[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is incompatible with the Bible

[Guest]

I'm not dogmatic about the insects and all not being alive in a biblical sense. This is speculation on my part because God didn't tell Noah to take insects onto the ark. Noah only had to take animals with the breath of life onto the ark.

But I am dogmatic on the plants because before the Fall there was no death and all animals and man were commanded to be vegetarian. So since plants don't have blood LEV 17:11 (i think it is) I see them as a food source only

:Fade-color mhess,I believe you are right. God made plants for food,and I believe he also made them for beauty so we would have a beautiful environment,and they also help clean our air.
God created the world for us to enjoy living in before the fall of man.
I'm amazed God still didn't take away all the beauty of nature when man
sinned. He could have,yet he didn't. He let us have many beautiful plants and tree's,ect.... He cares for us more than words could ever say,amen.

 

[Mr. Neil]

:Fade-color Thats like saying that eating plants is murder .

Now wait a minute. Why are you bringing up murder? I didn't say anything about murder. The point that I was trying to make, which you didn't even address, is that in order to have soil on which the Garden of Eden could grow from, you'd need pre-existing dead organic material in the soil. That was my point. I hope you realize that there is a difference between something dying and something being murdered.
In the portion you quoted, it even says that I was going somewhere else with my observation, and really, you even missed the point of what you quoted from me. I was making fun of the concept that animals with sharp teeth would be eating plants. I have a humerous visualization in my head at the moment of crocodiles eating trees, cobras sinking their venomous teeth into a banana, or a spider spinning its web to catch what, berries?! This is ridiculous, of course. That's what I was saying.
And I am aware of what the Bible says about wolves and lambs feeding together. So what? Are you arguing that those passages are literal truth? Do you think that's going to work on me, since I clearly don't believe that these stories are anything more than mythical?
You're trying to assert these things a priori, but you're not saying anything to me. "The Bible says" is not a good argument.

And Mhess, even if you don't count plant death as Biblical death, I still made a clear representation, using the book of Genesis, that the people who wrote this story clearly had no idea that plants would die in a worldwide deluge. I assume that they just though that the waters would drain and the plants would still be there to feed upon. They certainly didn't bother to acount for any of the forests having to regenerate. But in 21st Century botany, we know that this would be a problem, because we know plants are alive.
Just think about it. What happened to the plants during the flood? Do you honestly believe that all of the vegetation in all of the forests would have even survived being underwater?

 

[Guest]

:Fade-color Thats like saying that eating plants is murder .

Now wait a minute. Why are you bringing up murder? I didn't say anything about murder. The point that I was trying to make, which you didn't even address, is that in order to have soil on which the Garden of Eden could grow from, you'd need pre-existing dead organic material in the soil. That was my point. I hope you realize that there is a difference between something dying and something being murdered.
In the portion you quoted, it even says that I was going somewhere else with my observation, and really, you even missed the point of what you quoted from me. I was making fun of the concept that animals with sharp teeth would be eating plants. I have a humerous visualization in my head at the moment of crocodiles eating trees, cobras sinking their venomous teeth into a banana, or a spider spinning its web to catch what, berries?! This is ridiculous, of course. That's what I was saying.
And I am aware of what the Bible says about wolves and lambs feeding together. So what? Are you arguing that those passages are literal truth? Do you think that's going to work on me, since I clearly don't believe that these stories are anything more than mythical?
You're trying to assert these things a priori, but you're not saying anything to me. "The Bible says" is not a good argument.

:B-fly: You don't know the condition of the earth when it was first made.
also,if you can't accept the Bible in a debate with christians,what must you be thinking by coming here?
What do you mean work on you? you came here around us,we didn't go after you!
I don't believe your fairytales,so how are you better than us?
I don't believe in your fiction,so you run and cry,no fair,bad argument?

 

[Mr. Neil]

:B-fly: You don't know the condition of the earth when it was first made.

I never said I did. Tone down the slander.
I'm not arguing about the cosmological origins of the planet. I'm talking about the book of Genesis and the problem that you have with plants living before there was death of other organisms. If you truly believe that the book of Genesis is an accurate portrayal of the origin of all life, then you are the one making the positive claim of knowledge.
I never said a darn thing about any alternate explanations, such as cosmology or abiogenesis. I never uttered a word about them.

also, if you can't accept the Bible in a debate with christians,what must you be thinking by coming here?

