[_ Old Earth _] If evolutionists find it hard to believe...

[Heidi]

If evolutionists find it hard to believe that God created man out of the dust, then how did He create the earth and all living things? :o Nevertheless, we are here. And even if one believes in the "Big Bang", something still had to get everything in motion. Something still had to create the molecules, cells, atoms, quarks, etc. to implode or explode to begin with! So you cannot get around that life is a miraculous creation. And you cannot get around the fact that man has discarded theories century after century to try to explain the creation of the universe and still has not explained the first living thing.

So yes indeed, evidence that God exists is right in front of us. As Romans 1:18-20 tells us:

"The wrath of God is being revealed against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood by what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

 

[reznwerks]

If evolutionists find it hard to believe that God created man out of the dust, then how did He create the earth and all living things? :o
For evolutionists God does not enter the equation. There is no evidence of his existance.


Nevertheless, we are here. And even if one believes in the "Big Bang", something still had to get everything in motion. Something still had to create the molecules, cells, atoms, quarks, etc. to implode or explode to begin with!
That "something" is still a mystery. Throwing your hands in the air and declaring God did it without any evidence is not the solution.

So you cannot get around that life is a miraculous creation.
No one ever said that life wasn't a miraculous creation.

And you cannot get around the fact that man has discarded theories century after century to try to explain the creation of the universe and still has not explained the first living thing.
Again man has discarded many theories of the past in regards to the creation of the universe. These were discarded primarily because of new knowledge. In the past the answers lie in superstition and fear and now the theories are not so easy to discard because now we have tools and evidence to back the theory. The only way God is going to enter the picture is if he makes himself known and then confirm who's God he really is. He could be the God of Islam or any other past God or he might not be anyones God.

[/b]

 

[Frost Giant]

We don't know therefore God. I like it... I think I'll convert now.

 

[noblej6]

Hi reznwerks,

I agree that there is no physical evidence of God existing today. The only evidence is the faith in the bible being correct.

And further into your post, I again agree that as a evolutionist I see no reason to outlaw creation. Creation does not negate evolution or visa versa.

noble6

 

[reznwerks]

outlawed

Hi reznwerks,

I agree that there is no physical evidence of God existing today. The only evidence is the faith in the bible being correct.

And further into your post, I again agree that as a evolutionist I see no reason to outlaw creation. Creation does not negate evolution or visa versa.

noble6

No one said anything about outlawing creation. It just can't be taught as fact or even likely if no evidence exists to back it up.

 

[Heidi]

If evolutionists find it hard to believe that God created man out of the dust, then how did He create the earth and all living things? :o
For evolutionists God does not enter the equation. There is no evidence of his existance.


Nevertheless, we are here. And even if one believes in the "Big Bang", something still had to get everything in motion. Something still had to create the molecules, cells, atoms, quarks, etc. to implode or explode to begin with!
That "something" is still a mystery. Throwing your hands in the air and declaring God did it without any evidence is not the solution.

So you cannot get around that life is a miraculous creation.
No one ever said that life wasn't a miraculous creation.

And you cannot get around the fact that man has discarded theories century after century to try to explain the creation of the universe and still has not explained the first living thing.
Again man has discarded many theories of the past in regards to the creation of the universe. These were discarded primarily because of new knowledge. In the past the answers lie in superstition and fear and now the theories are not so easy to discard because now we have tools and evidence to back the theory. The only way God is going to enter the picture is if he makes himself known and then confirm who's God he really is. He could be the God of Islam or any other past God or he might not be anyones God.

[/b]

So if life is miraculous, then why would the source of life not be miraculous? :o You contradict yourself again.

And this new information always replaces the old information which at one time was also new and of course, also what they thought was right.
So how many wrong theories will humanity have to endure before seeing that fallible minds cannot comprehend infallibility? :o Some people never learn and keep doing the same things that never worked in the past. It's called; playing God, which again, is a delusion that can only make people look foolish. :wink:

 

[living4onlyJC]

It takes alot of faith to believe in either God or the theory of evolution.
1) someone was always there... no one made God, but he was always there
2) Evolution... it just happened. No explanation. Something just went *poof* and it was there.

