[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Arch Angle]

What you don't realize is that, heavens and earth was already created even
before light was created.

What piece of evidence do you have to draw this conclusion?

I also asked for 3 pieces of evidence for "poof there it is". So that I might be able to draw the same conclusion. Or at least beable to defend it.

 

[felix]

What piece of evidence do you have to draw this conclusion?

I also asked for 3 pieces of evidence for "poof there it is". So that I might be able to draw the same conclusion. Or at least beable to defend it.

Have you ever read the book of Genesis?

 

[Grazer]

Have you ever read the book of Genesis?

But is the book of Genesis a scientific account of how the world was created? Or something much deeper?

 

[felix]

But is the book of Genesis a scientific account of how the world was created? Or something much deeper?

Can you tell me how scientific is the question at #475 for me to reply this? It is better to go back and read the posts and then reply for my post. Otherwise, replying without knowing any context will be making a fool of yourself.

The reply about creation account is "correcting" the way he wrote on how the Bible looks it. I never gave it as a scientific evidence. When AB517 asked for evidence at #481, I know he is not asking for any scientific evidence but where in the Bible does it say that corresponding to his earlier post - If that is not the case and expecting a scientific evidence, then he also made a fool of himself by not knowing what he asked earlier and why the reply was made.

 

[cupid dave]

Because, God is not dependent on any tools for His creation nor dependent on the delay cause by any tools.

God didn't said, let us make man in our own image.. and oh wait.. I had to wait for 1 million years for him to evolve.. ok, I will wait.. and finally, after years of waiting was fruitful, here comes Adam.
.

?
Why do you infer that a million years is such a long time to a God who is eternal?

I don't see how you can justufy such a rule so as to force yourself to understand that God did these things in what to you would be a split second.
Christians are always saying exactly the opposite when thy confess that "God isn't finished with me yet," and they are 70 years old already.


2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This verse above and a similar one in Pslams seems to support me, not you.

 

[cupid dave]

But is the book of Genesis a scientific account of how the world was created? Or something much deeper?

This is a good question to get answered before arguing with atheists and bible bashers.

It isn't that that Bible is a scientific account at all.
It is just a series of statements about the step-by-step unfolding of the Cosmic Evolution from a state of immaterial existence to the present material existence.

We are told that there were seven basic steps in the process of the Cosmos evolving to the the point in time where we find it now.
It is undeniably about evolving into the present state by a series of steps which are mentioned and detailed as seven steps.

Bible people really can't deny evolution is the overall story of what unfolded.
For some reason, the church people oppose seeing the process of Biological, step-by-step, evolution from less complex species into more complex species as an acceptable way for God to have accomplished what Genesis merely states he had.

I don't see how they benefit society, the church, religion, or the endeavor of educating the next generation by road blocking religion based solely upon their personal isistence that God did these things in a split second, and by using Magic.
Why?Was God in a hurry?
Isn't the whole interwoven interacting network of His Natural Laws as magic as things could possibly be already???

 

[Adam]

I'm not reading anything about these birds being trained. The fact that you put the word in parens tells me that you are defining some aspect of the test as "training" although you acknowledge that they were not trained. You are just calling some aspect "training" when it is not.

While we are on the subject of changing meanings, please do not strawman me so that you can ridicule something I never said or claimed. It doesn't just demean me. It demeans you as well.

If you don't have the skillset or equipment to address my point directly, using arguments from fallacy does not put you in any better position.

 

[Arch Angle]

Have you ever read the book of Genesis?

your first piece: piece#1) the bible.
It really is a conclusion. I need the evidence (data) thatthe conclusion was drawn from. Whatpiece of data do you offer that "light" came first? What/where is the data that the story of genesis came from?

I offer the rock strata as piece #1 for 4.5 billionyears or so.

What is your second piece?

 

[felix]

?
Why do you infer that a million years is such a long time to a God who is eternal?

I don't see how you can justufy such a rule so as to force yourself to understand that God did these things in what to you would be a split second.
Christians are always saying exactly the opposite when thy confess that "God isn't finished with me yet," and they are 70 years old already.


2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This verse above and a similar one in Pslams seems to support me, not you.

So why do you think He want to use Earth's million years when He can create in a moment?

Sent from Mobile.

 

[felix]

your first piece: piece#1) the bible.
It really is a conclusion. I need the evidence (data) thatthe conclusion was drawn from. Whatpiece of data do you offer that "light" came first? What/where is the data that the story of genesis came from?

I offer the rock strata as piece #1 for 4.5 billionyears or so.

What is your second piece?

If you read my earlier posts I already mentioned that the radiometric generation is nearly nil before 4000 yrs and you don't have evidence to disprove it which is also an assumption in radio metric dating.

If you want go back and read them. I don't want to grind the same ground flour.

I already mentioned in my earlier posts to speak with the Person who created who will answer all your queries. If you are holy you can even see Him. Why don't you try it?

