  In your quote above you correctly use "after their kind," which even a third graded can understand that it means cats produce cants, dogs produce dogs etc.

As you learned, we see evolution in every new organism, each with mutations that were present in neither parent.

I already showed you that.   But I'm a very patient guy...

You haven't shown me anything,  You have told me some this but have not supported them with real science

Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.

Even if that is true, and as usual you just pontificate and offer no evidence, it just highlights you lack of knowledge about DNA.DNA only identifies whaw th subject is.  It doesd not, can not, cause a change  of the specfies

Published online 27 August 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.864

No, they documented evolutionary changes in beaks within species of finches.    Learn about it here:

On a desert island in the heart of the Galapagos archipelago, where Darwin received his first inklings of the theory of evolution, two scientists, Peter and Rosemary Grant, have spent twenty years proving that Darwin did not know the strength of his own theory. For among the finches of Daphne Major, natural selection is neither rare nor slow: it is taking place by the hour, and we can watch.

https://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X

Then you should be able to offer the science that allowed  a change in the beaks.  That you can't do and neither did you link.  They wanted to prove evolution, so they just made up something to try. Is that honest?  Is it true science?

As you learned, Answers in Genesis confirms natural selection.   Since it's directly observed, there's no point in denying the fact.

Just more of your pontification with no supporting evidence.

Morning is when the Sun appears, and evening is when it sets.   Even ancient Christians recognized this.  If you don't use words as they are used by everyone else, you'll always be miscommunicating.

So the moon rising is morning, and when it sets, it's evening?   Sorry, that's just not true.

Sometimes  the light of the moon can't be seen.

AIG admits the observed fact of speciation:

I admit by the definition used specification is a fact.  What I deny is that salamanders and gulls, remaining salamanders and gulls, is evolution.  Surely you understand that evolution requires an A to become a B.

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

That is one of those silly arguments that if the Bible doesn't say it, it isn't true.  The Bible also doesn't say they aren't fixed and unchanging.  The Bible also doesn't say the earth will rotate, but it does.

You and the other creationists need to get your stories straight, then.    Let us know when you figure out what you guys think.

God disagrees; He says the earth brought forth living things, as He intended.    That is creation from the earth, not from nothing.

As usual you offer what is limited and try to apply it to all of creation.  God use "creatged" more than he uses "made,"  and even then He says "after their kind

You're wrong again...

Gen 1:20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

You should have read the next verse.  God CREATED them.  Since they were not in existence ate that time, He did  it ex nihilo

It's not Hebrew.   It's Latin.    Literally, "from nothing."   Creation of animals was, according to god, de terra, not ex nihilo.

How many times do I have to tell you, you are limiting the Scriptures to only 1 verse and ignoring the verses where God CREATED.  Is sthat an honest way to discuss?

Actually, the version from which the Bible was prepared was Koine Greek, not Hebrew or Latin.  But it remains true that "ex nihilo" means "from nothing", and as you just learned, God says that life came from the earth and water, not from nothing.

You need to do some research on Bible mss.  The ones used  in the translation of the OT are in Hebrew and the ones used for the NT are in Greek.

No.  But I respect you guys for your piety and Christian behavior.  You just got Genesis wrong.

Not on the say so of someone who only uses certain verses to try and make his point.

God says otherwise:

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

You need a better translation. Man coming from slime is an old attempt of evolutionists to explain the origin of  life.  God says dust, not slime and all good translation say man became a living being. The word for soul can also be translated life, person or person.

You are a soul, according to God.   He says it directly.  Do you deny it?  

Again you are limiting the word to have only 1 meaning.   That is not the case here.

I thought SDAs agreed with God on this.

They believe in a literal translation and like you they ignore the word can have more than one meaning.  Thatg is why I ask you if you wre a SDA.

love, peace, joy

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  18
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   36
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/25/2020
  • Status:  Offline

I admire the evolution of science. From humble beginnings, it took its time to develop into a Moon reaching weapon that scientists proudly wield. Good job. 

