[_ Old Earth _] Dr. John Sanford interview

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
We know you want us to believe you. But with no evidence, you're not very believable.

Sorry plenty of evidence

Too bad you can't tell us what it is.\\

You do not believe God is the creator the Bible claims he is.

Remember, when you were reminded that even if you're angry, lying is a bad idea? I'm reminding you again. When you lie about what other people believe, your credibility takes a hit. Don't do that to yourself.

I am not lying

Everyone here knows you are. I've repeatedly reminded you that God is the Creator as the Bible says.

Barbarian observes:
As you know, Christians believe God made everything. The only difference between us and you is that you don't approve of the way He did it. BTW, Genesis 1 tells us what was there at the beginning, and neither male nor female were there. Jesus was speaking of the beginning of our race, not the beginning of creation.

No

the only difference between us and you is we believe Gods word is true while you compromise with a naturalistic view.
Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Take a look here:

1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
1:2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
1:3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

God's word contradicts your new doctrine. Jesus was meant from the beginning of the human race.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, those who added a worldwide flood to Genesis (it doesn't say the entire Earth was flooded) have confused the Hebrew word for "land", "eretz", with "the whole world."

Once again you should really learn how to believe his word

I accept it without your revisions. As you see, it doesn't say the whole world was flooded. Remember this:

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

You should believe Moses not twist his words. He wrote "eretz" not "the whole

It was a judgment on the earth to destroy everything that was not on the ark.

Wrong. It was a judgement on man. And of course, the Bible doesn't say it destroyed everything that wasn't non the Ark.

Barbarian explains:
God gives each of us our being with Him directly. Our bodies were formed by evolution, but we are not our bodies. You've been misled again.

So you mean God used death and suffering to create us,

No. He gives us our immortal souls directly. Only our bodies evolved.

Barbarian, regarding it was a bad idea for God to create a world in which death and suffering would happen:
God could have made a universe with no death or suffering if He had so chosen. You think He chose badly?

No he did, and sin brought forth death and suffering.

If you're a Christian, death is nothing to fear. Once Christ died to cure our spiritual death, we had nothing at all to fear from physical death. If Christ died to save us from physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. He saved us from the death that Adam brought into the world, a spiritual death. We know this, because God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree, and Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter.

Barbarian asks:
Where does He say He created everything perfect? If Satan was perfect, he would never have rebelled. If humans were perfect, Adam would not have sinned. Perfection excludes the propensity to sin.

In fact, only God is perfect, and nothing else ever has been.

He doesn't say perfect but everything was good until the fall of man.

Satan was good? I don't think so.

Barbarian explains:
If you would read Genesis, you would find that it began with man's disobedience to God.

I know when it came about

Now you do, but you still won't accept Genesis as it is. As you now know, the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of creationism is in opposition to God's word in Genesis.

But he did experience death. If he would have stayed in the garden and ate off the tree of life he would of lived.

Sorry, that doctrine assumes that God says things that are not true. Remember, God said he would die the day he ate from the tree. If that was physical, then God did not tell him the truth.

(Spartikis questions the existence of Adam and Eve)

Barbarian asks:
What makes you think science rules out Adam and Eve as real people? Do you not believe they were? That's not a rhetorical question. I really would like to know. Tell us.

I told you what I believe. But you seem to dodge it.

I notice you declined to say whether or not they were actual people. Why is that?

Barbarian observes:
Work, even labor, has never seemed like a terrible thing to me.

I never said evil, just cursed.

I don't see it as a curse. Work can be a prayer, you know. Work isn't humbling; it's exalting.

Barbarian oberves:
We are ape-like creatures.

No sorry, I am a man

Genetically and anatomically, you're a highly specialized ape. We all are. And it's not just "evolutionists" who realize this:

I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none.
Creationist Carl Linnaeus

(Barbarian, asked about when God gave man a soul)
Don't know. Would it matter if it was H. erectus instead of H. sapiens? If so, why?

(declines to answer)

Barbarian chuckles:
Would this be the tenth time I told you God created all things? Pretty close, I think.

That is how He produced the diversity of life.

You should really believe how he told us he did it,

He doesn't say how He did it. He gave us intelligence to find out some things.

Did God rest for millions of years?

Barbarian observes:
Hard to say. The Bible doesn't say, and unlike creationists, I think adding to the Bible is a bad idea.

I showed you where it did.

Nope. Doesn't say how long. But since you revised Genesis to your liking, I'm sure you don't have a problem revising Exodus, too.

Barbarian asks:
Spartakis, is the problem that you doubt that God created all things? Do you truly believe as Chistians do, that He is the Creator of everything? Or are you one of those intelligent design guys who think He might be just a "space alien?" Again, this isn't a rhetorical question; I'd really like you to tell us.
That is a really bad comment considering I have explained everything I believe.

(Spartakis again declines to say)

Odd, very odd.

(Spartakis forgets the evidence for common descent)

(Barbarian is patient)
You want to see it again? Sure. The evidence for common descent:

1. First noticed by a creationist, Linnaeus, who recognized the nested hierarchy of taxa that we now know comes only by common descent.

2. Numerous transitional forms in the fossil record, with some still living, but only between groups found to be evolutionarily connected through other evidence.

3. DNA analysis, which we know works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

4. Biochemical differences that sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies.

5. Observed evolution of new features by modification of old ones.

That's some of it. If you doubt it, we can talk about it and clear up any misconceptions for you.

Thats a dodge of what I asked you know that. And everything listed is assumptions.

Evidence. And it's all verified. No point in denying it. Even honest creationists admit it.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, "upward" means nothing in biology, but you were shown the most important mutation in the process of common descent, the evolution of organelles, essential to eukaryotes.

In evolution it is what you would need to happen and show.

You showed an assumption, I showed you major problems that even wiki stated.

Creationwiki has an ideological stance that science has to be wrong about evolution. So that's hardly an excuse for you. Fact is, you've been shown that the most important mutation necessary for common descent has been directly observed. Want to see another one?

(Spartakis denies transitionals, again)

Barbarian suggests he back it up:
Let's test your belief. Show me something that you think couldn't have evolved in some living thing. Show us, and I'll see what I can do.

