Refuting the claims of atheists.

[GraceBwithU]

Vault,
I can’t believe you are still here trying to sell your science fiction story. Even a lot of evolutionists have given up on the theory because of the lack of scientific fact to support it. The only people left that support it are atheist and die hard delusional believers that think that being able to quote some unscientific mumbo-gumbo makes them sound intelligent. It doesn’t. There is nothing wrong with science but evolution, (on species to another) is not science. It is an obsession that exists only in the minds of the people that believe in it. They all as the saying goes…â€Âmake a mountain out of a mole hillâ€Â. When they discover some virus or other lower life form that mutates for some reason, they wet their pants with excitement and expand that into something that is totally unrelated.

I can understand the atheist, but a person that claims to believe in God and creation also, why? Why would a person that claims to believe in the bible even care if evolution was real. You either believe in creation or not…no lukewarm, middle of the road baloney.

Evolutionary science as in man coming from apes is an obsession, not science. You should spend more time in the scripture and less time in your evolutionary journals.

[He didn't tell them that the universe and earth are billions of years old, yet we find the evidence for that to be pretty indisputable .

Here again…you should spend more time in scripture. Genesis did not go into detail but why should it. But it did leave a clue. And so did Revelations. But only in case the subject came up because it is really not important in God’s plan for the ages of mankind.

Gen 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
KJV

Gen 1:7-8
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
KJV

Verse one talks about the beginning, the original earth. Verse two talks about the condition of the earth before he began his creation of the earth as we know it today. The second day he creates the same thing again that is mention creating in verse one.

The dinosaurs went extinct from an act of God not a meteor, (unless that is what God used). It happened fast. And God has promised that he is going to start over at least one more time.

Now, what was God’s motive, (as if He needed one).

Satan thought he was as great as God. God says, OK I’ll destroy what is there now and create a living being with a soul that you can tempt. They dinosaurs will come in handy one day when man starts using oil. Now Satan…give it your best shot.

Rev 21:1
21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
KJV

The old earth was “without form, and void†it had passed away.

[Doesn't seem like common sense is too trustworthy.

All your attacks on common sense were ridiculous. These things are real science and common sense did have a lot to do with the discoveries. To compare evolutionary science fiction to these things is a desperation attempt to distract from the subject.

I have never had one lesson in woodworking, building, or gardening. But every piece of furniture I have in my home, I made. I have even furnished other homes. I have built many things. I have won awards on my gardening, all through “common senseâ€Â.

No knowledge a person obtains is worth very much without the common sense to apply it and judge what is baloney and what is not. You should stop making you a sandwich everytime some one throws baloney your way.

I have no problem with real science, but nothing you or anyone else has every stated about evolution is real science. It’s a hobby.

By the way…you never answered my question. You said you would but all I ever got from you was…dunno, no one does. We never even got off first base with the questions. You avoided me completely.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Vault,
I can’t believe you are still here trying to sell your science fiction story. Even a lot of evolutionists have given up on the theory because of the lack of scientific fact to support it. The only people left that support it are atheist and die hard delusional believers that think that being able to quote some unscientific mumbo-gumbo makes them sound intelligent. It doesn’t. There is nothing wrong with science but evolution, (on species to another) is not science. It is an obsession that exists only in the minds of the people that believe in it. They all as the saying goes…â€Âmake a mountain out of a mole hillâ€Â. When they discover some virus or other lower life form that mutates for some reason, they wet their pants with excitement and expand that into something that is totally unrelated.

.....you are referring to the 500 list of scientist right?

Yeah, makes sense that 500 scientists, a majority of it including plastic surgeons, GP doctors, asthesiologists..etc. etc., are considered to be evidence of some kind of break down in evolutionary beliefs among mainstream science.

Have you even read the declaration? Its being sold as them stating evolution = false, when it is way more generic than that. It has statements like "the theory of evolution is not completely accurate" or some variation. It does not give an equivical Evolution = false

Talk about science fiction....

When you get a list that includes more of the millions of scientist actually involved with research relating to the field in question, you might have a point.

I mean, my father would have signed that list probably. He is a Phd scientist in environmental chemistry. And again, someone would have taken him as giving weight to the conspiracy theory.

