Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] God vs. Science

calvary07

Member
This may be a little long, but it is worth the read.

God vs. Science

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion."

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.
"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."
"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."
"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.
 
One thing's for sure. Whoever wrote that old story, never attended a science lecture, or hoped that his readers never had.

How silly. It's like those athiest pages that portray all Christians as racists and idiots.

Can't we get past such things? As Christians, we should be especially careful to be honest in all things we do.
 
calvary07 said:
God vs. Science
1. Long and pointless... why God vs. Science?
2. Does either argue that the other isn't right?
3. Does God ever argue that scientific findings are not right?
4. Does science ever argue that God doesn't exist?
My answers to 2-4 is No:
If God created life (intelligent life), then the natural curiosity drives us to learn about our surroundings... no accredited scientist has ever proposed that God doesn't exist, I think that it can be safely assumed that God doesn't think Science is a wrong (sinful) thing.

God is not the Bible... not even close! I hope you understand that, so if Science proposes ideas different from what the Bible says, then that's open to debate. In addition, the argument of the student is wrong: nobody has ever seen, touched or interacted with the professor's brain, but the mere fact that the professor exists is proof enough that he has brain- if he didn't it would be plenty evident. If that is not enough proof, then we can put the professor through a CAT Scan and observe the existence of the brain. The same can't be done with God...

Again, I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist, but that:
1. The Bible is under interpretation and it's not the Word of God, thus no divine authorship.
2. Your sample analogies are incorrect: we can always find an empirical way to prove that a person has a brain, but the same can't be done with God... the story tries to simplify the logic and for people who don't think it through it might seem reasonable, but it really doesn't make any sense.
 
You have been in these threads 79 times trying to make a point, just what is your point. You call his post #1. Long and pointless :wink:



doGoN said:
calvary07 said:
God vs. Science
1. Long and pointless... why God vs. Science?
2. Does either argue that the other isn't right?
3. Does God ever argue that scientific findings are not right?
4. Does science ever argue that God doesn't exist?
My answers to 2-4 is No:
If God created life (intelligent life), then the natural curiosity drives us to learn about our surroundings... no accredited scientist has ever proposed that God doesn't exist, I think that it can be safely assumed that God doesn't think Science is a wrong (sinful) thing.

God is not the Bible... not even close! I hope you understand that, so if Science proposes ideas different from what the Bible says, then that's open to debate. In addition, the argument of the student is wrong: nobody has ever seen, touched or interacted with the professor's brain, but the mere fact that the professor exists is proof enough that he has brain- if he didn't it would be plenty evident. If that is not enough proof, then we can put the professor through a CAT Scan and observe the existence of the brain. The same can't be done with God...

Again, I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist, but that:
1. The Bible is under interpretation and it's not the Word of God, thus no divine authorship.
2. Your sample analogies are incorrect: we can always find an empirical way to prove that a person has a brain, but the same can't be done with God... the story tries to simplify the logic and for people who don't think it through it might seem reasonable, but it really doesn't make any sense.
 
turnorburn said:
You have been in these threads 79 times trying to make a point, just what is your point. You call his post #1. Long and pointless :wink:
It is long and pointless because the arguments don't make sense... that's point 1.
Point 2 is that God and Science are not in disagreement, but Christians and Science are in disagreement.
Point 3 is that Christians have the wrong conception that Science tries to prove that God doesn't exist, where in fact Science only makes claims as to what is observed in our surrounding... there is no scientific theory that God doesn't exist.
Point 4 Moreover, Christians often teach their kids that Science is wrong and that they shouldn't trust it because it doesn't agree with what the Bible says. Well the Bible says MANY things, MANY of which are known not to be possible due to current scientific knowledge... thus the disagreement is not with Science and God but with Science and the Bible.

I guess all of my points are tied together... and I don't see a problem with me posting in these treads 80 times now, since it's an open forum and there is no limit to how many times I can express my opinion. Do you see it as a problem?
 
I'm not scolding you if that's what you think
thsmiley_consoling.gif
Make a 100 posts it matters nothing to me, what does matter is that you find an answer to your question, "is the bible divinely inspired" Lets use this for an example, you own a 1956 Chevy hardtop, and there is only one manuel available for that make and model. You have an owners manuel that is only available for your make and model, one was written by NAPA the other by God.

Lets say your out in the wilderness and your Chevy brakes down, where is the first place you go?
you go to NAPA of course. Now, lets say your out in the wilderness and you break down, where is the first place you go? God of course, in both cases you pray, #1 that your NAPA mauel is 100% correct or your stuck in the wilderness and can't get out. #2 God is 100% correct or your stuck in
the wilderness and can't get out. Finally, are you going to believe the bible is divinely inspired now
or post another comment :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b29lMZZ1Ts8
 
turnorburn said:
I'm not scolding you if that's what you think
thsmiley_consoling.gif
Make a 100 posts it matters nothing to me, what does matter is that you find an answer to your question, "is the bible divinely inspired" Lets use this for an example, you own a 1956 Chevy hardtop, and there is only one manuel available for that make and model. You have an owners manuel that is only available for your make and model, one was written by NAPA the other by God.