(declines to do so)

Barbarian chuckles:
Since you declined my offer to answer whatever you think I didn't answer, it seems more likely that you made it up.

What are you talking about

We're talking about your refusal to support your claim that there are no transitionals.

Barbarian suggests:
Of course, if you want to ask, I'll still answer whatever for you. Unless it's about specifically Catholic doctrine, which as you know, is not allowed.

So you're on. Tell us about it.

(declines to do so)

No surprise there.

 

[spartakis]

Its really amazing how you continue to contradict yourself saying you believe in Genesis when you state the opposite. You twist the words of even Jesus to fit your beliefs. Truly amazing.

Perfect example of what Jesus says if you don't believe Moses how can you believe his words.

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Genesis 1 tells us what was there at the beginning, and neither male nor female were there. Jesus was speaking of the beginning of our race, not the beginning of creation.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Matt 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Did God rest for millions of years?

Hard to say. The Bible doesn't say, and unlike creationists, I think adding to the Bible is a bad idea.

The Bible does say God even wrote it in the commandments.
Exodus 20:8-11
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But 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:
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.

The Biblical authors and even Jesus takes Genesis as a historical, and literal. Genesis itself means origin, or in the begining. You don't believe in Gods judgment on the earth as is declared. The fact that God stated that each animal should bring fourth after their kind. You don't understand that God himself spoke of creation again in the commandments and declared a commandment which states the time is taken serious. I showed you that in Exodus. You don't even give God credit to have been able to get the order in which you claimed everything evolved in correct order. The hypothesis of evolution itself fit the definition of religion. What do you spend your time doing, defending the Bible or the materialistic view of evolution. It does not fit in the Bible sorry. You should spend more time studying God's word and the evidence to support it then studying a hypothesis of evolution. You believe the heresies I have shown you the facts about what the Jews believed. Shows with the Hebrew calender, and some of the earliest documents.. And yes I have told you I believe Adam was the first man and Eve was made from Adam, Paul even speaks of this order. But according to you they had to be part of a population of apes correct. Must be why you keep dodging that question also.

To read Genesis and think it was a local flood is once again twisting the word of God to fit your belief.

Genesis 7:17-24
And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8:5
And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

It was a judgment on the earth to destroy everything that was not on the ark. If it was not world wide why have Noah spend so much time building an ark instead of heading to land that would not be covered, there are many other things that show it was world wide.

If you reject God's judgment that is your problem. There is a reason Noah spent a very long time making an Ark instead of traveling. You should read Genesis again.


Even the guy you agree on so much with Dawkins says
When asked about evidence for evolution Dawkins uses the analogy of a detective who uses inductive reasoning on the observed evidence to reconstruct past events.

It is what I would like to call "assuming the conclusion" Why to prove there is no God why do you feel you need to put the assumption of his and other evolutionist conclusion in the Bible.

Also don't worry he can't answer the challenge to show a mutation to make your hypothesis feasible either. No wonder you keep dodging it. You can always take Gods word as authority and take a look at the evidence that proves Genesis correct. I know your angry because your hypothesis of evolution don't fit the Bible. And you only have assumptions to back it up, sorry, but you can always give Gods word the authority and believe what he says.

Transitionals you mean like the coelacanth? Oh no wait we found that one alive after being thought extinct for millions of years, it should be walking by now right. You don't have anything but a handful of dubious claims. Prove me otherwise. All you have are assumption.

The fact is you deny the words of Moses and even some from Jesus to believe evolution fits in the Bible


Barbarian continues to dodge his challenge, no worry we all know why.

 

[Barbarian]

Its really amazing how you continue to contradict yourself saying you believe in Genesis when you state the opposite.

If you were honest, you'd admit that it's only that I don't accept your modern revision of Genesis.

You twist the words of even Jesus to fit your beliefs. As you learned, the "beginning" He spoke of in terms of male and female, was about the beginning of the human race, not the beginning. God, in the first verse in Genesis makes clear what was there in the beginning and male and female were not there.

Since you deny what Moses said about the origin of life, it's not surprising that you deny other things as well.

Did God rest for millions of years?

Barbarian chuckles:
Hard to say. The Bible doesn't say, and unlike creationists, I think adding to the Bible is a bad idea.

The Biblical authors and even Jesus takes Genesis as a historical, and literal.

Show us where He said it was historical and literal. Or if you like, show that His mention of an allegorical passage changes it to a literal history. You're on.

The fact that God stated that each animal should bring fourth after their kind.

Nope. That's another of your changes you want for scripture. It says nothing about animals bring forth after their kind. It says the earth brought forth living things after their kind. It just doesn't say how that happened. But as you learned, it refutes YE creationism and the "life ex nihilo" story.

And because you confused "land" with "the whole world", you cling to the idea of a worldwide flood, even though that is nowhere in the Bible.

Transitionals you mean like the coelacanth? Oh no wait we found that one alive after being thought extinct for millions of years,

No. Modern coelacanths are not like the ancient ones. They are of speces and genus unknown in the fossil record. They've evolved a great deal over those millions of years. Would you like to learn about it?

it should be walking by now right.

If so, evolutionary theory would be in trouble. The theory doesn't say coelacanths evolved into walking creatures.

I notice you continue to refuse to say whether or not Adam and Eve were real people or not, and you also refuse to say whether or not you believe God created all things.

So I'll ask again. Why are you so reluctant to tell us this, if you claim to be a Christian?

 

[spartakis]

If you were honest you would admit your beliefs are modern day reversions.
Were do you think theistic evolution came from? When you combine the two, and they do not go together, sorry.

I know your mad but how many times do I need to repeat what I have said?
If you can read you would have seen it in my last 3 post

I notice you continue to refuse to say whether or not Adam and Eve were real people or not, and you also refuse to say whether or not you believe God created all things.

So I'll ask again. Why are you so reluctant to tell us this, if you claim to be a Christian?

My Answer in my last post. You should read.

And yes I have told you I believe Adam was the first man and Eve was made from Adam, Paul even speaks of this order. But according to you they had to be part of a population of apes correct. Must be why you keep dodging that question also.

God made man on the sixth day and it is obvious that is what Jesus was referring to. He even ask have you not read? I guess you have not.
Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Matt 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Twisting them words is a perfect example of what Jesus says if you don't believe Moses how can you believe his words.