Sent from Mobile.

 

[lordkalvan]

If you read my earlier posts I already mentioned that the radiometric generation is nearly nil before 4000 yrs and you don't have evidence to disprove it which is also an assumption in radio metric dating....

As you have never managed to present any evidence at all 'that the radiometric generation is early nil before 4000 yrs' and as there are data sets replete with radiometric dates using different radioisotopes ranging through the tens of thousands to the hundreds of millions of years, your point seems to have no basis in reality at all.

 

[felix]

As you have never managed to present any evidence at all 'that the radiometric generation is early nil before 4000 yrs' and as there are data sets replete with radiometric dates using different radioisotopes ranging through the tens of thousands to the hundreds of millions of years, your point seems to have no basis in reality at all.

I didn't mention anything about "proving" my point to show evidence. As I even said before I merely pointed out that the assumption is invalid to begin with and no effort is made to make that assumption valid. I also pointed out that if that is based on observation, how ironic you want to believe that on evolution when none of the species getting evolved is observed.

 

[Arch Angle]

your 1st piece: The bible. Is notdata, it is a conclusion. But so be it.

your 2nd piece: Radiometeric generation:

I looked it up. I couldn't findit. Could you just point me to the postnumber where you started it? Thank you.

My second: I offer carbon 14 radio isotopes dating and Uranium decay tomatch your piece.



what is your third?

 

[felix]

your 1st piece: The bible. Is notdata, it is a conclusion. But so be it.

your 2nd piece: Radiometeric generation:

I looked it up. I couldn't findit. Could you just point me to the postnumber where you started it? Thank you.

My second: I offer carbon 14 radio isotopes dating and Uranium decay tomatch your piece.



what is your third?

Please read from post #206.

If you have any evidence that the radio isotope generation is constant throughout the ages, let me know it. This is not even mentioned as an assumption.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Please read from post #206.

If you have any evidence that the radio isotope generation is constant throughout the ages, let me know it. This is not even mentioned as an assumption.

According to experimetns on radio isotopes, it is observed that they are constant. Do you have any sources that show isotopes not being constant?

 

[Arch Angle]

felix,

err? Idon't know how to put this. This is not true. The amount of radioisotopes (initial concentrations) would not have changed over that many days with that amount of water drying up. that is an absurd statement.

The water would not "block", or "control" the concentrations in the way you speak of. It is flat out wrong. Everything we know about radioisotopes goes against what you say.

It is frankly absurd to even try and push that assumption off on people. It just do not have any experiential evidenceto support that statement.

Not to mention, you would have to provide some evidence for the water "falling from the sky" in those amounts. And where it went after the rain storm.

Please,do not use this with people that do not know radioisotopes.

Radioisotopes point to a much older earth. (peroid).

Unless you change the way god made them. I use as proof of what I say, is that people do not believe what I believe ... we still agreehow radio activity works. I say god had a hand in it. They say he did not. But the isotopes act the same way for us both. They are not making stuff. Why would we?

Can you offer another piece?

 

[felix]

felix,

err? Idon't know how to put this. This is not true. The amount of radioisotopes (initial concentrations) would not have changed over that many days with that amount of water drying up. that is an absurd statement.

The water would not "block", or "control" the concentrations in the way you speak of. It is flat out wrong. Everything we know about radioisotopes goes against what you say.

It is frankly absurd to even try and push that assumption off on people. It just do not have any experiential evidenceto support that statement.

Not to mention, you would have to provide some evidence for the water "falling from the sky" in those amounts. And where it went after the rain storm.

Please,do not use this with people that do not know radioisotopes.

Radioisotopes point to a much older earth. (peroid).

Unless you change the way god made them. I use as proof of what I say, is that people do not believe what I believe ... we still agreehow radio activity works. I say god had a hand in it. They say he did not. But the isotopes act the same way for us both. They are not making stuff. Why would we?

Can you offer another piece?

Can you please say how radio isotopes are generated according to science?

 

[felix]

According to experimetns on radio isotopes, it is observed that they are constant. Do you have any sources that show isotopes not being constant?

I am not speaking about radio active decay but radio isotope "creation" on earth.

 

[cupid dave]

So why do you think He want to use Earth's million years when He can create in a moment?

Sent from Mobile.

I think what God divined to the Bible writers always makes rational sense, and I go with that, rather than infer things like God did something in a split second.

Why should I insert the idea that when God said "Let us make man," he did not also say, "immediately."
In fact, I believe he is still working on us.

 

[felix]

I think what God divined to the Bible writers always makes rational sense, and I go with that, rather than infer things like God did something in a split second.

Why should I insert the idea that when God said "Let us make man," he did not also say, "immediately."
In fact, I believe he is still working on us.

Gen 5:1 ... In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

I agree it is not immediate but it took within 1 day.