Because it is a debate, and in a fair debate, one cannot simply appeal to his or own ideals as axiomatic without a proper explanation. You just keep throwing Bible verses at me, as if I'm going to go, "Oh! Of course! The BIBLE says it happened that way. Well, that answers everything."
If I'm challenging the Bible, then your Bible quotes are useless unless you can substantiate them. You're taking the Bible a priori, but you seem to be unaware that this is simply not going to work on someone who is not of your religion.
You're behaving as if you believe that I've never read from the Bible, or that since your reading from it, then it should be more convincing then when I read from it.
Quoting from the Bible doesn't work, because I'm challenging the Bible.

What if a Muslim came here and started making assertions form the Quran by simply quoting from it? Well, you would probably not accept Quran quotes as evidence that the Quran is true. That is the point that I'm making about Bible quotes.

What do you mean work on you? you came here around us,we didn't go after you!

You just said it was a debate, right? Well, if you're debating your point to me, and your point isn't working, then that's what I mean. Your points aren't working on me, and they're not going to as long as you continue to argue from the Bible as if the Bible's words confirm themselves.

I don't believe your fairytales,so how are you better than us?
I don't believe in your fiction, so you run and cry, no fair, bad argument?

What fairy tales are you talking about? I've been talking about the Bible the whole time. I haven't brought any of my beliefs into this discussion, and I never said I was better than any of you.
I'm not crying about an "unfair" argument. I'm pointing out an argument that is not intellectually tenable.

If there is an unfair argument that I think you're using, it's this little charicature of me that you keep trying to blast and tear apart, when clearly I never said that I was better than anyone here. All I did was challenge your faith, and you got really defensive about it.

 

[Guest]

:B-fly: You don't know the condition of the earth when it was first made.

I never said I did. Tone down the slander.
:angel: Hey,calm down a bit! I'm not blasting you or trying to attack you.
It appears that you don't believe God or the word of God.
I do believe believe God,and The word.
thats where we are different.
Man can come up with all sorts of arguments and things.
I like having a standard to live by and the bible is a great guide.
I am not going to use Darwin,or any liberal teachings.
What do you want to use?

 

[Mr. Neil]

:angel: Hey,calm down a bit! I'm not blasting you or trying to attack you.
It appears that you don't believe God or the word of God.
I do believe believe God,and The word.
thats where we are different.

See? Now we're getting somewhere.
I never actually stated that I don't believe in God, although I'm certainly not going to deny it at this point. I clearly don't.
But even when I did, I still had a problem with the creation story of Adam and Eve, because it directly contradicted many theories of science. Not just evolution, but all fields of science.
For example, let's take astronomy. Astronomers can point to other planetary systems in the universe that are in various staged of formation. We know how planetary systems form, yet the creation story of the Bible tells a very geocentric story of an Earth that is formed first with a bunch of superficial stars hung around it.
And that's another interesting thing... stars. Over 99% of stars are not visible to the naked eye, and yet this God hung them in the sky, apparently in anticipation for the one day that we would invent the telescope and look at them.
And the silly thing about these stars is that they're all millions and billions of light years away. A light year, as I'm sure you're aware, is a distance of measurement of how far light travels in an Earth year. In other words, if something is 2.2 million lightyears away, such as the Andromeda system, then the light from Andromeda took 2.2 million years to get here. That's how lightyears work.
But that's not even the farthest known object. The farthest known object is some galaxy 10 billion lightyears away.

And yet the creation story of the Bible tells of an origin that is no less than 10,000 years ago. I find that a little difficult to accept in light of the astronomical evidence to the contrary.

Man can come up with all sorts of arguments and things.
I like having a standard to live by and the bible is a great guide.
I am not going to use Darwin,or any liberal teachings.
What do you want to use?

Well, the thing about Darwin's theories is that his theories came from an observed source. A phenomenon. He didn't wake up one morning and say "Hey, things evolve!" He went out and observed and collected evidence that lead him to a hypothesis of common ancestry.
That doesn't mean you have to use Darwin's teachings to make a case for creation, but at least use some form of argument that would verify the Bible. Independant artifacts are a good example.
If you use the Bible to prove the Bible, you run into the extraordinary risk of using a circular argument, because what you're saying is that God exists because it's in the Bible, and the Bible is true because God wrote the Bible.

Now I may not believe in God, but at least understand my position here. I have no preference to whether or not a God exists. If he exists, and I discover it, then I'll be man enough to admit it. I simply don't care either way.
My intention is the follow the truth wherever it leads, even if I don't like the truth.

 

[Guest]

Now I may not believe in God, but at least understand my position here. I have no preference to whether or not a God exists. If he exists, and I discover it, then I'll be man enough to admit it. I simply don't care either way.
My intention is the follow the truth wherever it leads, even if I don't like the truth.