Evolution... the thing about evolution is... is there any recording of someone declaring that they evolved from something?

The Bible.... The Hittite nation. The Bible said that this nation was a nation. For yrs there was no proof that there ever was a Hittite nation. Well, they found it.

So how come one book that has been here since like forever have a recording about a nation, where there was no recording anywhere else. And still they think the Bible is wrong. Doesn't make sense to me.

I heard someone say once "If darwin's theory of evolution is correct, than cats would be able to use a can opener."

 

[Wertbag]

So if life is miraculous, then why would the source of life not be miraculous?

Its miraculous that the lightning bolt joined the right chemicals together, or that the volcanic vent created life. The jump in logic is miraculous = supernatural.

It takes alot of faith to believe in either God or the theory of evolution.
1) someone was always there... no one made God, but he was always there
2) Evolution... it just happened. No explanation. Something just went *poof* and it was there.

I'm guessing you are either refering to the big bang or abiogenesis, and in fact aren't talking about evolution at all? Evolution describes changes within an existing population, it does not discuss where or how life comes from or anything about he universe.
It takes logical thought to believe in evolution, compare the fossils, read the scientific data, read up on dating methods... basically examine the evidence at hand.
Whereas belief in an invisible super being who refuses to prove itself, based on an ancient book written by uneducated supersititious humans, really does take alot of faith.

is there any recording of someone declaring that they evolved from something?

All evolutionists declare they evolved from something, thats the basic idea. The idea is a slow, gradual change over long periods of time.

So how come one book that has been here since like forever have a recording about a nation, where there was no recording anywhere else. And still they think the Bible is wrong. Doesn't make sense to me.

No one is denying that the Bible is old, and that it is based on a real world setting. The problem is that there are many ancient books, all based on the real world and yet they are considered books of myths. Why is your book of myths to be believed over the others?

 

[Loren Michael]

So how come one book that has been here since like forever have a recording about a nation, where there was no recording anywhere else. And still they think the Bible is wrong. Doesn't make sense to me.

No one is denying that the Bible is old, and that it is based on a real world setting. The problem is that there are many ancient books, all based on the real world and yet they are considered books of myths. Why is your book of myths to be believed over the others?

exactly. consider: just because shakespeare writes a play that includes actual places and actual people doesn't necessarily mean that it's a true story.

embellishment:

5000 years from now, aliens unearth a set of DVDs from the ruins of what was once our great planet- Forrest Gump. i'm sure they could figure out many things about our planet by that one, simple movie. it contains actual people, actual events, and a compelling storyline about chance, fate, and a few things that might be considered slightly miraculous.

 

[Guest]

The Bible.... The Hittite nation. The Bible said that this nation was a nation. For yrs there was no proof that there ever was a Hittite nation. Well, they found it.

Not even the most anti-God atheist will claim that the Bible is completely devoid of fact. It often refers to real people, real places, real events. This is not up for debate. Most will even accept that there existed some guy named Jesus. None of this is contraversial, and none of it is particularly interesting.

What is debated is whether or not the miraculous, supernatural events in the Bible - the ones that defy everything that science, observation, and common sense has shown us - actually happened as portrayed. Finding evidence that there was a guy named Jesus is not the same as finding evidence that Jesus was a deity made flesh who snapped his fingers one day and made loaves and fishes appear in a puff of celestial magic. The fact that an ancient historical text like the Bible made reference to a city that we had yet to discover is not surprising, though it's pretty cool - but that still doesn't serve as evidence of the Bible being a divinely inspired work.