But, guess what? He knows less about evolutionary theory than even I do, and I am just a very novice reader of the theory with a stupid business degree. But, he would have still met the criteria to be on that list. Sounds a bit like an underhanded dishonest tactic doesn't it......

Gen 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
KJV

Gen 1:7-8
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
KJV

Verse one talks about the beginning, the original earth. Verse two talks about the condition of the earth before he began his creation of the earth as we know it today. The second day he creates the same thing again that is mention creating in verse one.

The dinosaurs went extinct from an act of God not a meteor, (unless that is what God used). It happened fast. And God has promised that he is going to start over at least one more time.

Now, what was God’s motive, (as if He needed one).

Are you saying that millions of years ago, dinos ruled the earth, and then God destroyed them all to create man?

You get that from the scripture? Sounds a bit of interpretation to me.....

So let me get this straight, you extrapolate that much from Genesis to make it match science, yet when another Christian does the very same thing because they know the evidence for evolution is very very strong, you call them weak christians.

Wow. Thats all I can say. Seems that you think a Christian who is not like you is weak. Very serious charge indeed.......

I have never had one lesson in woodworking, building, or gardening. But every piece of furniture I have in my home, I made. I have even furnished other homes. I have built many things. I have won awards on my gardening, all through “common senseâ€Â.

No knowledge a person obtains is worth very much without the common sense to apply it and judge what is baloney and what is not. You should stop making you a sandwich everytime some one throws baloney your way.

I have no problem with real science, but nothing you or anyone else has every stated about evolution is real science. It’s a hobby.

Not really. It is the same thing. One needs to look out his window to think how easy it would be for common sense to make him think the earth was flat. Its not until he looks at the shadow of the earth on the moon, or sail the seas and watch how a ship approaching from a distance seems to raise out of the sea does he start getting the idea that the earth is round.

Here common sense at work 2,000 years ago.

"The earth is round? Bah! Use your common sense! Here, watch what happens as I walk over the edge of this round rock. (the man walk around it and eventually fall down) See! The earth cannot be round! Your theory is hogwash, and you are feeding on a blogna sandwhich!"

But, you know now that "common sense" will fool you if you do not have all of the pertanent information, such as gravity

I have no problem with real science, but nothing you or anyone else has every stated about evolution is real science. It’s a hobby.

All I see from you is adhom attacks against evolution. You call it bologna and a hobby. Your debunking skills leave much want.

By the way…you never answered my question. You said you would but all I ever got from you was…dunno, no one does. We never even got off first base with the questions. You avoided me completely.

LoL.

I never avoided your question. Did you think that maybe when I have 4 people threading with me, I may miss a few?

Repeat the question for my convenience please.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Vault,
You are not talking to an idiot. I hold 2 degrees. I have been a Christian for around 45 years. Regardless of what you believe about common sense, it is real. You can’t understand that because of you lack of common sense.

If you spent half as much time reading the scripture as you do your scientific journals you would have understood what I said.

The Bible tells us everything we need to know about the creation and origin of man.

10,000 scientist do not come even close to matching the sovereignty of God

Grow UP!

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Vault,
You are not talking to an idiot. I hold 2 degrees. I have been a Christian for around 45 years. Regardless of what you believe about common sense, it is real. You can’t understand that because of you lack of common sense.

I think we have gotten our wires crossed. I did not insinuate that you are an idiot, nor do I feel that way. In fact, if you would read my previous post closely, you will see where I mention that my dad is not a supporter of evo, yet he is an established expert in his field of chemistry with a doctorates.

In fact he was a professor of chemistry at the college (clemson) I graduated from for 3 years. It is a state ran secular school. He fails to remember any conspiracy or bullying behind the scenes in regards to pushing evolution. It really never came up.

If you spent half as much time reading the scripture as you do your scientific journals you would have understood what I said.

Have you actually timed how much I read scripture versus how much I read regarding science? Are you making that value judgement and adhom attack merely based upon how our views line up? You certainly do not know me, nor how much time I spend on what, so I have to assume you make that judgement based on a comparison of my belief to your own. You assume that because I do not line up with you, I obviously read the bible less than you do. Therefore you are setting yourself as the judge of how much I read the bible.

Is that appropriate?

I really do not understand your adhom attacks against me personally. I find it very unfair that you can keep telling me I lack common sense. That is a personal attack.

I never said that common sense was not real. I just stated that common sense can mislead you if you do not have all the necessary information to apply it.