:B-fly: Mr. Neil,there is hope for you yet!
If you indeed are really interested in the truth,I personally believe it
will lead you right to God as it did me. I was a free thinker before I
was saved,and I still am. I get great joy in living for God. Life has a
great purpose,and people mean alot more to one another than just
in this one short life. Choosing to believe God is a free choice,and it
literally does set you free.
I know some of what you are trying to say. I have been there.
Please don't ever stop searching for the truth. The truth is a great
thing!
Man has proven him/herself wrong time and time again.
we are human,we will mess up.
Thats just part of human life.

 

[Asimov]

Man can come up with all sorts of arguments and things.
I like having a standard to live by and the bible is a great guide.
I am not going to use Darwin,or any liberal teachings.
What do you want to use?

Darwin's scientific ideas are not theology to follow, nor are they religious beliefs. Darwin was a Christian when he was researching.

Your religious beliefs, and evolution, are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Guest]

Darwin's scientific ideas are not theology to follow, nor are they religious beliefs. Darwin was a Christian when he was researching.

Your religious beliefs, and evolution, are not mutually exclusive.[/quote]

:B-fly: Darwin was a christian but he believed in Pagan religion,and
I believe only in God and his Son,and The holy word.
I have no extra biblical beliefs.
You may see all religious groups as one in the same,like the world
does,but I do not.
Nothing Like knowing Jesus to set you straight,amen!

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

And Newton was less interested in his work on motion and focused most of his energies on his alchemical activities; do you have a point blue?

An objective theory is, while at least moderately guided by the researcher's biases and beliefs, still an objective theory. The Theory of natural selection wasn't just studied and published by Darwin. Wallace wrote closely tied material on the subject at the same time. And another man, a fisherman in northern england, IIRC, made note of the idea in an obscure journal years beforehand. Since 3 men of differing backgrounds and biases can come up with the same ideas through their unique perspectives on nature, implying that evolution is a pagan theory is unfounded.

 

[Guest]

. Since 3 men of differing backgrounds and biases can come up with the same ideas through their unique perspectives on nature, implying that evolution is a pagan theory is unfounded.

:B-fly: I honestly don't think so,when most if not all of them were
pagan to some degree.

http://www.amazingbible.org/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid5.htm
http://www.enlightened.org.uk/ev07-man.html
http://www.emjc3.com
http://www.foolishfaith.com
http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm

Hey,if you don't believe what the evolutionist on that web site wrote,he
welcomes all e-mails,so e-mail him so he can show you how he found
out where the roots of evolution began,o.k?

 

[cubedbee]

http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm

Hey,if you don't believe what the evolutionist on that web site wrote,he
welcomes all e-mails,so e-mail him so he can show you how he found
out where the roots of evolution began,o.k?

If you're going to use this site to 'prove' that evolution comes from Paganism, are you also going to accept that Jesus was a pagan?

His name Jesus says Beard-of-Isis. His name reveals where he was and what he was doing during the early part of his life. He was a student of Isis' teachings in Egypt. Jesus was a prophet, preacher, teacher and practitioner of Isis' religion. Jesus was alegedly a member of a religious community called Essenes. The name Essenes says Isis-sons. Biblical scholarship claims that the Essenes were a Jewish sect. It is unlikely that a hermetic community of Isis-sons practiced Judaism.

http://www.resurrectisis.org/J1WebPage.htm

I think the whole site is a bunch of rubbish and I reject both as being falsehoods. Why do you think the site is right about evolution but wrong about Jesus?

 

[BenjaminTC]

I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but would blueeyeliner please list the gods of the evolution theory? You repeatedly call it a "pagan religion."

Dictionary deffinition of pagan: One of a people or community professing a polytheistic religion.

Please name the gods that evolution recognizes.

 

[Asimov]

Please name the gods that evolution recognizes.

In the sole interest of educating blueeyeliner (although with her infinite wisdom, I can see this is a waste of time), evolution recognizes no gods, as it leaves the supernatural out of it. Hence, one could be a Hindu/Christian/Buddhist/Mormon/Catholic/Jedi/Sikh/Muslim/Jew, and still accept Evolutionary Theory.

 

[Guest]

Please name the gods that evolution recognizes.

In the sole interest of educating blueeyeliner (although with her infinite wisdom, I can see this is a waste of time), evolution recognizes no gods, as it leaves the supernatural out of it. Hence, one could be a Hindu/Christian/Buddhist/Mormon/Catholic/Jedi/Sikh/Muslim/Jew, and still accept Evolutionary Theory.

