[_ Old Earth _] Give it up already

[darcy]

For the many posts that claim to offer rebuttals to evolution showing "scientific error" or falsified documentation give it up already. It is old news if news at all. Any and all of the claims put forth have already been laid to rest and shown where those making the claim don't fully understand or misunderstand the workings of evolution. The world is full of scientists willing to come forth with contradictory evidence IF it is contradictory and can be proven. Where are the scientific papers refuting the long held acceptance of all these scientific laws? Why do they only appear in theologic presses. What are they afraid of? Why not bring the evidence to the floor if you have any? You can believe what ever you want but the reality says the belief is in error. Not having an answer to something is not proof of God.

I understand the ''workings'' of evolution....enough to agree that the evidence we see in what is called speciation and natural selection, is indeed fact, there is no way around it.

That adaptation and mutation exist is fact.
God created animals with the ability to adapt. The fall created mutation.

But nothing that has been offered has convinced me in this "molecules to me" is either probable, possible or even happened at all.

We can create theory to fit what we believe the evidence is saying, but in fact, none of us were there and as such it cannot be proven that man and animals came from anywhere but exactly where the bible states. From God during the 6 days of creation.

how do you know for sure that "God" made the world in 7 day's?

 

[Possumburg]

how do you know for sure that "God" made the world in 7 day's?

The Bible tells us so.
Genesis 1
Exodus 20:9-11
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But 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:
11For 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.

 

[army_of_juan]

how do you know for sure that "God" made the world in 7 day's?

The Bible tells us so.
Genesis 1
Exodus 20:9-11
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But 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:
11For 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.

How do you know the bible is correct?

 

[Guest]

We can create theory to fit what we believe the evidence is saying, but in fact, none of us were there and as such it cannot be proven that man and animals came from anywhere but exactly where the bible states. From God during the 6 days of creation.

Your logic is flawed: since nobody currently living was present at the moment of creation, then we automatically assume it was created by God in 6 days, or 7, or a bunch of years depending on how you interpret "days".
By your there should be a different conclusion: Since nobody currently living was present at the moment of creation, then nobody can tell what happened at creation. There is convincing evidence that the Universe, Earth and everything in existence was not created in 7 days (or 6, or whatever the number is).

Read Allan Harvey's "Science and Christian Apologetics", it's a short essay found here:
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writing ... etics.html
Other essays by Allan: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings.htm

You will find that Allan has an abundant amount of knowledge and he clearly explains how Christianity often refuses to accept Science due to it's misunderstanding of Science. We must accept Science as God's gift and embrace it as such, just as modern Christian embrace other gifts from God the worst of which happens to be wealth (which according to Jesus leads to sin and it's almost impossible for a wealthy person to go to Heaven).

I hope readers will agree that scientific findings themselves cannot be immoral. From a Christian perspective, the physical universe is a revelation of its Creator. It is hard to see how greater knowledge of that revelation can be considered bad. In fact, one can make a good Biblical argument (drawing on, among other things, our stewardship mandate in Genesis) that scientific understanding is something God calls us toward. Of course, as with other good things God blesses us with (sex and material possessions are two other examples), sinful humans can pervert God’s gift and use it for evil (e.g., the use of science to build a terrorist bomb) or pursue the understanding in immoral ways (e.g., the medical experiments of the Nazis). Nevertheless, as Martin Luther said, “The abuse does not destroy the use.†The immorality would seem to lie with the human misuse of scientific knowledge rather than with the knowledge itself. (Harvey)

 

[darcy]

:-? Are you trying to tell me that I don't have the right consept of what 7 day's are. I have another question, so if ive got this streight you think that the scientific findings themsel is not immoral. can you elabberate on what you mean that. i would like to understand what you getting at.

 

[Guest]

:-? Are you trying to tell me that I don't have the right consept of what 7 day's are. I have another question, so if ive got this streight you think that the scientific findings themsel is not immoral. can you elabberate on what you mean that. i would like to understand what you getting at.

Which "concept" are you talking about: 7 days as in Creation, or 7 days as in calendar? The 7 days Creation is interpreted in many ways, some people say that days were not 24 hours, others say that the Hebrew word for days is not properly translated, others say that each day represents hundreds of years, and so on and so on... people have different interpretations of the meaning.

I'm confused about your second question: what about the morality of scientific findings? Please clarify what you want to know- what is your "strength" and how does it relate to believing that scientific findings are moral?

 

[darcy]

I want to know how we can say that the seven day's on a calender and sevendays are different from what God say's are days! kay the second question is are the sciencentific finding that we find immoral themself! and what can proove that they are moral?

 

[darcy]

doGoN, Have another question for you.What do you think of God making Sin?
now here me out, if you think about it ligicly it would make sence.
1) God made EVERYTHING right?
2)That means that he made SIN
3) Soe god to of given Lusifur the capassity to think that he is better than God :-?

 

[Guest]

I want to know how we can say that the seven day's on a calender and sevendays are different from what God say's are days! kay the second question is are the sciencentific finding that we find immoral themself! and what can proove that they are moral?

I just told you that Creation seven have been interpreted in many ways by many different Christians due to the overwhelming evidence that the Earth (and the Universe) was created in more then 7 days. Christians have tried to account for that discrepancy by re-defining the meaning of 7 days. My argument is not that God doesn't exist, because he didn't make the Earth in 7 days, but that the Bible is wrong because it was not written by God.

