[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[felix]

you dont worship god. You worship a book.

You can't offer me anythingelse but the bible for evidence that god put the flowers before the sun. I canoffer a litany of observations that state that the sun was put there first, bygod.

As I said, I don't worship a god who contradicts his own words. I worship the God of the Bible who does exactly as He spoke to His prophets.
I know who I worship and my God knows that I worship Him. Do Jews also worship a book? You don't have to tell me who I worship.

 

[Arch Angle]

I claim that it seems god put the sun in before flowers. You claim the booktells you different.

When a book over rides observation then you worship a book.

You offered no other data than the book.

When you can offer nothing but a book, you are worshiping a book.

Jesus showed us to look past the book, look past what some people tellyou. See god for what he is.

Yes, we are unsure and need help discerning.
that is why we need each other.
That's why we focus on christ.

 

[felix]

I claim that it seems god put the sun in before flowers. You claim the booktells you different.

When a book over rides observation then you worship a book.

You offered no other data than the book.

When you can offer nothing but a book, you are worshiping a book.

Jesus showed us to look past the book, look past what some people tellyou. See god for what he is.

Yes, we are unsure and need help discerning.
that is why we need each other.
That's why we focus on christ.

Observation? When did you observe god put the sun in before flowers.

 

[lordkalvan]

Observation? When did you observe god put the sun in before flowers.

Strata containing fossil flowering plants consistently overlies strata containing other forms of fossilised plant life, indisputable evidence that flowering plants appeared later than other plants. Plants are evidence for the existence if the Sun, given that they need light to photosynthesise.

 

[felix]

Strata containing fossil flowering plants consistently overlies strata containing other forms of fossilised plant life, indisputable evidence that flowering plants appeared later than other plants. Plants are evidence for the existence if the Sun, given that they need light to photosynthesise.

Plants are evidence for the existence if the Sun, given that they need light to photosynthesis. - True. God created light on the first day. So begins the day and night cycle which has nothing to do with Sun. Plants can do photosynthesis even without the sun as long as there is light.

 

[lordkalvan]

Plants are evidence for the existence if the Sun, given that they need light to photosynthesis. - True. God created light on the first day. So begins the day and night cycle which has nothing to do with Sun. Plants can do photosynthesis even without the sun as long as there is light.

There is evidence of day and night cycles on Earth long predating the emergence of flowering plants. Those cycles indicate Earth existed for considerably more than a few days before flowering plants emerged in the fossil record. That observation aside, if God created light without creating a source for that light, one is rather left wondering about its physical attributes.

 

[felix]

.. one is rather left wondering about its physical attributes.

Once you have the remaining 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the knowledge of Universe.

Wonder why quantum theory is like a comedy and never predictable ?

 

[lordkalvan]

Once you have the remaining 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the knowledge of Universe.

So you can't tell us anything about it at all, then, or why Earth shows evidence of daily cycles reaching hundreds of millions of years into the past?

Wonder why quantum theory is like a comedy and never predictable ?

Except that, like country music, much of comedy is predictable. Other than that, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

 

[felix]

So you can't tell us anything aboutvitvatvall, then, or why Earth shows evidence of daily cycles reaching hundreds of millions of years into the past?

Millions of years into past? Yes, I know there is enough evidence for WMD by Saddam in Iraq.

Except that, like country music, much of comedy is predictable. Other than that, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Except that.. (which is quantum) is unpredictable. The known knowledge is very very little that it is a speck if all the sand on earth is combined. Predicting with so little information is not even the right way to approach.

(Isaiah 55:8) " For My thoughts [are] not your thoughts, Nor [are] your ways My ways," says the LORD.
(Isaiah 55:9) "For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
(Isaiah 55:10) "For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater,
(Isaiah 55:11) So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it.

 

[Arch Angle]

Observation? When did you observe god put the sun in before flowers.

really felix,

You are making this to easy felix. To lead people to thepromise land we need to be honest with them and ourselves.

" ... rm is crap and always wrong .."

" ...when did I "see" anything ..."

You follow a book. You want to lead people to a book. Iwant to lead them to where god thinks they need to be. Because I am not so sureI am right. I use the bible as my guide and focus on Jesus as the intersectionpoint between god, the truth, and me.

leave evolution to the scientist. They are discoveringevidence for god as we speak. You talk to what you know. The love and compassionof Christ. I point to that tax verse and seven girls with oil verses.