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Did God rest for millions of years?

Barbarian chuckles:
Hard to say. The Bible doesn't say, and unlike creationists, I think adding to the Bible is a bad idea.

I think dodging the facts and not believing the Bible is a bad idea. So do you not believe all the commandments God wrote?

Exodus 20:8-11
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But 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:
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.

I guess you deny Genesis and Exodus.

Show us where He said it was historical and literal. Or if you like, show that His mention of an allegorical passage changes it to a literal history. You're on.

Once again that is how it was written. Jesus referring to it and asking have you not read, all other books referring to it. The commandment, the name of the book, the Hebrew calender, and many other writings. It is very clear. You don't have an excuse to deny it because it don't say real big Barbarian take this as literal history. It is how it was written and how everyone saw it.

And because you confused "land" with "the whole world", you cling to the idea of a worldwide flood, even though that is nowhere in the Bible.

I never confused anything. Read the story of the flood again.( the scripture is above in my last post) To claim it is a local flood is total rejection of the judgment God brought upon every living creature. Keep rejecting Gods word it does not help you.

it should be walking by now right.

If so, evolutionary theory would be in trouble. The theory doesn't say coelacanths evolved into walking creatures.

so you are telling me they did not think it was a missing link? Come on I already know the truth.

Lets see you twist anything to fit your beliefs. You twist the words of Jesus, decline Genesis, decline Exodus, and many other references to Genesis throughout the Bible. The ground would have been cursed already before your population of apes evolved into humans ( which you still deny to answer about Adam and Eve and try and say I have refused ) and sinned against God.

And you deny to answer the challenge.

So I believe we are done here unless you want to get back on topic or answer the challenge. Which we know won't be done. To watch you twist God's word and make false claims is a waste of time.
To make statements like this about answers I have already given (see above)

Why are you so reluctant to tell us this, if you claim to be a Christian?

is a pure insult. I understand your mad cause you have nothing to stand on, but that is your decision to decline Gods word not mine.

 

[Barbarian]

If you were honest you would admit your beliefs are modern day reversions.

As you learned, a literal six-day creation was the invention of the Seventh-Day Adventists. The greatest Christian theologian of ancient times, St. Augustine, admitted that the "days" of Genesis were literal ones.

Were do you think theistic evolution came from? When you combine the two, and they do not go together, sorry.

You're wrong. God and His creation are not at odds.

Spart projects:

I know your mad but how many times do I need to repeat what I have said?

You still have the same problem. Genesis doesn't support your modern revision.

I notice you continue to refuse to say whether or not Adam and Eve were real people or not, and you also refuse to say whether or not you believe God created all things.

Must be going on a dozen times I've told you that. You seem entirely reluctant to accept it. Why do you question the fact of Adam and Eve as real people? And why won't you say whether or not you believe they are? If you claim to be a Christian, you should readily admit that were real people, and that God created all things.

Do it now, and clear up an misunderstandings. C'mon.

And yes I have told you I believe Adam was the first man and Eve was made from Adam, Paul even speaks of this order.

But you still won't say if you think they are real people, or allegorical. Can you just do that once, so we know what you think?

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Matt 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

As you learned, God tells us what was there in the beginning, and male and female were not there. Why won't you just accept His word as it is? Jesus was talking about the beginning of the human race.

Did God rest for millions of years?

Barbarian chuckles:
Hard to say. The Bible doesn't say, and unlike creationists, I think adding to the Bible is a bad idea.

I guess you deny Genesis and Exodus.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us where He said it was historical and literal. Or if you like, show that His mention of an allegorical passage changes it to a literal history. You're on.

Once again that is how it was written.

I know you want us to believe it. But your refusal to show us any evidence is more persuasive.

I never confused anything. Read the story of the flood again.( the scripture is above in my last post)

As you learned, you confused "land" (eretz) with "the whole world."
Spart gets confused about coelacanths:

it should be walking by now right.

Barbarian chuckles:
If so, evolutionary theory would be in trouble. The theory doesn't say coelacanths evolved into walking creatures.

so you are telling me they did not think it was a missing link?

I'm telling you that evolutionary theory doesn't say coelacanths evolved into tetrapods. How silly. This goes back to the point of you not understanding much about biology.

The ancient coelacanths were transitionals, of course. Over millions of years, they evolved into the quite different modern coelacanths. New genus, new species. Quite different habitats and behaviors.

So I believe we are done here unless you want to get back on topic or answer the challenge.

Well, that would be unfortunate, because you seem to be getting a little more familiar with the issues. But asking questions, and then denying you got answers because the answers didn't suit you, that's giving you a black eye here.

You've been pretty angry about a lot of things, but I do wish you well. If you think the discussion isn't going well for you, I understand. God be with you.

 

[spartakis]

As you learned, a literal six-day creation was the invention of the Seventh-Day Adventists. The greatest Christian theologian of ancient times, St. Augustine, admitted that the "days" of Genesis were literal ones.

How many times do I need to show you? Lets do it again.

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC

By the 1830s, mainstream science had abandoned young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. It became therefore important for biblical scholars as well as Christian scientists to harmonize the Genesis myth with new scientific results into a 'new geology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Looks like you are wrong, but you deny facts whats new.

You're wrong. God and His creation are not at odds.

Of course not just your beliefs that evolution fits in the Bible. As you can see you keep skipping the point of Exodus. No surprise. Twist Twist Twist.

You still have the same problem. Genesis doesn't support your modern revision.

Sorry theistic evolution is a modern version.

Must be going on a dozen times I've told you that. You seem entirely reluctant to accept it. Why do you question the fact of Adam and Eve as real people? And why won't you say whether or not you believe they are? If you claim to be a Christian, you should readily admit that were real people, and that God created all things.

Do it now, and clear up an misunderstandings. C'mon.

Show me where I questioned if they were real people? You mean when I asked you questions about your beliefs? I have said I believe they were the first man and women. Of course they were real people. You continue to put words in my mouth and reverse the question on me to dodge your answer. Will I need to answer that ever post for you?

But you still won't say if you think they are real people, or allegorical. Can you just do that once, so we know what you think?