:B-fly: I hope I didn't mislead you,but you are not educating me except
on how deep the strong hold is that satan has got you into.
I was warned ahead of time that individuals who believe like you do are
very unlikely to change their minds or views.
If I thought the world was a big party and there was no price to pay for
sin or wrong choices,who knows,but I thank God he is alive,and that he
loves me,amen.

I cannot tell you all the pretty and sweet things you want to hear just to
make you like me or be popular in your group.
It's so easy to justify your lifestyle when you are locked into bondage.
It takes time to realize that you have blown it big time,and when you do
realize it,I hope you'll see that God and his son are the only real answers
to your problems. God is real,and I would not tell you that if it were not
so.
Pagans have various forms of worship.Many Atheists have bought into the
idea of evolution not even realizing how common it is among many types
of religious groups. It's even gaining popularity among other christian
groups too that it wasn't previously apart of before even.
Where do we begin? A good book on this very subject is by: Henry Morris
and I have already ordered a copy of his book "The Long War Against God"
Do your research and you'll learn all about the ancient religions that
believed very much in evolution. Evolution is not new,even if Darwin
thought he put a new twist on it. I think he knew himself what it was all
along. It's very possible that he did.

 

[Guest]

http://www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm

Hey,if you don't believe what the evolutionist on that web site wrote,he
welcomes all e-mails,so e-mail him so he can show you how he found
out where the roots of evolution began,o.k?

If you're going to use this site to 'prove' that evolution comes from Paganism, are you also going to accept that Jesus was a pagan?

His name Jesus says Beard-of-Isis. His name reveals where he was and what he was doing during the early part of his life. He was a student of Isis' teachings in Egypt. Jesus was a prophet, preacher, teacher and practitioner of Isis' religion. Jesus was alegedly a member of a religious community called Essenes. The name Essenes says Isis-sons. Biblical scholarship claims that the Essenes were a Jewish sect. It is unlikely that a hermetic community of Isis-sons practiced Judaism.

http://www.resurrectisis.org/J1WebPage.htm

I think the whole site is a bunch of rubbish and I reject both as being falsehoods. Why do you think the site is right about evolution but wrong about Jesus?

:roll: You have answered your own questions! I know pagan groups don't
tell the truth. Jesus's name is not pagan,although try telling a pagan that,
he or she will argue to the ground and call it pagan.
Yeshua is not pagan and Jesus is not pagan. The name Joshua is not pagan either.
I didn't claim that pagans were honest.
If your own fellow evolutionists believe in various forms of religion,it
stands to reason that all evolutionists worship something that is not a
real God,hence Godless forms of worship!
Do you not realize yet,that pagans worship non-gods that they call gods?
There are many good books available that you can learn from.
pagans also worship no gods although some of them claim they do.
To claim something is a god or goddess while the rest of the word knows
it's not a god or a goddess is the same as worshiping no god,don't you
realize that yet?
The ancient Pagans are known for all kinds of beliefs and evolution is one
of them. Research it.

 

[Guest]

Man can come up with all sorts of arguments and things.
I like having a standard to live by and the bible is a great guide.
I am not going to use Darwin,or any liberal teachings.
What do you want to use?

Darwin's scientific ideas are not theology to follow, nor are they religious beliefs. Darwin was a Christian when he was researching.

Your religious beliefs, and evolution, are not mutually exclusive.

:roll: And your point was? Either he was religious or he wasn't!

 

[Guest]

I don't know if this has been addressed yet, but would blueeyeliner please list the gods of the evolution theory? You repeatedly call it a "pagan religion."

Dictionary deffinition of pagan: One of a people or community professing a polytheistic religion.

Please name the gods that evolution recognizes.

:B-fly: Thats right,but it's not limited to just that.
pagans are known also to be God-Less!!!

 

[cubedbee]

Ok, to set the record straight, blue is saying that everybody who doesn't believe exactly as she does is a pagan.

 

[Guest]

Ok, to set the record straight, blue is saying that everybody who doesn't believe exactly as she does is a pagan.

:o No,to set the record on the straight and narrow,thats not true.
Those who are seeking God and the truth will find him,and thats what
I honestly believe. You must have a love for the truth,if not,you
will believe lies. If you have a problem with me,I don't understand
it. All you have to do is live your life for Jesus Christ and love the
truth. I don't have to agree with what you say either,yet I hardly
think that makes me a bad person.