 

[Arch Angle]

Plants are evidence for the existence if the Sun, given that they need light to photosynthesis. - True. God created light on the first day. So begins the day and night cycle which has nothing to do with Sun. Plants can do photosynthesis even without the sun as long as there is light.

wow. ok,

now you say Day and night have nothing to do with the sun? But you admit "day" was first.

I say the sun determines day and night for the earth.

I use the bible as my first piece of data. I assume do you to.

What is your second piece of data that shows that the sun does not determine, for the most part, days and night?

You know what's funny. There is (possible) measurable data that you could use to claim that the plants were in before our sun. But this would imply using "god's" rules and not "man's bible" rules.

 

[lordkalvan]

Millions of years into past? Yes, I know there is enough evidence for WMD by Saddam in Iraq.

You appear to be conflating two entirely unrelated phenomena for the sole purpose of denying the validity of one without actually having to address it substantively.

Except that.. (which is quantum) is unpredictable. The known knowledge is very very little that it is a speck if all the sand on earth is combined. Predicting with so little information is not even the right way to approach.

I still don't know what your point is. quantum physics is not deterministic, but t most certainly us probabilistic, which means that probability-based predictions can be made, such as occurs when assessing the half-lives of radioisotopes.

(Isaiah 55:8) " For My thoughts [are] not your thoughts, Nor [are] your ways My ways," says the LORD.
(Isaiah 55:9) "For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
(Isaiah 55:10) "For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater,
(Isaiah 55:11) So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it.

I have no idea what your point is. Can you elaborate it, please? Thanks.

 

[Arch Angle]

I think I know what he means. But I know how I am using them.

His last set of quotes actual are bible verses that support the stance that science should be used as data collection of how god did it. They show that they didn't have the data back then so they didn't understand how god did it. Not that we fully understand it today, but we have a clearer picture of how. But definitely no 'why's" yet.

 

[felix]

You appear to be conflating two entirely unrelated phenomena for the sole purpose of denying the validity of one without actually having to address it substantively.

Yes, what is accepted as truth by majority based on evidence provided by top security officials can still be false and deceitful.

I still don't know what your point is. quantum physics is not deterministic, but t most certainly us probabilistic, which means that probability-based predictions can be made, such as occurs when assessing the half-lives of radioisotopes.

I have no idea what your point is. Can you elaborate it, please? Thanks.

All I am saying is, we simply don't have the knowledge enough to know everything. The visible universe itself is less than 4% out of which the known universe is less than a speck of sand in all earth. When God said, His ways are different, He doesn't have to use humans rules and physical rules. With Quantum mechanics, I can prove that I was in Mars the previous moment and it is still possible. With quantum mechanics still at it's infancy which literally doesn't agree with classical mechanics, no one actually knows why it behaves oddly and why it is simply chaos and unpredictable. Quantum mechanics is just the beginning of a new era of unexplored that "literally confuses" scientists in every way because of not only their odd behavior but not really knowing why. But still, quantum mechanics are still a speck of sand in the whole world and with that speck, you cannot define everything.

To me, God created time and He is not bound by time. You never know the parameters of it neither will you ever understand nor break the barrier. This is because, as long as matter is, it has time. It is like a computer program trying to visualize or understand how they were created and some assuming the programmer as just another program bound by the computer laws like memory & speed etc. A created being cannot understand it's creator unless the Creator want to reveal Himself in the form of a creation.

Which is why I quoted,
(Isaiah 55:8) " For My thoughts [are] not your thoughts, Nor [are] your ways My ways," says the LORD.
(Isaiah 55:9) "For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[Sparkey]

There is evidence of day and night cycles on Earth long predating the emergence of flowering plants. Those cycles indicate Earth existed for considerably more than a few days before flowering plants emerged in the fossil record. That observation aside, if God created light without creating a source for that light, one is rather left wondering about its physical attributes.

Yep. And wondering if our effect-evidence of age may indicate a mysterious-light-without-sun cause? I scratch my head over this one. This is a great example of my "I don't know" principle in action. The bible (perhaps vaguely) speaks of God's "curse" to man and how the earth or at least the soil would be changed. Even though the Lord didn't say exactly what He did, it is clear that something was done to cause change.

But back to the conversation here. We may also notice that there will be no sun in the New Jerusalem.

And there shall be no night there: They shall need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign for ever and ever
(Revelation 22:5).

The sun shall no longer be your light by day, nor for brightness the moon shall give light to you; but the Lord will be your everlasting light
(Isaiah 60:19).

Since there will be no need for the sun as a light source in the future, it is certainly possible that there was no need for the sun as a light source in the beginning.