I have said already they were the first man and women what do you think that means. Yes they were real people. Stop dodging the question and tell us what you believe they were. Are they real people to you? Apes? Where they only a couple out of a population of apes?

As you learned, God tells us what was there in the beginning, and male and female were not there. Why won't you just accept His word as it is? Jesus was talking about the beginning of the human race.

Sorry rejecting Gods word don't help you.

Barbarian chuckles:
Hard to say. The Bible doesn't say, and unlike creationists, I think adding to the Bible is a bad idea.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us where He said it was historical and literal. Or if you like, show that His mention of an allegorical passage changes it to a literal history. You're on.

Once again you even decline to answer what I stated about Exodus and at that you must decline Genesis and Exodus. You know the part where God wrote the commandments.

Exodus 20:8-11
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But 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:
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.

I guess you deny Genesis and Exodus.

I know you want us to believe it. But your refusal to show us any evidence is more persuasive.

It's your problem you don't believe not mine.
I have showed you all I need to, just like God tell you in Romans he has shown you all he needs to. You have no excuse to reject Genesis and Exodus, twist the words if Jesus.

Once again that is how it was written. Jesus referring to it and asking have you not read, all other books referring to it. The commandment, the name of the book, the Hebrew calender, and many other writings. It is very clear. You don't have an excuse to deny it because it don't say real big Barbarian take this as literal history. It is how it was written and how everyone saw it.

Deny it all you want. How far will you go denying scripture for evolution? Well you have already twisted Jesus words, denied Genesis and Exodus.

As you learned, you confused "land" (eretz) with "the whole world."

Read the account of the flood. You deny Gods judgment on every living creature thats your problem not mine. Do you deny his judgment to come?

Spart gets confused about coelacanths:

Barbarian chuckles:
If so, evolutionary theory would be in trouble. The theory doesn't say coelacanths evolved into walking creatures.

I'm telling you that evolutionary theory doesn't say coelacanths evolved into tetrapods. How silly. This goes back to the point of you not understanding much about biology.
The ancient coelacanths were transitionals, of course. Over millions of years, they evolved into the quite different modern coelacanths. New genus, new species. Quite different habitats and behaviors.

Ya cause they found out they were alive and not extinct like you thought. The fact is they are considered a living fossil.

Many scientists believe that the unique characteristics of the coelacanth represent an early step in the evolution of fish to terrestrial four-legged animals like amphibians.
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/coelacanth/

Guess what after all them years like the rest of living fossils its still a coelacanth. I guess you have all them transitionals from the cambrian explosion.

Well, that would be unfortunate, because you seem to be getting a little more familiar with the issues. But asking questions, and then denying you got answers because the answers didn't suit you, that's giving you a black eye here.

So let me guess you are saying you showed an answer to your challenge? I don't think so. But we all know why you keep dodging it.

So you was challenged with a known natural mutation that can show an upward evolution process. All you have shown is a hypothesis. If you can not do this just say so no harm done. To say evolution is not an upward movement and only modifies what is there is denying what you have stated to believe, and a contradiction to common decent ( all life decending from common ancestor back to the first life form).

You have a single cell, that over billions of years, became everything we see (you can clear this up as not what you believe but you have refused to do so and have stated evidence is compelling to you for this) that is a huge upward movement and would require multiple complex systems. Are you denying your beliefs?

It's okay nobody that believes in evolution even your buddy Dawkins can answer. Pretty bad for the hypothesis.

You've been pretty angry about a lot of things, but I do wish you well. If you think the discussion isn't going well for you, I understand. God be with you.

Angry, never its really been amazing to me to see someone who rejects God's word and continually contradicts himself. Them refuses a challenge and keeps trying to take the topic elsewhere. It is going well for me, sorry. God be with you. I'll keep you in my prayers.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, a literal six-day creation was the invention of the Seventh-Day Adventists. The greatest Christian theologian of ancient times, St. Augustine, admitted that the "days" of Genesis were literal ones.

How many times do I need to show you? Lets do it again.

Sure:
Pious charlatans, firebrand demagogues and scientific cranks stalk the pages of this scholarly, thoroughgoing, at times plodding history of the modern revival of creationism. Unlike 19th-century creationists, who rejected Darwinian evolution but acknowledged that life on earth has spanned millions of years, today's creationists believe that God made woman and man in a single act of creation within the last 10,000 years. They draw inspiration for their beliefs from George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist who in the 1920s pioneered "flood geology," which traces most fossils back to Noah's flood and its aftermath. Numbers, a professor of the history of science at the University of Wisconsin, unravels the tangled religious roots of creationism. His evenhanded treatment incorporates a quietly devastating critique of the modern creationist movement and its efforts to influence school curricula. He reveals creationists to be a divided and contentious lot, squabbling fiercely with one another. Illustrated.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Creationists-Evolution-Scientific-Creationism/dp/0520083938

And...

For Augustine, a literal reading meant only that the text was referring in some way to events that actually occurred, without any implication that the reference might not be very obscure. For example, Augustine understood morning, day, and evening in the days of creation to refer not to a particular times of day, but to a particular phases in the angelic knowledge of creation - the phase in which the things are known directly from God (morning), the phase in which they actually exist (day), and the state in which they are known from the senses (evening). In fact, Augustine held that in terms of time the six days of creation were actually simultaneous and included the creation of time itself.
http://www.amazon.com/Literal-Meaning-Genesis-Ancient-Christian/dp/0809103265

Barbarian observes:
You're wrong. God and His creation are not at odds.

(denial)

Barbarian observes:
You still have the same problem. Genesis doesn't support your modern revision.

(denial)

(Spartakis questions Adam and Eve as real people)
Must be going on a dozen times I've told you that. You seem entirely reluctant to accept it. Why do you question the fact of Adam and Eve as real people? And why won't you say whether or not you believe they are? If you claim to be a Christian, you should readily admit that were real people, and that God created all things.

Do it now, and clear up an misunderstandings. C'mon.

Show me where I questioned if they were real people?

You asked if they were real people. And you've steadfastly refused to admit that they were.

I have said I believe they were the first man and women.

Not until now. But I'm pleased you accept that much, at least.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, God tells us what was there in the beginning, and male and female were not there. Why won't you just accept His word as it is? Jesus was talking about the beginning of the human race.