That is what that example was about (the man falling off the rock). It would be logical for him to assume that the earth was flat, because what he witnesses in everyday situations. Things fall down.

He did not have the information on the theory of gravity. His common sense just pulled together what he understood to be true in his everyday experience, and extrapolated that to the whole.

It is much the same with evolution. Our life's experience really takes place in a minuscule part of the 4th dimension. We live on average for 70 years. The earth has been here for over 4 billion. that is 1/54,000,000 of the time.

On the scale of things, your life is like traveling 1 mile, while the age of the earth would be going to the moon, and back. Or, your 1 mile compared to circling the earth, 22,000 times. Think about your size compared to a microbe. The ratio of your life to the earths age would be 54 times greater than that. If you removed a grain of sand a second from a beach, in that time frame, you could remove all the sand, from all the beaches in the world. Every single shoreline up the east cost of the US, the west coast of the US, Russia, China, UK, Australia, and all of the other countries.

Can we really trust our "common sense" based on everyday observations when we think about things that happen over that long of a time frame?

No we can't. Just like the man in my example would be mislead on his assumption, unless he learned more regarding gravity.

The whole point to that rant is to look at the assumption that evolution goes against common sense. Common sense is a good thing, but with out all of the needed information, it can lead us to wrong conclusions.

You have posted 3 objections to evolution:

1. It goes against common sense
2. You do not think it is supported by evidence
3. It is not biblical.

I think the above example shows why one shouldn't assume it goes against common sense. We do not have a good reference in which to judge such lengths of time. Common everyday experience, is really too small of a reference point, and common sense has lead people to wrong conclusions before (another example - heavier objects accelerate faster than lighter ones. Seems logical to common sense, but it is dead wrong.)

For number 2, I really do not have any more energy for that. Nor am I strong enough in knowledge to lay it all out.

Citing number 3 I feel is dangerous, because one steps on the line of speaking for God. But that is my opinion. Genesis certainly does not have a verse that says "Evolution is wrong." Any evidence you bring forth from it is based on interpretation of how the authors wrote it. You certainly can not claim that God would lay out the theory of evolution in Genesis because it would be nonsensical for the last 4,000 years to the author and any reader. He didn't lay out the theory of gravity in it, yet I do not see any objections to it. He didn't lay out the law of thermodynamics or that he created more than 1 planet. But I do not see any objection to that (but we do in history).

He never mentioned that the Sun was one of many billions upon billions of stars. No objection to astronomy right? He didn't lay out any description about water being any where else but earth, yet we find very good evidence for frozen water on comets http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/e ... cfm?id=841 . Any objections to that?

Was the church right in claiming Galileo a heretic for supporting heliocentrism because they felt it contrary to scriptures? Certainly not.

Believing in or against evolution would not affect your life likely. But calling another Christian weak because they believe in it will affect them. In fact, it is not impossible for such a controversy to turn people away from the faith. The church certainly had mud on its face eventually from the Galileo and heliocentrism controversy. It certainly did not strengthen the faith.

Would it not be better to be more cautious about making such a claim?

 

[GraceBwithU]

vault,
True science is the study and understanding of what recourses God has given man to better himself. Evolution...even if proven...would not benefit mankind in anyway. It is only a hobby. Any time you spend on this is time that could better serve our Lord by bible study.

You don’t understand only because you are a young Christian. Let go of the world and rejoice in the word of God. There you can spend a life time in discovery and wonders far beyond anything your science journals can offer.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

vault,
True science is the study and understanding of what recourses God has given man to better himself. Evolution...even if proven...would not benefit mankind in anyway. It is only a hobby. Any time you spend on this is time that could better serve our Lord by bible study.

You don’t understand only because you are a young Christian. Let go of the world and rejoice in the word of God. There you can spend a life time in discovery and wonders far beyond anything your science journals can offer.

Nice dodge

And again, it is not a hobby. No matter how many times you claim it, but view it as you wish.

And if you feel it would not benefit mankind in anyway, I suggest you look into the current research on HIV and CF. Just to name a couple of benefits in understanding the evolutionary process.

But hey, maybe you also think curing disease is just a hobby and a waste of time

 

[GraceBwithU]

vault,
True science is the study and understanding of what recourses God has given man to better himself. Evolution...even if proven...would not benefit mankind in anyway. It is only a hobby. Any time you spend on this is time that could better serve our Lord by bible study.