Lets say your out in the wilderness and your Chevy brakes down, where is the first place you go?
you go to NAPA of course. Now, lets say your out in the wilderness and you break down, where is the first place you go? God of course, in both cases you pray, #1 that your NAPA mauel is 100% correct or your stuck in the wilderness and can't get out. #2 God is 100% correct or your stuck in
the wilderness and can't get out. Finally, are you going to believe the bible is divinely inspired now
or post another comment :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b29lMZZ1Ts8
The key-phrase is "divinely inspired"... while the NAPA written manual is not Chevy inspired, but engineer-written. The people who made Chevy made the manual, while God did not write the Bible...
 
:oops: I misunderstood, we all know he didn't write it, he used the hand of man.









doGoN said:
turnorburn said:
I'm not scolding you if that's what you think
thsmiley_consoling.gif
Make a 100 posts it matters nothing to me, what does matter is that you find an answer to your question, "is the bible divinely inspired" Lets use this for an example, you own a 1956 Chevy hardtop, and there is only one manuel available for that make and model. You have an owners manuel that is only available for your make and model, one was written by NAPA the other by God.

Lets say your out in the wilderness and your Chevy brakes down, where is the first place you go?
you go to NAPA of course. Now, lets say your out in the wilderness and you break down, where is the first place you go? God of course, in both cases you pray, #1 that your NAPA mauel is 100% correct or your stuck in the wilderness and can't get out. #2 God is 100% correct or your stuck in
the wilderness and can't get out. Finally, are you going to believe the bible is divinely inspired now
or post another comment :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b29lMZZ1Ts8
The key-phrase is "divinely inspired"... while the NAPA written manual is not Chevy inspired, but engineer-written. The people who made Chevy made the manual, while God did not write the Bible...
 
doGoN said:
Point 3 is that Christians have the wrong conception that Science tries to prove that God doesn't exist, where in fact Science only makes claims as to what is observed in our surrounding... there is no scientific theory that God doesn't exist.
And I suppose "evolution" has been observed? And those so called "beneficial mutations" that create new genetic information have been observed?
 
Possumburg said:
doGoN said:
Point 3 is that Christians have the wrong conception that Science tries to prove that God doesn't exist, where in fact Science only makes claims as to what is observed in our surrounding... there is no scientific theory that God doesn't exist.
And I suppose "evolution" has been observed? And those so called "beneficial mutations" that create new genetic information have been observed?
To answer your questions directly:
1. Yes, we have observed evolution.
2. And the mutations have been observed as well.

If you mean Darwin's natural selection and mutations, then my answer would be yes. The simplest and fastest way to see genetic mutations, if you want to call them "beneficial mutations", is to look at cockroaches- they mutate really fast and they adopt to their surroundings. The same is true for many insects.

At current, there are two problems with evolution which make it hard to observe it happen (the ape to human type of evolution):
1. Rapid development of the civilized world, which does not allow enough time for the currently evolved species to evolve to better suite them for the environment created by humans.
2. Observing evolution can't be done in one day (well it can, but not in the sense that you're talking about). We can't see apes turn into Homo Sapiens in one day, because that's not how evolution works. It takes hundreds and thousands of years for modern species to go through natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations to take place... at the end the best fit for the current environment passes it's genes along to its offspring.
3. Currently all the species that exist (even the ones that are considered prehistoric) have reached an optimal level of evolution, which means that further changes will be unlikely unless some really major event occurs the Earth and change its properties s(such as a large meteorite striking, or climate change).

If, for example, the climate changes we will see some species will go extinct.... etc.
Let me know what seems confusing here, this should all be pretty basic.
 
:lol: Do you believe in the transformation from ape to human?



doGoN said:
Possumburg said:
doGoN said:
Point 3 is that Christians have the wrong conception that Science tries to prove that God doesn't exist, where in fact Science only makes claims as to what is observed in our surrounding... there is no scientific theory that God doesn't exist.
And I suppose "evolution" has been observed? And those so called "beneficial mutations" that create new genetic information have been observed?
To answer your questions directly:
1. Yes, we have observed evolution.
2. And the mutations have been observed as well.

If you mean Darwin's natural selection and mutations, then my answer would be yes. The simplest and fastest way to see genetic mutations, if you want to call them "beneficial mutations", is to look at cockroaches- they mutate really fast and they adopt to their surroundings. The same is true for many insects.