Sorry rejecting Gods word don't help you.

Let's take a look...

Genesis [1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

Surprise.

Barbarian chuckles:
Hard to say. The Bible doesn't say, and unlike creationists, I think adding to the Bible is a bad idea.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us where He said it was historical and literal. Or if you like, show that His mention of an allegorical passage changes it to a literal history. You're on.

Once again you even decline to answer what I stated about Exodus and at that you must decline Genesis and Exodus. You know the part where God wrote the commandments.

Still can't find where He said Genesis was a literal history? Guess why. It's not there.

Deny it all you want. How far will you go denying scripture for evolution?

You add things to it, to make it more acceptable to you. As you see, when challenged, you can't show that God says it's a literal history.

Barian observes:
As you learned, you confused "land" (eretz) with "the whole world."
Read the account of the flood.

Spart gets confused about coelacanths:

it should be walking by now right.

Barbarian chuckles:
If so, evolutionary theory would be in trouble. The theory doesn't say coelacanths evolved into walking creatures.

I'm telling you that evolutionary theory doesn't say coelacanths evolved into tetrapods.

So that "walking" stuff was just talk, after all? Not surprising.

This goes back to the point of you not understanding much about biology.

The biology department of several universities differ with you.

Barbarin observes:
The ancient coelacanths were transitionals, of course. Over millions of years, they evolved into the quite different modern coelacanths. New genus, new species. Quite different habitats and behaviors.

Ya cause they found out they were alive and not extinct like you thought.

The modern species, both of them, were known before I was born. I'm old, but I'm not that old.

Many scientists believe that the unique characteristics of the coelacanth represent an early step in the evolution of fish to terrestrial four-legged animals like amphibians.

http://animals.nationalgeographic.co...sh/coelacanth/

Not quite right. Coelacanths are too evolved in other ways to be the ancestors of tetrapods. But they are not too far from the line that led to tetrapods. For example, they have the same bones in their fins that we have in our limbs.

Guess what after all them years like the rest of living fossils its still a coelacanth.

Just a highly-evolved one, different from all the ancient ones. Just as modern sharks are very different from ancient sharks.

I guess you have all them transitionals from the cambrian explosion.

Yep. Trilobites, for example, and jellyfish, and other invertebrates. A lot of them. Want to learn about some of them?

Spart suggests leaving:
Well, that would be unfortunate, because you seem to be getting a little more familiar with the issues. But asking questions, and then denying you got answers because the answers didn't suit you, that's giving you a black eye here.

So let me guess you are saying you showed an answer to your challenge?

No point in you denying it, is there? Everyone saw it.

So you was challenged with a known natural mutation that can show an upward evolution process. All you have shown is a hypothesis.

I showed you a recent case of it happening again. Pretty hard to deny reality.

The very thing that creationists deny happened, happened again. Endosymbiosis is necessary for common descent, and we have directly observed it.

Barbarian suggests:
You've been pretty angry about a lot of things, but I do wish you well. If you think the discussion isn't going well for you, I understand. God be with you.

It is going well for me, sorry. God be with you. I'll keep you in my prayers.

I can always use prayers.

 

[spartakis]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, a literal six-day creation was the invention of the Seventh-Day Adventists. The greatest Christian theologian of ancient times, St. Augustine, admitted that the "days" of Genesis were literal ones.

I guess I need to show you again St Augustine thought they were instant and did not believe in an old earth or evolution. No support. And he did bring some un biblical teaching like infant baptism into play. Sorry scripture is my authority not a st.

Sure:
Pious charlatans, firebrand demagogues and scientific cranks stalk the pages of this scholarly, thoroughgoing, at times plodding history of the modern revival of creationism. Unlike 19th-century creationists, who rejected Darwinian evolution but acknowledged that life on earth has spanned millions of years, today's creationists believe that God made woman and man in a single act of creation within the last 10,000 years. They draw inspiration for their beliefs from George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist who in the 1920s pioneered "flood geology," which traces most fossils back to Noah's flood and its aftermath. Numbers, a professor of the history of science at the University of Wisconsin, unravels the tangled religious roots of creationism. His evenhanded treatment incorporates a quietly devastating critique of the modern creationist movement and its efforts to influence school curricula. He reveals creationists to be a divided and contentious lot, squabbling fiercely with one another. Illustrated.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Creationists-Evolution-Scientific-Creationism/dp/0520083938

And...

For Augustine, a literal reading meant only that the text was referring in some way to events that actually occurred, without any implication that the reference might not be very obscure. For example, Augustine understood morning, day, and evening in the days of creation to refer not to a particular times of day, but to a particular phases in the angelic knowledge of creation - the phase in which the things are known directly from God (morning), the phase in which they actually exist (day), and the state in which they are known from the senses (evening). In fact, Augustine held that in terms of time the six days of creation were actually simultaneous and included the creation of time itself.
http://www.amazon.com/Literal-Meaning-Genesis-Ancient-Christian/dp/0809103265

You know your desperate when you start posting links to Amazon
Here is a good book you can read.
http://www.amazon.com/Refuting-Comp...342693759&sr=1-1&keywords=refuting+compromise

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC.

By the 1830s, mainstream science had abandoned young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. It became therefore important for biblical scholars as well as Christian scientists to harmonize the Genesis myth with new scientific results into a 'new geology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Barbarian this is a wast of time. You continue to deny God's word ( won't even comment on Exodus Gods commandment) twist his word and etc... And you continue to reject the challenge. I never asked for an example of Endosymbiosis, did everything come about by this process? No and you can only make an assumption of this process for something else.

Once again

Endosymbiotic origins have also been proposed for the nucleus, for which see below, and for eukaryotic flagella, supposed to have developed from spirochaetes. This is not generally accepted, both from a lack of cytological evidence and difficulty in reconciling this with cellular reproduction.

Although no mechanism for their development, presumably from prokaryotic cells, has been suggested, the origin of the eukaryotic cell is considered a milestone in the evolution of life, since they include all complex cells and almost all multicellular organisms

Different hypotheses have been proposed as to how eukaryotic cells came into existence. These hypotheses can be classified into two distinct classes – autogenous models and chimeric models.