You don’t understand only because you are a young Christian. Let go of the world and rejoice in the word of God. There you can spend a life time in discovery and wonders far beyond anything your science journals can offer.

Nice dodge

And again, it is not a hobby. No matter how many times you claim it, but view it as you wish.

And if you feel it would not benefit mankind in anyway, I suggest you look into the current research on HIV and CF. Just to name a couple of benefits in understanding the evolutionary process.

But hey, maybe you also think curing disease is just a hobby and a waste of time

You call advice to study Gods word a dodge...shame on you!

You are dodging everything. You keep stating things about science that has nothing to do with man coming from apes. Stay on the subject show me the proof that man came from apes.

You claim to know so much...explain the process of evolution to us. Tell us were life started to evolve. And how it changed into the next stage and why. Tell us just one fact that shows man coming from apes.

What makes you think that proving man came from apes would cure a disease? : :smt043 :smt078

 

[MarkT]

Nope. God made them by his word, according to their kind, and he made man in his image. The Lord God did it. There's no way to read common descent into Genesis. In fact, you can't read it into any part of the Bible. God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.' 'And it was so.' Then the LORD said to Moses and Aron, 'Say to the people of Israel, These are the living things among all the beasts that are on the earth' and then he goes on, 'These you may eat of all that are in the waters'. So there's a direct reference to the various kinds of creatures that were created. The understanding that man is a distinct kind is shown in James' letter; 'For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind' James 3:7

None of which really contradicts evolution. Again, telling someone of that time period that God made them by his word makes a lot more sense than talking about mutations, speciation, etc.

That would not make sense to them.

I don't think so. In that case, common descent would make sense. But it doesn't. Your argument is that ancient man would be too ignorant to understand God did not create him separately from the other creatures, so God told man he did create him separately from the other creatures. That doesn't make sense.

For some reason, God has given us this understanding.

He didn't tell them that the universe and earth are billions of years old, yet we find the evidence for that to be pretty indisputable .

I think it can be disputed based on the unreliable evidence. The problem is, we can't go back in time to prove it. Some science, common descent, for example, can only be proven by going back in time. In fact, common descent has not be proven, at least not in a scientific way. Most theories predict what should happen, so experiments can be designed to test the theory. The idea is that something that has not happened, will happen, if my theory is true. So far I haven't seen any experiment which proves common descent. Other theories predict how something should behave, but here we don't have something or any thing, like light, for example, to look at, and Evolution, being by chance and random, can not predict how anything, or one thing, or something will behave. I would hesitate to call Evolution science.

It used to be people would use common sense. Now the science behind the study makes people think they are justified in producing crap. Sure it impacts me. It impacts everyone.

Yeah, good old common sense. People would let blood if you had a fever, and actually kill you.

Common sense told people the sun revolved around the earth. Common sense told people that the sun dove into the ocean at sunset.

Common sense told people that if you cant see anything, it isn't there, ie bacteria.

Doesn't seem like common sense is too trustworthy.

I think you're talking about common knowledge. Actually blood letting was the science of the day. I don't know if the sun going around the earth was common knowledge. A knowledge of going around the earth implies knowledge that the earth is round in the first place. But our common knowledge says that they thought the earth was flat. Actually common descent is the common knowledge of our time.

Common sense, however, is something different. Common sense is simple logic based on experience. It's like putting on a coat when it's cold outside. It's not something that is necessarily taught, whereas common knowledge would be something that is widely taught and accepted. You could argue that parents teach their children to put on a coat, but that assumes the children know what cold is in the first place and that isn't something that you can teach. You have to experience it.

Certain drugs like aspirin and penicilin have a proven history but it doesn't follow that every drug that is advertised on TV is a miracle drug or that they do not have harmful side affects. Still people take the drugs because they think they are proven. The point is, the effect of the study is proven to work if it gets people to buy the drug.

I would say that this is true for a majority of the herbal medicines that are know allowed to imply claims, but Rx drugs really do go under clinical trials.

They are put under stringent duble blind studies, and do have to show efficacy before allowed to be put on the market.

Now, I admit that alot of side affects are missed which causes some harm, and some of the known side effects may be a bit worse than the treated problem.

