[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang ?

[Gary]

When there is a difference between individuals on how to interpret certain passages then it makes this a much more complicated issue.

Everything gets complicated when God is removed from the issue.
.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Everything gets complicated when God is removed from the issue.
.

Actually one person believes God worked as a supernatural designer, and the other believes that God worked in creation through setting up natural laws and had things proceed along within those natural causes.

When we misrepresent other people's views, it often leads to volatile situations. I suggest you proceed otherwise in the future.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I've told you the connection several times. Is there something in my explanation that you would like to clarify?

What you have given me are assumptions and assumptions need to be proven because that is assumption, not proven. Do you have scientific data that withstands the testing of empirical scientific method. All of the amount to postulation and nothing more. Empirical Science requires repeated testing with consistent results and no assumption. What you have is theory that is unproven with what you are presenting.

 

[Drew]

Absolutely.

As another has pointed out, it's not this simple. It is clear that Scripture at times uses metaphor and allegory - of this there can be no doubt. So let's be clear: all believers here appear to affirm the authority of Scripture. The real question is how we understand the creation account: is it history or is it story?

And it simply will not do to merely declare that the account must be taken literally. That would be to avoid the tough question.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Trash science? These feathers have distinct similarities in structure that is found on no bird, hence non-avian feathers found only on Dinosaur fossils.

The thing is, even without the Amber sample, we have proof that proto-feathers developed with Dinosaurs as the fossil discovered in 1996 demonstrated.


What are you talking about? I'm sorry, but nothing you are saying makes any sense. Are you a Paleontologist who is an expert on the evolution of feathers?

I didn't think so.

Of course not, I have an Eighth Grade Education with a GED that I maxed all test but one and a continuing education that will continue until I pass over into Eternity. My College Courses and to a great extent my Junior High Science taught me to question and that is what I did to arrive at being a Christian that can live by Faith in my God. Right now I see holes I could drive one of the Diesels I some times drove for a living through in the information you are presenting as being fact when in reality they are assumptions based on opinions of men you do not even know. I'm sorry but you ¿evidence? is not evidence and you keep going back to these Proto Feathers that no case has been made here for their connection to the material being discussed as if they are the end answer. Your case is full of holes that do not, ever, exist in proven science.

 

[th1b.taylor]

As another has pointed out, it's not this simple. It is clear that Scripture at times uses metaphor and allegory - of this there can be no doubt. So let's be clear: all believers here appear to affirm the authority of Scripture. The real question is how we understand the creation account: is it history or is it story?

And it simply will not do to merely declare that the account must be taken literally. That would be to avoid the tough question.

Drew,
Christians are saved by Faith and nothing else. We also live by faith and nothing else is needed. I see the issue in a very different light as do Christian Scientists such as the Answers in Genesis Group. https://answersingenesis.org/

 

[Drew]

Drew,
Christians are saved by Faith and nothing else. We also live by faith and nothing else is needed. I see the issue in a very different light as do Christian Scientists such as the Answers in Genesis Group. https://answersingenesis.org/

How does this respond to my question? My question is essentially this: on what grounds - and please address this as specifically as you can - do you conclude that the Genesis account is to be read as history (and therefore not as allegory)?

I see no connection to the matter of "salvation by faith".

 

[Doulos Iesou]

What you have given me are assumptions and assumptions need to be proven because that is assumption, not proven. Do you have scientific data that withstands the testing of empirical scientific method. All of the amount to postulation and nothing more. Empirical Science requires repeated testing with consistent results and no assumption. What you have is theory that is unproven with what you are presenting.

What assumptions have I made, please point them out.

Also, I have presented direct scientific data in the amber and fossil examples, which have been analyzed by many Paleontologists to be Proto-feathers. The Empirical data relies within the observations one can make about these fossils, and these have been made clear that even an untrained lay person can understand.

That these are both Dinosaur Proto-feathers is the best explanation we have for the evidence present, and you have offered no alternative that has any kind of substance.