The origins of the endomembrane system and mitochondria are also unclear.[41] The phagotrophic hypothesis proposes that eukaryotic-type membranes lacking a cell wall originated first, with the development of endocytosis, whereas mitochondria were acquired by ingestion as endosymbionts.[42] The syntrophic hypothesis proposes that the proto-eukaryote relied on the proto-mitochondrion for food, and so ultimately grew to surround it. Here the membranes originated after the engulfment of the mitochondrion, in part thanks to mitochondrial genes (the hydrogen hypothesis is one particular version).[43]
In a study using genomes to construct supertrees, Pisani et al. (2007) suggest that, along with evidence that there was never a mitochondrion-less eukaryote, eukaryotes evolved from a syntrophy between an archaea closely related to Thermoplasmatales and an α-proteobacterium, likely a symbiosis driven by sulfur or hydrogen. The mitochondrion and its genome is a remnant of the α-proteobacterial endosymbiont.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

It should also be pointed out that the engulfing of bacteria by larger cells is one of the commonest phenomena in nature, happening countless times each hour. Yet, nothing really like the formation of mitochondria has ever been observed. There may be rare modern examples of endosymbiosis between two different types of cells, such as the Chlorella algae within ‘green’ paramecia. Also, infecting or parasitic microbes can persist for a time inside of larger host cells due to encapsulation or other protective factors. Still, these events are far from the radical biotransformation demanded by the endosymbiont theory, and no one untainted by evolutionary preconceptions would ever dream of classifying mitochondria as once-separate life forms, as some evolutionists have suggested. It is essentially an ‘evolutionary miracle’, assumed to have happened in the past, but never seen or duplicated in the present.
http://creation.com/mitochondria-created-to-energize-us

Get back on topic or answer the challenge. I don't have time to go back and forth and watch plain and simple facts get twisted and rejected. Sorry

I can always use prayers.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, a literal six-day creation was the invention of the Seventh-Day Adventists. The greatest Christian theologian of ancient times, St. Augustine, admitted that the "days" of Genesis were not literal ones.

I guess I need to show you again St Augustine thought they were instant and did not believe in an old earth or evolution.

St. Augustine wrote that the initial creation was instantaneous, followed by development of all things we see today. Clearly not YE, which as you know, is the invention of the Adventists. But it fits evolution nicely.

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions.

He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm

No support.

See above.

And he did bring some un biblical teaching like infant baptism into play.

The Bible repeatedly states that a person and all of his family are baptized together. Doesn't say anything about adults only. In fact, it says the opposite.

Sorry scripture is my authority

The parts you like, that is.

The roots of YE creationism:
Pious charlatans, firebrand demagogues and scientific cranks stalk the pages of this scholarly, thoroughgoing, at times plodding history of the modern revival of creationism. Unlike 19th-century creationists, who rejected Darwinian evolution but acknowledged that life on earth has spanned millions of years, today's creationists believe that God made woman and man in a single act of creation within the last 10,000 years. They draw inspiration for their beliefs from George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist who in the 1920s pioneered "flood geology," which traces most fossils back to Noah's flood and its aftermath. Numbers, a professor of the history of science at the University of Wisconsin, unravels the tangled religious roots of creationism. His evenhanded treatment incorporates a quietly devastating critique of the modern creationist movement and its efforts to influence school curricula. He reveals creationists to be a divided and contentious lot, squabbling fiercely with one another. Illustrated.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Creationis.../dp/0520083938

And...

For Augustine, a literal reading meant only that the text was referring in some way to events that actually occurred, without any implication that the reference might not be very obscure. For example, Augustine understood morning, day, and evening in the days of creation to refer not to a particular times of day, but to a particular phases in the angelic knowledge of creation - the phase in which the things are known directly from God (morning), the phase in which they actually exist (day), and the state in which they are known from the senses (evening). In fact, Augustine held that in terms of time the six days of creation were actually simultaneous and included the creation of time itself.
http://www.amazon.com/Literal-Meanin.../dp/0809103265

You know your desperate when you start

Citing evidence? You guy regard evidence the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

Barbarian this is a wast of time.

No, no. You're serving an important function here. The hidden assumptions and new doctrines of YE creationism are often not clear to people. You're helping illuminate things.

You continue to deny God's word

You're upset because I keep reminding you of God's word. Your new religion and it's "life ex nihilo" doctrine are contrary to Scripture.

I never asked for an example of Endosymbiosis, did everything come about by this process?

You asked for a mutation that would make common descent possible. I gave you the most importrant one. If there's another step in common descent that you'd like to see, I'd be pleased to find an example for you.

Endosymbiotic origins have also been proposed for the nucleus, for which see below, and for eukaryotic flagella, supposed to have developed from spirochaetes. This is not generally accepted, both from a lack of cytological evidence and difficulty in reconciling this with cellular reproduction.

These are not necessary for common descent, however. The origin of mitochondria are. And as you learned, we have an observed example.

It should also be pointed out that the engulfing of bacteria by larger cells is one of the commonest phenomena in nature, happening countless times each hour. Yet, nothing really like the formation of mitochondria has ever been observed.

Just showed you one.

Get back on topic or answer the challenge.

You asked for the mutation; I showed you. If you'd like to pick another step in common descent that you think is impossible, I'll show you that. You're on.

And I'm pleased you decided to stick around. A lot of people read these posts and you do a good job of showing what YE thinking is like.

 

[spartakis]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, a literal six-day creation was the invention of the Seventh-Day Adventists. The greatest Christian theologian of ancient times, St. Augustine, admitted that the "days" of Genesis were not literal ones.

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC

By the 1830s, mainstream science had abandoned young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. It became therefore important for biblical scholars as well as Christian scientists to harmonize the Genesis myth with new scientific results into a 'new geology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

As you have learned your theistic evolution is a new reversion. Taking the Bible how it is written goes back to when it was written.

St. Augustine wrote that the initial creation was instantaneous, followed by development of all things we see today. Clearly not YE, which as you know, is the invention of the Adventists. But it fits evolution nicely.

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions.

He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm



See above.

Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
He thought everything was created in less than 6 days.
No it don't fit evolution. He thought the earth was much much younger, and did not believe in evolution. I am sure you can find anything on the web like the false article you posted with a comment of your own calling Shannon Claude a biologist

The Bible repeatedly states that a person and all of his family are baptized together. Doesn't say anything about adults only. In fact, it says the opposite.