 

[Arch Angle]

Sure, we can speculate. But you'll need at least a few other pieces of data before youclaim. "this is how god did it".

Science is a process.
The question. What came first, plant or sun?
The very first thing science does is collect data. What does the surrounding system 'show us".

you then list those observations. Then, from that list, we speculate.
Speculation is not data. speculation is a conclusion basedoff of data, well, we hope anyway.

I speculate that the sun was put in first before plants.
Can you offer anythingother than the bible as a piece of evidence for the speculation that the plants were put in place first.

if not, one can only speculate about your conclusions, based off of one piece of data. Then, we canspeculate on the validity of your claim when we compare it to my speculation, usinga list of, for here, 10 pieces of data. Of witch, the bible is one. The bible is number one.

 

[Sparkey]

Okay, science is a process. No problem.
Judgment involves weighing things or concepts while they are in conflict. You would seek to prevent use of the most reliable source for this process. We know that all things shall pass away, but not one word from the mouth of God shall pass away. This is a Christianity and Science forum. Denying what Christ said doesn't work for me. You're free to try another tack as you like.

 

[Arch Angle]

denying what Christ said? I am claiming that god put the sun in place first. I use the bible as my first piece of data that supports that God did it. Hoe does that reject the bible?

rejecting Christ? That is not what science is about. It is about listing the observation and seeing ifyou can make predictions from that. if you can make prediction it means you areon the right track. That is all. If you can't make predictions it means there isa gap in your understanding. Nothing more than that.

for example:"science" data would show that social beings like us can use"love" and "compassion" to better the society. It is directly in line with the observations Christ has shown us.

I think you are confusing scientist and science. A scientist can reject Christ. science only is a processof data collection and drawling conclusions form that data. It accepts or rejects nothing. It only list the observation that can be repeatedly measured.

For example. Did Fowers orthe sun come first?

I list the bible as my first piece of data. and then I offer the great coral reef, rock strata, and then fossils to support my claim that "Christ" put the sun in first.

What is your second pieceof evidence to support that "Christ "put flowers in first?

It has little to nothing to do with rejecting or accepting Christ. In fact, I say one rejects Christ more by ignoring what Christ has shown us threw the data collected. I say it is bible literalist that reject Christ more than people like me because they reject what god has shown us.

 

[Sparkey]

denying what Christ said? I am claiming that god put the sun in placefirst. I use the bible as my first pieceof data that supports that God did it. Hoe does that reject the bible?

rejecting Christ? That isnot what science is about. It is about listing the observation and seeing ifyou can make predictions from that. if you can make prediction it means you areon the right track. That is all. If you can't make predictions it means there isa gap in your understanding. Nothing more than that.

for example:"science" data would show that social beings like us can use"love" and "compassion" to better the society. It isdirectly in line with the observations Christ has shown us.

I think you are confusingscientist and science. A scientist can reject Christ. science only is a processof data collection and drawling conclusions form that data. It accepts orrejects nothing. It only list the observation that can be repeatedly measured.

For example. Did Fowers orthe sun come first?

I list the bible as myfirst piece of data. and then I offer the great coral reef, rock strata, andthen fossils to support my claim that "Christ" put the sun in first.

What is your second pieceof evidence to support that "Christ "put flowers in first?

It has little to nothing todo with rejecting or accepting Christ. In fact, I say one rejects Christ more byignoring what Christ has shown us threw the data collected. I say it is bibleliteralist that reject Christ more than people like me. RCC by the way.

Pardon me. Did I misunderstand you? I'm sorry for that.

Can you offer anythingother than the bible as a piece of evidence for the speculation that the plants were put in place first.

The Bible is authoritativeness. A brother just sent me a note about "Light and Darkness" and I'd like to introduce what he said here.

"God said there was light & He was the source of it. Then when the sun was made then He made it produce light without turning His off. Light here can be literal and also a concept. Such as when God shines His light on things they move to his will." The brother who PM'd me went on to say that "this may be seen in Psalms and also in the words of Jesus."

 

[Arch Angle]

I think that god put the rock strata down as it is. I think that man uses the bible as it is. I am RCC so I put the bible second to the writings of god Iguess. But that is theological, not data per say. You are allow to follow the Christin a way that makes science to you. lol,get it, science instead of sense.

There is observational data that can support that the "light" was first and the plants may have been in place before our sun. And I never once have to state because the bible told me. This observation turned me from a non believer to a believer. I don't like saying I was an atheist, I was never like them. They are a mean fundamental lot. I'll let lord explain the data. He is much better at writing than me.