At current, there are two problems with evolution which make it hard to observe it happen (the ape to human type of evolution):
1. Rapid development of the civilized world, which does not allow enough time for the currently evolved species to evolve to better suite them for the environment created by humans.
2. Observing evolution can't be done in one day (well it can, but not in the sense that you're talking about). We can't see apes turn into Homo Sapiens in one day, because that's not how evolution works. It takes hundreds and thousands of years for modern species to go through natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations to take place... at the end the best fit for the current environment passes it's genes along to its offspring.
3. Currently all the species that exist (even the ones that are considered prehistoric) have reached an optimal level of evolution, which means that further changes will be unlikely unless some really major event occurs the Earth and change its properties s(such as a large meteorite striking, or climate change).

If, for example, the climate changes we will see some species will go extinct.... etc.
Let me know what seems confusing here, this should all be pretty basic.
 
turnorburn said:
:lol: Do you believe in the transformation from ape to human?
Nope... I believe the evolution from Neanderthal, to Cro-Magnon, then to Homo Sapiens... not directly ape to human.
 
Are you sure you want to make that assertion, and do you realize the impact, you've stooped to saying that this is your image of God, the way you see him... :oops:

nono.gif


In His Service,
turnorburn
 
turnorburn said:
Are you sure you want to make that assertion, and do you realize the impact, you've stooped to saying that this is your image of God, the way you see him... :oops:

nono.gif


In His Service,
turnorburn
I think you made the wrong assumption to begin with: you assume that God looks like your average person, which I highly doubt. Just because we are "created in his image", doesn't mean that it's talking about the physical appearance... Moreover you assume that nothing came before apes, and I would assume that there were different species of animals that came before apes. If God made everything (including evolving species), thus there should be no doubt that God made us. I even have an argument why I think that God is the designer of Evolution, but it would require a LOT more writing, I will just stick with answering your question now.

You should realize that nobody gives definition of God's image. So I think it would be pretty ignorant, and even an insult, to assume that God physically looks like a person. I would argue that God made us in his spiritual image, which seems more likely. The flesh, the vessel, which God gave us to "use" on Earth probably has nothing to do with what God looks like. I don't see how claiming that evolution exists is an abomination of God's physical image, which likely doesn't exist.

So to answer your question: Yes, I am sure that I want to make this assertion and I realize the impact is negligent. I can safely say that you have been brainwashed to think that God looks like an old, chubby, white guy, with white hair and a beard... hmm, some similarity with another familiar person: Santa Claus.

If you think that God looks like the picture below, then I will undoubtedly have to laugh at your ignorance, but YOU should consider if you want to make this assertion and an abomination of God's Image. It really should be an abomination to represent God as a being that is made up of sinful flesh.
god-creator29g.jpg


Here are some interesting points which are written by Christians, which you might find helpful:
http://www.injil.org/TWOR/05.html said:
Yes, the human body is an incredible wonder! Yet was it the body that God created in His own image? No! This cannot be, because God is spirit. God did not create the physical form of man in His own image. What then does the Scripture mean when it tells us that "God created man in His own image?" It means that God created the soul of man in His image.
 
doGoN said:
To answer your questions directly:
1. Yes, we have observed evolution.
2. And the mutations have been observed as well.

If you mean Darwin's natural selection and mutations, then my answer would be yes. The simplest and fastest way to see genetic mutations, if you want to call them "beneficial mutations", is to look at cockroaches- they mutate really fast and they adopt to their surroundings. The same is true for many insects.

At current, there are two problems with evolution which make it hard to observe it happen (the ape to human type of evolution):
1. Rapid development of the civilized world, which does not allow enough time for the currently evolved species to evolve to better suite them for the environment created by humans.
2. Observing evolution can't be done in one day (well it can, but not in the sense that you're talking about). We can't see apes turn into Homo Sapiens in one day, because that's not how evolution works. It takes hundreds and thousands of years for modern species to go through natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations to take place... at the end the best fit for the current environment passes it's genes along to its offspring.
3. Currently all the species that exist (even the ones that are considered prehistoric) have reached an optimal level of evolution, which means that further changes will be unlikely unless some really major event occurs the Earth and change its properties s(such as a large meteorite striking, or climate change).

If, for example, the climate changes we will see some species will go extinct.... etc.
Let me know what seems confusing here, this should all be pretty basic.

Give me links please. I don't think adaptation of cockroaches is really proof of evolution, considering they are still cockroaches. When they change into a completely different species then maybe it could be called proof. But I did some searching and I could find no documented evidence of observed evolution.
 