Acts 8:36-37
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Notice they don't sprinkle in the Bible either.

It don't matter what scripture says you will twist it. I am done going over this with you it's a waste of time.

The parts you like, that is.

No all scripture is my authority. Unlike you. I believe you have an authority figure, tradition and maybe then the Bible compromised.


( post desperate Amazon links) Wiki post above to shows him otherwise.

Citing evidence? You guy regard evidence the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

If you didn't quote mine me you would see. No I like evidence. You just don't have any.

No, no. You're serving an important function here. The hidden assumptions and new doctrines of YE creationism are often not clear to people. You're helping illuminate things.

Hiding assumptions? We take the Bible as it was written and you don't. Everybody can see this. You are just making yourself look bad like you did at the beginning of this thread.

You're upset because I keep reminding you of God's word. Your new religion and it's "life ex nihilo" doctrine are contrary to Scripture.

The only thing I said ex nihilo was the original heaven and earth. I am sure you believe in the big bang though. Sorry I follow scripture you don't.




Once again barbarian declines the challenge

So you was challenged with a known natural mutation that can show an upward evolution process. All you have shown is a hypothesis. If you can not do this just say so no harm done. To say evolution is not an upward movement and only modifies what is there is denying what you have stated to believe, and a contradiction to common decent ( all life decending from common ancestor back to the first life form).

You have a single cell, that over billions of years, became everything we see (you can clear this up as not what you believe but you have refused to do so and have stated evidence is compelling to you for this) that is a huge upward movement and would require multiple complex systems. Are you denying your beliefs?

Has shown an assumption with lots of problems that have been shown for his assumption.

Once again we are done here unless you want to get back on topic or answer the challenge. You are making yourself look bad by rejecting scripture and stating false claims. So either get back on topic, answer the challenge or move on. You have lost all credibility with me, from this thread and the last. Sorry. I ll keep you in my prayers.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, a literal six-day creation was the invention of the Seventh-Day Adventists. The greatest Christian theologian of ancient times, St. Augustine, admitted that the "days" of Genesis were not literal ones.

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC

Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam.

The Midrash[1] says: God created many worlds but was not satisfied, and left the world he was satisfied with.

Rabbi Moshe Ben Nacman (1194–1270) writes:[2] In the first day God created the energy (כח) "matter" (חומר) of all things, and then he was finished with the main creation. After that God created all other things from that energy.

Some midrashim state that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time. See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bere@#$%@#$%@#$%@#$% Rabbah 9.

In Psalms it says "A thousand years is like a day in Your sight" (Psalm 90:4)

So it was never a settled question in Judaism. And as you know, the most respected ancient Christian theologian, St. Augustine, pointed out the logical absurdity in revising Genesis to make a literal 6-day creation.

St. Augustine wrote that the initial creation was instantaneous, followed by development of all things we see today. Clearly not YE, which as you know, is the invention of the Adventists. But it fits evolution nicely.

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions.

He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm

He thought everything was created in less than 6 days.

No. He thought the initial creation was instantaneously done, and then thing developed from that creation.

Barbarian observes:
The Bible repeatedly states that a person and all of his family are baptized together. Doesn't say anything about adults only. In fact, it says the opposite.
Acts 8:36-37

It don't matter what scripture says you will twist it. I am done going over this with you it's a waste of time.

Which is good. I think you have it now.

No all scripture is my authority.

Except the part that you don't like.

I believe you have an authority figure

God. And His creation, as cited by Paul

tradition

As cited in Scripture.

and maybe then the Bible compromised.

My Bible is as it was first brought together, without your modern additions and subtractions.

Barbarian observes:
Citing evidence? You guy regard evidence the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

No I like evidence.

You have a tantrum every time I cite evidence.

Barbarian chuckles:
No, no. You're serving an important function here. The hidden assumptions and new doctrines of YE creationism are often not clear to people. You're helping illuminate things.

Hiding assumptions? We take the Bible as it was written

No, you don't. "Life ex nihilo" is directly contradicted by Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
You're upset because I keep reminding you of God's word. Your new religion and it's "life ex nihilo" doctrine are contrary to Scripture.

 

[cupid dave]

No, you don't. "Life ex nihilo" is directly contradicted by Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
You're upset because I keep reminding you of God's word. Your new religion and it's "life ex nihilo" doctrine are contrary to Scripture.

?

"Life ex nihilo" seems to be exactly the Spontaneous Generation we read when God said, "Let the earth bring forth the first sprouts of life on the Earth."



Gen. 1:11 And(Father Nature, Reality), “God,†said, Let the earth bring forth"grass"i.e.; ("deshe," in the Hebrew meaning "the first sprouts of the Earth,and, then)," the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruitafter his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

 

[cupid dave]

Rabbi Moshe Ben Nacman (1194–1270) writes:[2] In the first day God created the energy (כח) "matter" (חומר) of all things, and then he was finished with the main creation. After that God created all other things from that energy.

St. Augustine wrote that the initial creation was instantaneous, followed by development of all things we see today.

As if this (E = mC^2)were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

He thought the initial creation was instantaneously done, and then thing developed from that creation.

Sounds very much as I hve been saying:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Click on picture to go to next page)[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of Seven Stages:

1) The Inflation Era

2) The Quark Era

3) Hadron Era

4) Lepton Era

5) Nucleosynthesis Era

6) Opaque Era

7) Matter Era,... in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2), the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which congealed into the planet) earth.



[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Formative - Hadean Era/ First Day: From The Big Bang to 4.5 Years Ago

The Early Universe originated with the expansion of an unbelievably hot and dense "something;" hotter than the tens of millions of Kelvins in the cores of most stars, denser than the trillions of grams per cubic centimeter in the nucleus of any atom.
Precisely what that state was, we cannot say for sure. And why it "exploded," we really don't know.
At best, science contends that in the beginning a singularity released an outward burst of pure, radiant energy.
Why the Universe suddenly began expanding more than 10 billion years ago is a most intractable query, so formidable that scientists are currently unaware even how to formulate a meaningful question about it.