This isn't a laboratory experiment that can be repeatedly performed, it is a fossil that has been analyzed by many experts. Paleontology is not chemistry.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Of course not, I have an Eighth Grade Education with a GED that I maxed all test but one and a continuing education that will continue until I pass over into Eternity. My College Courses and to a great extent my Junior High Science taught me to question and that is what I did to arrive at being a Christian that can live by Faith in my God. Right now I see holes I could drive one of the Diesels I some times drove for a living through in the information you are presenting as being fact when in reality they are assumptions based on opinions of men you do not even know. I'm sorry but you ¿evidence? is not evidence and you keep going back to these Proto Feathers that no case has been made here for their connection to the material being discussed as if they are the end answer. Your case is full of holes that do not, ever, exist in proven science.

All I see is naked assertions. You claim I have holes in my information... what holes? You say I have assumptions.... what assumptions? You say that my arguments are based solely on opinions... evidence that this is the case?

You are not an educated Paleontologist, and yet have the audacity to say you know better on the matter, and your remarks do not take into account that I provided examples that even show the feathers up very close. When I am presented to defend my remarks, I actually provide substance that relates to the subject without making empty claims such as "your evidence is not evidence."

How about you offer some analysis of these Proto-feathers and attempt to counter my evidence with actual substance that goes beyond your uneducated opinion.

 

[Gary]

Everything gets complicated when God is removed from the issue.
.

Actually one person believes God worked as a supernatural designer, and the other believes that God worked in creation through setting up natural laws and had things proceed along within those natural causes.

When we misrepresent other people's views, it often leads to volatile situations. I suggest you proceed otherwise in the future.

That's actually my view so I'm not misrepresenting anyone.
.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

That's actually my view so I'm not misrepresenting anyone.
.

Your view is flawed, as is evidenced by statements from Drew and myself. So you can have this view, but the evidence is that many people worship God and believe in modern scientific discoveries.

 

[Gary]

As another has pointed out, it's not this simple. It is clear that Scripture at times uses metaphor and allegory - of this there can be no doubt. So let's be clear: all believers here appear to affirm the authority of Scripture. The real question is how we understand the creation account: is it history or is it story?

And it simply will not do to merely declare that the account must be taken literally. That would be to avoid the tough question.

The question is not that tough. You either believe God is Creator or you don't. You put your faith in one or the other, not both. You can only serve one. There is no room for two.
.

 

[Gary]

Your view is flawed, as is evidenced by statements from Drew and myself. So you can have this view, but the evidence is that many people worship God and believe in modern scientific discoveries.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The question is not that tough. You either believe God is Creator or you don't. You put your faith in one or the other, not both. You can only serve one. There is no room for two.
.

No one is "serving" evolution, it's a concept not some being. God is the creator of all things, all matter has it's origin in him, we just disagree on the METHOD by which he created and developed his creation.

I find it interesting how often people try to move goal posts in order to attempt to discredit fellow believers in Christ.

 

[th1b.taylor]

It appears to be your stance that any evidence you are presented with that shows that dinosaurs developed feathers before birds you will either ignore or simply dismiss as 'trash science'. This rather suggests you have no substantive rebuttal of this evidence to put forward.

In an early post I explained that when a scientific endeavor is undertaken it is empirically incorrect to ignore about 90% of the available evidence and draw conclusions that are easily rebuked with the rest of the evidence. I even offered about 100 examples of this that you told me you had examined the better the 45 hours and you told me this in less that 24 hours, I'll leave the logical conclusion to you to make about that claim but you then, off hand, dismissed the evidence as nonsence, as I recall. If either of you can present evidence instead of assumption and theory, I'll be happy to entertain it. But trash science is just that and trash belongs on the curb for the Trash Man to haul it away to the Dump.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

In an early post I explained that when a scientific endeavor is undertaken it is empirically incorrect to ignore about 90% of the available evidence and draw conclusions that are easily rebuked with the rest of the evidence.