Consider the idea of the great flood. Many religions incorporate the idea of a flood into their histories. Does this mean that when we find evidence that there was some flooding a long time ago in the Middle East it serves as evidence to support Hinduism (note: I have no idea if Hinduism actually has a flood story, I'm just picking religions at random to make a point)? No, because the existence of a flood, in and of itself, means nothing. A flood is not special, it's not divine, it doesn't require magic to make it happen. We see floods all the time. So if we see evidence that there was a big flood a long time ago, this isn't enough to make us go, "A ha! Christianity is validated!" It shows that perhaps the Bible wasn't flat-out lying about the flood entirely, but it doesn't speak to the cause of the flood. I mean, do you at least see that, theoretically, someone could've remembered that big flood from way back when and just written it into the story of Christianity because it sounded good? I'm not asking you to admit this is the case, I'm asking if you concede that this could have happened in theory.

If so, you can perhaps see how skeptics aren't really wowed by the fact that the Bible correctly claimed that there was a Hittite nation.

So how come one book that has been here since like forever have a recording about a nation, where there was no recording anywhere else. And still they think the Bible is wrong. Doesn't make sense to me.

Also, I would wager that all manner of places are mentioned just once in one text that we've discovered. These are really old books. They tend to get destroyed easily. The Bible has the advantage of being oft-recorded, since it's kind of important to some people.

I heard someone say once "If darwin's theory of evolution is correct, than cats would be able to use a can opener."

I once heard someone say that you don't need safety goggles when you're in a machine shop. He was an idiot, too.

 

[Guest]

It takes alot of faith to believe in either God or the theory of evolution.
1) someone was always there... no one made God, but he was always there
2) Evolution... it just happened. No explanation. Something just went *poof* and it was there.

Wrong. There is a lot of explanation. Evolution is provably a very efficient method of creating "better" forms. It's entirely possible that it is the most efficient method without direct intervention. Since most things in nature tend towards the path of least resistance, it is completely reasonable that evolution is what occurs.

Evolution... the thing about evolution is... is there any recording of someone declaring that they evolved from something?

Yes. We've recorded many cases of microbial lifeforms evolving. We have a lot of evidence that some animals have evolved. Take a look at the many animals on the Galapagos Islands. Lots of proof.

The Bible.... The Hittite nation. The Bible said that this nation was a nation. For yrs there was no proof that there ever was a Hittite nation. Well, they found it.

So how come one book that has been here since like forever have a recording about a nation, where there was no recording anywhere else. And still they think the Bible is wrong. Doesn't make sense to me.

The Illiad said that there was a city called Troy and we had no proof that said city existed until very recently. So, by your extraordinary leap of logic, we should treat the Illiad as a holy book and proof that Zeus, Hera, Venus, and the entire pantheon of Greek gods exists.

I heard someone say once "If darwin's theory of evolution is correct, than cats would be able to use a can opener."

This someone is also a complete idiot. There is absolutely no logical connection between evolution and the inability of a cat to use a can opener.

 

[pasta911]

ID 'theory' makes NO testible statements. None at all. It can't tell us what the designer did. It can't tell us what mechanisms the designer used to do whatever it did. It can't tell us where we can see these mechanisms in action. And it can't tell us how to go about testing any of this. ID 'theory' consists simply and solely of various random arguments against evolution, coupled with the already-rejected-by-the-courts "two model theory". ID makes no effort at all to produce any positive arguments on its own that can be tested. Indeed, ID 'theory' can't (or won't) even make any testible predictions about how old the earth is, or whether humans evolved from apelike primates. The best ID can do is declare "evolution can't explain X, Y or Z, therefore we must be right". I.e., the same old "two models" that the courts have already rejected

I don't know if ID's conclusions are falsifiable, because they ( IDers) go to great lengths to avoid MAKING any conclusions that might be capable of being falsified. I suspect that is deliberate.
However, the core argument of ID 'theory', that God -- er, I mean "An Unknown Intelligent Designer" -- created life, is inherently unfalsifiable. After all, if we know nothing about the Designer, nothing about its nature, and nothing about what it can or can't do, then there is simply no way we can falsify any statement made about it. If I say that the designer does not have the physical or technical capability of manipulating biomolecules, how the heck could we know whether it really did? On the other hand, if I say that the designer HAS manipulated biochemicals, what sort of evidence could we point to which would indicate that it DIDN'T? The whole idea of ID is unfalsifiable. After all, the entire "argument" of ID boils down to "we think an unknown thing did an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods". How the heck can anyone falsify THAT? How the heck can anyone, in principle, demonstrate that an unknown thing did NOT do an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods?