[/FONT]

 

[Barbarian]

"Life ex nihilo" seems to be exactly the Spontaneous Generation we read when God said, "Let the earth bring forth the first sprouts of life on the Earth."

But that isn't life ex nihilo. It's life arising from other, non-living things.

 

[spartakis]

The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. It is attributed to the Tanna Yose ben Halafta, and covers history from the creation of the universe to the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Although it is known that a literal approach is not always needed when interpreting the Torah, there is a split over which parts are literal.
Some modern rabbis[citation needed] believe that the world is older, and that life as we know it today did not always exist. They believe such a view is needed to accept well-supported scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution

As you can see it starts when you try and compromise.

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC

And once again you have no support by Augustine he believed God created everything in less then 6 days.

Once again you reject even what God states in Exodus as he gives commandments and God re states the creation and week and etc..., many things in Genesis ( basically the whole book), Jesus's words and etc....

It don't matter what scripture says you will twist it. I am done going over this with you it's a waste of time.

Which is good. I think you have it now.

Yes I do you twist and disbelieve God's word for evolution.

Sorry it don't fit in Biblical context of creation.

Your Bible added books that do not belong. I posted that here but will not again because as you can talk about it I can't my post got deleted.

Life ex nihilo is how God brought fourth the original heaven and earth do you deny that also? He then spoke and brought fourth the creatures of the world. What he used as for instance he created us from dust ( which you declined as well) is not an issue, I never said he created everything Life ex nihilo. I believe if he used dirt or whatever it does not help with your theory of evolution. Evolution does not fit in context of Genesis or anywhere in the Bible sorry. I have shown you this too many times.

So we see you decline the word of God, you decline the challenge that was asked and you have not went back on topic. I believe we are done here until otherwise. God bless.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes I do you twist and disbelieve God's word for evolution.

Sorry it don't fit in Biblical context of creation.

You aren't God. So it's not of any concern that I don't buy your version.

Your Bible added books that do not belong. I posted that here but will not again because as you can talk about it I can't my post got deleted.

You serve a very good purpose being here. So I'd advise you not to push the envelope on the rules.

Life ex nihilo is how God brought fourth the original heaven and earth

Let's take a look...

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.

Surprise. Genesis directly rules out "life ex nihilo." The universe was created ex nihilo. Life was created from pre-existing things.

do you deny that also?

As you see, YE creationism denies God's word.

 

[spartakis]

You aren't God. So it's not of any concern that I don't buy your version.

How did you figure that out You mean you don't believe what God told us.

Let's take a look...

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.

Surprise. Genesis directly rules out "life ex nihilo." The universe was created ex nihilo. Life was created from pre-existing things.

Since it seems you don't read i will repost my last comment on life ex nihilo

My last post on life ex nihilo

Life ex nihilo is how God brought fourth the original heaven and earth do you deny that also? He then spoke and brought fourth the creatures of the world. What he used as for instance he created us from dust ( which you declined as well) is not an issue, I never said he created everything Life ex nihilo. I believe if he used dirt or whatever it does not help with your theory of evolution. Evolution does not fit in context of Genesis or anywhere in the Bible sorry. I have shown you this too many times.

Yes pre existing things like we was created from dust ( which you don't believe). I have shown you many times evolution don't fit.

As you see, YE creationism denies God's word.

As for believing God created everything like he said he did, and the earth is as old as he says it is, would be believing his word as he gave it to us.

As for not believing Genesis, the statements made in Exodus while God gave us his commandments, the words of Jesus, and many other parts of scripture would not be believing God's word.


Once again

So we see you decline the word of God, you decline the challenge that was asked and you have not went back on topic. I believe we are done here until otherwise. God bless.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You aren't God. So it's not of any concern that I don't buy your version.

How did you figure that out

Wasn't hard when you started promoting your revised version of the Bible.

You mean you don't believe what God told us.

I mean I don't believe your changes to the Bible.

Let's take a look...

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.

Surprise. Genesis directly rules out "life ex nihilo." The universe was created ex nihilo. Life was created from pre-existing things.

My last post on life ex nihilo
Life ex nihilo is how God brought fourth the original heaven and earth

It isn't. Earth isn't alive. And life was brought forth by non-living matter, as God says. The creationists claim that God brought forth life from nothing. Which as you see, God denies in Genesis.

do you deny that also?

God is right; you're wrong.

He then spoke and brought fourth the creatures of the world. What he used as for instance he created us from dust ( which you declined as well) is not an issue

It is for YE creastionists who deny that. "Life ex nihilo" is the YE belief.

Evolution does not fit in context of Genesis or anywhere in the Bible sorry. I have shown you this too many times.

I know you want us to believe it, but the evidence doesn't support your belief.
As you see, YE creationism denies God's word. And no, God doesn't say how old the Earth is.

As for not believing Genesis, the statements made in Exodus while God gave us his commandments, the words of Jesus, and many other parts of scripture would not be believing God's word.

As you learned, Jesus' comments are perfectly consistent with evolution and an old Earth.

If you have changed your mind and are now willing to admit that the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is wrong, that's great. It could be the beginning of a new relationship with you and God.

 

[spartakis]

Spartakis :toofunny

Barbarian everyone see's you do not believe God's word and evolution does not fit in the Bible. I have shown you in multiple post. Yes like I said more then once the original heavens and earth was created life ex nihilo. And he created us out of dust ( pre existing things like that). which you deny.

You deny all of Genesis.
You deny where God gives us commandments.
Ex 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.

You deny Jesus words

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Matt 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

You deny his judgment in Genesis.

John 5:46-47
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?


Stop repeating yourself you are just looking bad.

So we see you decline the word of God, you decline the challenge that was asked and you have not went back on topic. I believe we are done here until otherwise. God bless.:waving

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian everyone see's you do not believe God's word and evolution does not fit in the Bible.

As you learned, Genesis rules out the YE belief of "life ex nihilo."

And as you learned, even if Exodus repeats an allegory from Genesis, that does not make it literal history.

And, of course, God said what was there at the beginning, and male and female were no there. Read Gen. 1:1.

Stop repeating yourself you are just looking bad.

It's God's words, not mine. Take it up with him, if you don't want to believe it.

I believe we are done here until otherwise.

You've said "goodbye" three times now. Decided to stick around anyway?