Also, doctors prescribe things like tic tacs, and over prescribe.

We tend to trust that doctors really know what they are doing. Well, that is usually true with specialists, but GPs have some deficiencies sometimes and just play a guessing game with meds to see what works. I worked with DR offices, I saw it first hand.

We expect a person to be a general expert on all our ailments. That just isnt possible. As the adage goes, you can be an expert at one thing, or mediocre at a lot of things.

My best advice would be : Don't fool around with mother nature. If something has a negative side effect, then don't take it.

I'm saying that your suggestion that people are ignorant because they are somehow reading the Bible the wrong way is false. I believe you are suggesting that the Bible is literature and that it should not be taken literally. Am I right? I say this because you keep referring to literary devices whenever you can't understand something scientifically

Hmm. I do not every remember calling anyone ignorant. Not sure where you got that from. In fact, I just had about 4 pages with Francisdale where we obviously disagree on things, yet I think I displayed respect for her, and vice versa. I do not consider a literalist ignorant. Serious charge indeed.

You said being against evolution was certainly correlated to education. I don't know what you mean by that. 'They are certainly correlated, as well as education.'

I am just saying that the sample showed a correlation. I stated I had an opinion, but the study can't really tell the cause/effect relationship. That is out side the bounds of stat sampling.

My personal feeling is that a person my skew their belief because of wanting to view every part of the bible as literal, when it wouldn't even make sense to the time period to have everything literal.

Your opinion comes from the study. That's not surprising because that's what they are trying to show. Ask yourself these questions. What is the purpose of the study? What are they trying to show? What is the stated goal of the study? Who is asking the questions? What is being implied by the questions being asked?

Let's turn it around. Does a literal belief in Evolution cause ignorance? Is there a correlation between the belief in Evolution and drug use? Ask yourself who wants to know? What? And Why?

It might be true. 2-8% of the human genome is supposed to be ERVs. The accepted explanation is that humans acquired all of them, but that might not be entirely true. Maybe some of them are acquired and some of them belong to us. What if some of the ones that belong to us and some of the ones that belong to chimps are located in the same location on the same chromosome? It doesn't mean we're related. One might be a simian version of the other.

Any evidence supporting this? Or is it a bare assertion?

[quote:a0b41] Check out the origins of viruses.

last i checked no one was entirely sure of the origins.

There are negative factors and cellular inhibitors that might inhibit an infectious release until the inhibitor stops working; like when a creature dies. Then the virus is released - most likely in the blood of the creature. I'm not saying retroviruses can not be acquired. I think that has been proven. But perhaps some viruses belong to us. Why should we not release viruses same as any other creature?

Would not explain Endogenous Retrovirus. Nor the pattern in which they appear.[/quote:a0b41][/quote]

I think it explains where viruses come from, whether you want to call them viral elements, ERVs, retroviruses, they are expressed by the genome, and since the physical appearance of a creature is expessed by the genome, we should not be surprised to find simian versions of the viruses we carry in the same location, because location is important to expression.

It's the Mark T theory of the origin of viruses. Now to get my self published. 8-)

 

[GraceBwithU]

Markt,
Good post.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Vault,
I have looked over threads and I want to be certain about what you are trying to state. Let's not go into what has BEEN said. I just have two questions for you.

Do you believe that man evolved from apes?

If you do, why do you believe this? :wink:

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I think you're talking about common knowledge. Actually blood letting was the science of the day. I don't know if the sun going around the earth was common knowledge. A knowledge of going around the earth implies knowledge that the earth is round in the first place. But our common knowledge says that they thought the earth was flat. Actually common descent is the common knowledge of our time.

Common sense, however, is something different. Common sense is simple logic based on experience. It's like putting on a coat when it's cold outside. It's not something that is necessarily taught, whereas common knowledge would be something that is widely taught and accepted. You could argue that parents teach their children to put on a coat, but that assumes the children know what cold is in the first place and that isn't something that you can teach. You have to experience it.

Someone once told me that when an argument starts dwindling down to a semantics debate, it is time to close it.

Common sense is based on common knowledge. Apparently, no one in that day and age was magically born with a suggestion to let blood. Therefore, someone used their common sense to think up the theory.

Same for my falling off a rock example. If you commonly experience things falling down, and do not witness anything walking upside down, your common sense will tell you the earth is flat. You need more knowledge to understand that it is round. Gravity.