Possumburg said:
Give me links please. I don't think adaptation of cockroaches is really proof of evolution, considering they are still cockroaches. When they change into a completely different species then maybe it could be called proof. But I did some searching and I could find no documented evidence of observed evolution.
A new species occurs when there is combination of significant physical, genetic, behavioral changes, and the new species no longer mate with the any other species from its family (in many cases it's not even possible to mate)... So, yes, they are still cockroaches, but that's just a family of a large group of different species, that does not violate the principles of evolution. Cockroaches change so dramatically that they are no longer able to breed with other species of cockroaches, thus different species.

This is the link explaining Speciation- Evolutionary process involving the formation of a new species:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq%2Dspeciation.html

And here is a list of observed cases of Speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Some of the highlights:
1. Faeroe Island Mouse- 250 years separation from the original species.
2. Cichlid fishes- 4000 separation from original species.
Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.
 
:crazyeyes: Ha! doesn't look like the average person, go tell that to Jesus.








doGoN said:
turnorburn said:
Are you sure you want to make that assertion, and do you realize the impact, you've stooped to saying that this is your image of God, the way you see him... :oops:

nono.gif


In His Service,
turnorburn
I think you made the wrong assumption to begin with: you assume that God looks like your average person, which I highly doubt. Just because we are "created in his image", doesn't mean that it's talking about the physical appearance... Moreover you assume that nothing came before apes, and I would assume that there were different species of animals that came before apes. If God made everything (including evolving species), thus there should be no doubt that God made us. I even have an argument why I think that God is the designer of Evolution, but it would require a LOT more writing, I will just stick with answering your question now.

You should realize that nobody gives definition of God's image. So I think it would be pretty ignorant, and even an insult, to assume that God physically looks like a person. I would argue that God made us in his spiritual image, which seems more likely. The flesh, the vessel, which God gave us to "use" on Earth probably has nothing to do with what God looks like. I don't see how claiming that evolution exists is an abomination of God's physical image, which likely doesn't exist.

So to answer your question: Yes, I am sure that I want to make this assertion and I realize the impact is negligent. I can safely say that you have been brainwashed to think that God looks like an old, chubby, white guy, with white hair and a beard... hmm, some similarity with another familiar person: Santa Claus.

If you think that God looks like the picture below, then I will undoubtedly have to laugh at your ignorance, but YOU should consider if you want to make this assertion and an abomination of God's Image. It really should be an abomination to represent God as a being that is made up of sinful flesh.
god-creator29g.jpg


Here are some interesting points which are written by Christians, which you might find helpful:
http://www.injil.org/TWOR/05.html said:
Yes, the human body is an incredible wonder! Yet was it the body that God created in His own image? No! This cannot be, because God is spirit. God did not create the physical form of man in His own image. What then does the Scripture mean when it tells us that "God created man in His own image?" It means that God created the soul of man in His image.
 
What does any of this have to do with Christianity, Christ Crucified, Saving Souls? Nothing, your agenda is abundantly clear, your leading some of these innocent babes into unfamiliar waters and for what, to feed your ego. The bible has devoted an entire book to it..

JUDE


Chapter 1

1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

In His Service,
turnorburn








doGoN said:
Possumburg said:
Give me links please. I don't think adaptation of cockroaches is really proof of evolution, considering they are still cockroaches. When they change into a completely different species then maybe it could be called proof. But I did some searching and I could find no documented evidence of observed evolution.
A new species occurs when there is combination of significant physical, genetic, behavioral changes, and the new species no longer mate with the any other species from its family (in many cases it's not even possible to mate)... So, yes, they are still cockroaches, but that's just a family of a large group of different species, that does not violate the principles of evolution. Cockroaches change so dramatically that they are no longer able to breed with other species of cockroaches, thus different species.

This is the link explaining Speciation- Evolutionary process involving the formation of a new species:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq%2Dspeciation.html

And here is a list of observed cases of Speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Some of the highlights:
1. Faeroe Island Mouse- 250 years separation from the original species.
2. Cichlid fishes- 4000 separation from original species.
Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.
 
turnorburn said:
:crazyeyes: Ha! doesn't look like the average person, go tell that to Jesus.
Jesus is supposed to be an incarnation of God's son... If God is all-powerful and can put a normal spirit into a body, then why can't he put the spirit of his son into a flesh? That still doesn't mean that God looks like the average human.
 
turnorburn said:
What does any of this have to do with Christianity, Christ Crucified, Saving Souls? Nothing, your agenda is abundantly clear, your leading some of these innocent babes into unfamiliar waters and for what, to feed your ego. The bible has devoted an entire book to it..

JUDE
What does this have to do with the topic of God vs. Science? This is not a discussion about Saving Souls, this is a discussion regarding God and Science and if there is any contradiction with the two.
If these people are going into "unfamiliar waters", that's because of their lack of understanding and knowledge about science and because they chose to discuss this topic. I have learned enough about the Bible and God that when I go into this discussion I don't feel like I'm in unfamiliar waters, they should do the same and learn about science.
 
Back
Top