So there you have it. ID does not meet ANY of the criteria listed by the federal court in determining what is or isn't "science". In every conceivable legal sense, ID simply is not science.

 

[reznwerks]

If evolutionists find it hard to believe that God created man out of the dust, then how did He create the earth and all living things? :o
For evolutionists God does not enter the equation. There is no evidence of his existance.


Nevertheless, we are here. And even if one believes in the "Big Bang", something still had to get everything in motion. Something still had to create the molecules, cells, atoms, quarks, etc. to implode or explode to begin with!
That "something" is still a mystery. Throwing your hands in the air and declaring God did it without any evidence is not the solution.

So you cannot get around that life is a miraculous creation.
No one ever said that life wasn't a miraculous creation.

And you cannot get around the fact that man has discarded theories century after century to try to explain the creation of the universe and still has not explained the first living thing.
Again man has discarded many theories of the past in regards to the creation of the universe. These were discarded primarily because of new knowledge. In the past the answers lie in superstition and fear and now the theories are not so easy to discard because now we have tools and evidence to back the theory. The only way God is going to enter the picture is if he makes himself known and then confirm who's God he really is. He could be the God of Islam or any other past God or he might not be anyones God.

[/b]

So if life is miraculous, then why would the source of life not be miraculous? :o You contradict yourself again.
We don't know what that source is so there is no contradiction.

And this new information always replaces the old information which at one time was also new and of course, also what they thought was right.

As I explained the old information or beliefs were conjured up by imagination. The imagination has been replaced in large part by actual observation and new ways of testing. That is why religion and its beliefs are playing second fiddle more and more to science. Religion had a captive audience at one time and no longer does.
So how many wrong theories will humanity have to endure before seeing that fallible minds cannot comprehend infallibility?
They will endure as many wrong theories as necessary to get to the truth. Einstein failed 50000 times before he got the light bulb right.

:o Some people never learn and keep doing the same things that never worked in the past. It's called; playing God, which again, is a delusion that can only make people look foolish. :wink:
I don't know to many people like that. Would you care to give some examples of people playing God which make people look foolish?

 

[bibleberean]

Atheists are fools...

God is self evident but Atheists are to foolish to admit it.

According to these fools everything is here by chance.

Order, laws, and the complexities of life happened by chance.

Isn't that asinine?

Psalms 53:1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

There is no such thing as a true atheist just fools who have said in their heart there is no God.

Talk about foolish! :roll:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

No doubt about that. Look at these people who think they are wise...

 

[Solo]

ID 'theory' makes NO testible statements. None at all. It can't tell us what the designer did. It can't tell us what mechanisms the designer used to do whatever it did. It can't tell us where we can see these mechanisms in action. And it can't tell us how to go about testing any of this. ID 'theory' consists simply and solely of various random arguments against evolution, coupled with the already-rejected-by-the-courts "two model theory". ID makes no effort at all to produce any positive arguments on its own that can be tested. Indeed, ID 'theory' can't (or won't) even make any testible predictions about how old the earth is, or whether humans evolved from apelike primates. The best ID can do is declare "evolution can't explain X, Y or Z, therefore we must be right". I.e., the same old "two models" that the courts have already rejected