However, as impressive as the collective scientific achievements and discoveries of the brightest minds are, it remains a fact that it is but a baby step toward comprehending even a fraction of the Universe. We haven't even explored the depths of our oceans or the complexity of the human brain yet, not to mention galaxies. If we are still at the very least few centuries beyond gaining deeper insight into the secrets of the creation, what hope, or better yet, what reason do we have to claim science can answer the "Is there a Creator" question? Other than arrogance and pride, the answer is, none. We have no reason to believe Einsteins of our world are any better at comprehending the Mind behind the puzzling creation than a three year old. It is beyond the capacity of the human mind or human methods to understand. 

If there is a Creator, he's no simple giant version of a male with an IQ of 500 at most, as atheists often like to paint the Christian God. :) Behind such complex creation hides even more complex creator. 

If there is a God, we would not be able to discover him unless he wanted it by taking the first step toward us (as he did in many ways, being embodied in Jesus Christ the most important one). 

Science is interesting, important, useful, inspiring, ever developing and fun. But make no mistake, it cannot give you the ultimate answer... at least not if by the scientific proof of God you mean a photohraph of God taken by a hybrid of a telescope and an iPhone camera in the centuries to come. ;) 

Edited by Feather
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/13/2020 at 11:31 AM, omega2xx said:

Gen 1:21 - And God CREATED (ex nihilo) the great sea monsters and every living creature  that moves and every winged bird AFTER THEIR  KIND

If you have to insert your new doctrine into the existing text, that's a pretty good clue that you have it wrong.

On 1/13/2020 at 11:31 AM, omega2xx said:

Ex nihilo might be Latin, but "created" in Hebrew also means out of nothing.

If so, then God didn't create living things, since He says that the earth brought forth animals.   The Biblical view is that He created animals, but not ex nihilo.

It says God made them according to their kinds, not that they reproduce according to their kinds.

On 1/13/2020 at 11:31 AM, omega2xx said:

This get more amusing.  In your quote above you correctly use "after their kind," which even a third graded can understand that it means cats produce cants, dogs produce dogs etc.

Again, you're merely adding your own ideas to scripture and telling me that you must be right.   Surely, you see how unconvincing that is.   If it doesn't say it, then adding it to God's word is useless.

Young Earth creationists say:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.   AIG

On 1/13/2020 at 11:31 AM, omega2xx said:

That is one of those silly arguments that if the Bible doesn't say it, it isn't true. 

That's what Answers in Genesis says, but even though they are YE creationists, they are quite right.   If the Bible doesn't say it, then it's wrong to say it's a Biblical idea.   Even most YE creationists now admit the fact of new species, genera, and families.   Sometimes, they go farther than that.   

On 1/13/2020 at 11:31 AM, omega2xx said:

You should have read the next verse.  God CREATED them.  Since they were not in existence ate that time, He did  it ex nihilo

That's not what "ex nihilo" means.   It means "from nothing."   And since we have His word that the earth brought them forth, that means they were not created from nothing, but from pre-existing  matter.

On 1/13/2020 at 11:31 AM, omega2xx said:

You need a better translation. Man coming from slime is an old attempt of evolutionists to explain the origin of  life.  God says dust, not slime and all good translation say man became a living being. The word for soul can also be translated life, person or person.

You've been misled by that.   Some texts said mud, some said dust, some said slime.  All of it means from the earth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Feather said:

Science is interesting, important, useful, inspiring, ever developing and fun. But make no mistake, it cannot give you the ultimate answer... at least not if by the scientific proof of God you mean a photohraph of God taken by a hybrid of a telescope and an iPhone camera in the centuries to come.

If God wanted to make Himself unequivocally obvious to every person, even without faith, He could easily do so.   I suspect that because free will is important to Him, and because if He was obvious to all, we'd really have no freedom to believe or reject, He does it His way, not ours.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/20/2019 at 12:57 PM, missmuffet said:

You really can not attend a lecture that is intended for Scientists and expect to get a Christian perspective. There is a small handful of Christian scientists but the majority of them are atheist. All you need is to look around you to see an intelligent design. 

Do you know how I know you don't know many scientists?    Right.  Last survey I saw showed that most believed in a God of some sort, mostly Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, but also others including deists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  105
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   15
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/22/2019
  • Status:  Offline

amazon.com/s?k=9781641407922&ref=nb_sb_noss

youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=rVEJNRDsIL0

truthseekersasciencespiritual.blogspot.com/

 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. 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)

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Worth considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...