I think that you misunderstood what was written: the quote I had addresses the use of scientific findings. The use of scientific findings can be both moral and immoral, just like any other gift from God. For example: sex, which is a Gift from God, can both be moral and immoral depending on the conditions under which it is performed.

In reality scientific findings can't be immoral, they can't even be moral, because 2+2 is neither moral or immoral, it's 4. Chemistry is not immoral, you can't say that the knowledge that an atom exists is immoral, but the manipulation of chemicals to produce poison and kill people could be considered immoral... etc.

 

[Guest]

doGoN, Have another question for you.What do you think of God making Sin?
now here me out, if you think about it ligicly it would make sence.
1) God made EVERYTHING right?
2)That means that he made SIN
3) Soe god to of given Lusifur the capassity to think that he is better than God :-?

I really don't care for that analogy... but going along with it God made very thing, thus God is both Good and Evil at the same time... or if that's not true than Lucifer is either as powerful as God since God is Good and he/she can create destroy everything (including Evil). Again, I don't care for that analogy, but it poses some issues.

 

[darcy]

So you think god is both good and evil. I don't think that can be possible! If God can't taulerate sin than how can he of made it?

 

[Guest]

So you think god is both good and evil. I don't think that can be possible! If God can't taulerate sin than how can he of made it?

I said that I don't care for that analogy, but when applying logic two options can exist:
1. God is both Good and Evil (because he made both and he controls both).
2. Satan is as powerful as God, because God hasn't destroyed him (thus the eternal battle of Good vs Evil).

So you decide which one is more probable, I find both of them to be problematic for people who believe in Bible.

 

[Possumburg]

How do you know the bible is correct?

Faith

 

[Guest]

How do you know the bible is correct?

Faith

Great, you're not helping the topic tho...

 

[Dunzo]

How do you know the bible is correct?

Faith

So in other words, you don't.
Faith is belief without evidence. Knowing doesn't come in to it.

 

[Rick W]

So you think god is both good and evil. I don't think that can be possible! If God can't taulerate sin than how can he of made it?

Without heat there is cold.
Without light there is darkness.
Without sound there is silence.

We live in a world where the absence of something means there is something else that we put a name to. We know cold, we can sense it, or more accurately the lack of heat.
God created good. We percieve the absence of good as evil. We know darkness because of the lack of light and we know evil by the lack of good.

On to the topic.
I think evolution as a belief, science or whatnot may be extrapolating too far into the past. Evolution is an answer of what may have occured before the creation. Without a belief in creation then there must have been another beginning. And that's where the fun starts. How far back do you go? Since Adam is a myth, a story to convey a point then the creation could not be true for then it too is a story, a myth.
So evolution is an answer to how things got here, without creation, going way passed that beginning to some other explanation, another beginning beyond creation.

We can see, sense or otherwise observe that which was created. We are locked in time understanding nothing else. We look for and find evidence of age through the science of observation, data gathering or what have you.

Had you (nobody in particular) been given one of the fishes Christ created to feed the multitudes what age would you have placed on it? 6 months? A year? 2 years maybe? After all, you see it, smell it, touch it, turning it over and over knowing that fish reproduce growing to maturity over time. Would you have believed the fish to be minutes old or just hours old instead? Not likely. And anyone saying to you that the fish is only 35 minutes old (for example) would have been passed off as insane, ignorant beyond belief or otherwise without a brain in his head. But certainly you would not have believed him in any case. So by pure scientific observation the fish would be much older than even one day. Months anyway. No doubt about that what-so-ever. Besides, you have irrefutable evidence right there in your hands. Positive proof, no question at all.

So you don't believe the fish was created. You look for another answer finding evidence of it's beginning (egg, birth, whatever) going further back than the fish is old because that's the only way it could have gotten here.

/man in the multitude
Hey bud. Is this fish fresh? :smt017

/disciple
You betcha! :-D

 

[Guest]

We can see, sense or otherwise observe that which was created. We are locked in time understanding nothing else. We look for and find evidence of age through the science of observation, data gathering or what have you.

Had you (nobody in particular) been given one of the fishes Christ created to feed the multitudes what age would you have placed on it? 6 months? A year? 2 years maybe? After all, you see it, smell it, touch it, turning it over and over knowing that fish reproduce growing to maturity over time. Would you have believed the fish to be minutes old or just hours old instead? Not likely. And anyone saying to you that the fish is only 35 minutes old (for example) would have been passed off as insane, ignorant beyond belief or otherwise without a brain in his head. But certainly you would not have believed him in any case. So by pure scientific observation the fish would be much older than even one day. Months anyway. No doubt about that what-so-ever. Besides, you have irrefutable evidence right there in your hands. Positive proof, no question at all.

So you don't believe the fish was created. You look for another answer finding evidence of it's beginning (egg, birth, whatever) going further back than the fish is old because that's the only way it could have gotten here.

/man in the multitude
Hey bud. Is this fish fresh? :smt017

/disciple
You betcha! :-D

Until that fish is in my hands, I can't make any claims about the fish ;)

There are several problems with your claim:
1. You pick and chose which things in the Bible should be taken literally.
2. Once you're done with #1 you try to use it as evidence against science.
3. If I was given a fish which Jesus created then Jesus wouldn't be too far away so we can ask him ourselves.
4. If you take portions of the bible literally then you need to take the entire bible literally, if you don't then why not?

If scientists grow a human ear on the back of a mouse would you consider that to be a miracle? There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for it, yet it's not a miracle! If a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, is that a miracle? What seems like a miracle to one person might be perfectly reasonable to another .