With regards to Proto-feathers and Dinosaurs, are you saying that there is 90% of the evidence that we are not taking into account. If so, please present this evidence.

even offered about 100 examples of this that you told me you had examined the better the 45 hours and you told me this in less that 24 hours, I'll leave the logical conclusion to you to make about that claim but you then, off hand, dismissed the evidence as nonsence, as I recall. If either of you can present evidence instead of assumption and theory, I'll be happy to entertain it. But trash science is just that and trash belongs on the curb for the Trash Man to haul it away to the Dump.

Who offers 45 hours of material on this site? How can anyone be expected to deal with that?

 

[th1b.taylor]

No one is "serving" evolution, it's a concept not some being. God is the creator of all things, all matter has it's origin in him, we just disagree on the METHOD by which he created and developed his creation.

I find it interesting how often people try to move goal posts in order to attempt to discredit fellow believers in Christ.

Doulos,
Evolution is not of God because the idea does, indeed, make God to be a liar if it is true. The Hebrew word used in the account, inspired and thus under God's control, is the word for one 6pm to 5:59pm day, 24 hours. God, being the Creator, with infinite knowledge and intelligence, is infinitely more intelligent than any man and is not subject to error.

It has been suggested that the Creation Account might be a Parable or a Metaphor but as I, being indwelt of and by the Holy Spirit, read the Creation Account, neither I nor the Spirit find any reason for such a conclusion. Being, thusly, indwelt do see certain Parables in scripture, Jesus is famous for teaching thusly but I am taught of the Holy spirit that I do not quench that the account is true as it is written. That leaves the Theory of Evolution to belong to the father of lies. I am not at all certain that believing such a lie is not to be serving the master of lies, a question you and those on your side of the issue must decide and then abide with the results thereof.

I just pray for God to demonstrate the truth to you.

 

[th1b.taylor]

With regards to Proto-feathers and Dinosaurs, are you saying that there is 90% of the evidence that we are not taking into account. If so, please present this evidence.


Who offers 45 hours of material on this site? How can anyone be expected to deal with that?

Go back in the string and you can find the two links I offered that you seem to have ignored and Kalvin, off hand, dismissed, claiming to have viewed it in less than 24 hours. It's in the string.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulos,
Evolution is not of God because the idea does, indeed, make God to be a liar if it is true. The Hebrew word used in the account, inspired and thus under God's control, is the word for one 6pm to 5:59pm day, 24 hours. God, being the Creator, with infinite knowledge and intelligence, is infinitely more intelligent than any man and is not subject to error.

It has been suggested that the Creation Account might be a Parable or a Metaphor but as I, being indwelt of and by the Holy Spirit, read the Creation Account, neither I nor the Spirit find any reason for such a conclusion. Being, thusly, indwelt do see certain Parables in scripture, Jesus is famous for teaching thusly but I am taught of the Holy spirit that I do not quench that the account is true as it is written. That leaves the Theory of Evolution to belong to the father of lies. I am not at all certain that believing such a lie is not to be serving the master of lies, a question you and those on your side of the issue must decide and then abide with the results thereof.

I just pray for God to demonstrate the truth to you.

Unless I am convinced otherwise I will continue believing in Evolution, and I have no problem reconciling that with my commitment to Christ which is the same for many other brothers and sisters in the Lord.

 

[th1b.taylor]

When there is a difference between individuals on how to interpret certain passages then it makes this a much more complicated issue.

When people disagree on what scriptures say, one of two issues is at hand. One that at least one of them and possibly both of them are guilty of searching the scriptures without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the other is that both of them are being given the information they need for the moment. If the latter is the case then the two pieces of information must compliment each other for the Holy Spirit never disagrees with Himself.

In this case, God created the animals in one day and He created man in one day but the "theory" of evolution, totally disagrees.