I don't know if ID's conclusions are falsifiable, because they ( IDers) go to great lengths to avoid MAKING any conclusions that might be capable of being falsified. I suspect that is deliberate.
However, the core argument of ID 'theory', that God -- er, I mean "An Unknown Intelligent Designer" -- created life, is inherently unfalsifiable. After all, if we know nothing about the Designer, nothing about its nature, and nothing about what it can or can't do, then there is simply no way we can falsify any statement made about it. If I say that the designer does not have the physical or technical capability of manipulating biomolecules, how the heck could we know whether it really did? On the other hand, if I say that the designer HAS manipulated biochemicals, what sort of evidence could we point to which would indicate that it DIDN'T? The whole idea of ID is unfalsifiable. After all, the entire "argument" of ID boils down to "we think an unknown thing did an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods". How the heck can anyone falsify THAT? How the heck can anyone, in principle, demonstrate that an unknown thing did NOT do an unknown thing at an unknown time using unknown methods?

So there you have it. ID does not meet ANY of the criteria listed by the federal court in determining what is or isn't "science". In every conceivable legal sense, ID simply is not science.

ID does not meet any of the criteria listed by man's federal court in determining what is or isn't "science", and Unbelievers' opinions do not meet ANY of the criteria recorded in God's Word at the judgment to allow one into the kingdom of God.

Which one is more important to believe in, man's evolution theory or God's creation truth.

 

[reznwerks]

evident

Atheists are fools...
Jesus said anyone who calls another a fool is ...

God is self evident but Atheists are to foolish to admit it.
If God is self evident there would be no disagreement.

According to these fools everything is here by chance.
So far that is all we have. We know we are here, we can observe the stars, planets, study the plants and animals etc but we have no evidence that anything other than chance is responsible for us being here at the present time.

Order, laws, and the complexities of life happened by chance.

Isn't that asinine?
Isn't believing that a being who "always existed" just as asinine. Just "accepting" this premise is asinine as there always has to be a beginning to everthing. How can a perfect God create himself. That is a concept that is impossible to accept as well . It always takes something greater to create something. So who created God? It is impossible to just rationalize how a God would come into being yet alone that he is responsible for the universe. Then you have to rationalize that a being exists and then you have to have the ego that all other religions and their Gods are incorrect and only yours is the real God even though many other religions predating Christianity have the same stories with different names. Then you have to accept the idea that the bible is written correctly and without error even though the bible as written has admitted in its pages that this is not the case.Then after all that you have to believe that you know what God thinks and what his intentions were even though no one has seen God or spoken to him and to this day his evidence cannot be found.

Psalms 53:1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

What is considered good?

There is no such thing as a true atheist just fools who have said in their heart there is no God.
Atheists are no longer saying it in their heart , they are shouting it to the world.

Talk about foolish! :roll:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

No doubt about that. Look at these people who think they are wise...
Using passages from the bible to ridicule those who don't accept it really doesn't help your arguement. It's like trying to convince people that the Army football program is the best in the world using only Army propaganda. What else would you expect to find in its pages?

 

[Heidi]

We watched a skit in church last Sunday about a man holding a pitcher of water standing in the desert. A couple came up to him and the wife reached out for the water but the husband stopped her because he said it was a mirage. So they went away and died. Then another man came who was eating sand. The man with the water asked him why he was eating sand when he could have had water. The man replied to him; "I like sand. I just wish there weren't so many judgmental people like you around who keep telling others what they should like." And he went away and died.

That's what people who refuse to reach out and ask God how to have eternal life do. They're already headed for death. Some people refuse to ask God because they think He's a figment of their imagination, and others prefer death. So why do you think those who have eternal life should stop trying to help others find life? :o There would be only 2 reasons why we should; 1) Either we don't have enough faith in God to believe He will give us life, or 2) we don't care enough about the souls of others to show them the way. Otherwise, it would be like a doctor who swears an oath to help save people's lives but doesn't do it. No true Christian would choose the latter. That's how sure we are that Jesus saves because we've experienced the cure. :wink:

 

[bibleberean]

Good post Heidi. :D

 

[Heidi]

Thanks, Biblerean. I also love your posts.