Another example. Common sense tells us things are deterministic. Yet, QM tells us otherwise. Common sense even pitted the great Einstein against the uncertainty implied by QM.

You said being against evolution was certainly correlated to education. I don't know what you mean by that. 'They are certainly correlated, as well as education.'

Again you imply things that aren’t true. I said studies showed a correlation. And in the very same breath I said that stat samples can not show cause and effect. Correlation does not mean cause and effect.

Your opinion comes from the study. That's not surprising because that's what they are trying to show. Ask yourself these questions. What is the purpose of the study? What are they trying to show? What is the stated goal of the study? Who is asking the questions? What is being implied by the questions being asked?

Let's turn it around. Does a literal belief in Evolution cause ignorance? Is there a correlation between the belief in Evolution and drug use? Ask yourself who wants to know? What? And Why?

Not true and nonsensical.

I think it explains where viruses come from, whether you want to call them viral elements, ERVs, retroviruses, they are expressed by the genome, and since the physical appearance of a creature is expessed by the genome, we should not be surprised to find simian versions of the viruses we carry in the same location, because location is important to expression.

It's the Mark T theory of the origin of viruses. Now to get my self published.

Yes, you get that peer reviewed published, and then I will pay closer attention to it.

O wait, you suspect anything peer reviewed. Science is one big conspiracy to destroy faith ;)

A virus is a bit different than a RV. A RV is a bit different than a ERV. They aren’t terms that are haphazardly applied.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

vault,
True science is the study and understanding of what recourses God has given man to better himself. Evolution...even if proven...would not benefit mankind in anyway. It is only a hobby. Any time you spend on this is time that could better serve our Lord by bible study.

You don’t understand only because you are a young Christian. Let go of the world and rejoice in the word of God. There you can spend a life time in discovery and wonders far beyond anything your science journals can offer.

Nice dodge

And again, it is not a hobby. No matter how many times you claim it, but view it as you wish.

And if you feel it would not benefit mankind in anyway, I suggest you look into the current research on HIV and CF. Just to name a couple of benefits in understanding the evolutionary process.

But hey, maybe you also think curing disease is just a hobby and a waste of time

You call advice to study Gods word a dodge...shame on you!

You are dodging everything. You keep stating things about science that has nothing to do with man coming from apes. Stay on the subject show me the proof that man came from apes.

You claim to know so much...explain the process of evolution to us. Tell us were life started to evolve. And how it changed into the next stage and why. Tell us just one fact that shows man coming from apes.

What makes you think that proving man came from apes would cure a disease? : :smt043 :smt078

The majority of my posts with you is to show you the flawed logic in assuming that evolution is wrong based on the Bible. Next, it was to show you that it is wrong to base a persons faith on if they believe in evolution or not.

You show no interest in actually learning about evolution, nor any open mind towards it.

Why would I want to walk through the theory with you? You claim to already be an expert on it. I do not.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

You call advice to study Gods word a dodge...shame on you!

You are dodging everything. You keep stating things about science that has nothing to do with man coming from apes. Stay on the subject show me the proof that man came from apes.

Hmm. I said you dodged my charge that you were fallaciously charging other Christians of being weak when they do not match you standards. That is unbiblical.

Again you either misunderstand, or intentionally misrepresent.

I said evolution does not mean man came from apes. Common decent for man and current apes, is a theory within evolution.

What makes you think that proving man came from apes would cure a disease?

TOE guides most work in genetics. Genetics is becoming the leading science in disease understanding and therapy.

Do you believe that man evolved from apes?

If you do, why do you believe this?

I suspect that most work in the common decent of homo sapiens within the lineage of primates is well backed by fossil evidence and genetic studies.

Here is a non-authoritative summary for you to read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Again, it is fruitless to debate any evidence on the common decent of man with you, because you clearly demonstrate that whatever you read that does not coincide with your own preset views on interpretation of the scriptures, will be followed by your exclamation “Lies! All Lies!â€Â

Why would I want to bother? I just wanted you to take a look within and make a determination if your view on Christians being weaker spiritually than you if they give credence to TOE was biblically wrong, and spiritually flawed.

You cannot biblically support your rejection of the TOE unequivocally, yet I can cite verses against you judgements on fellow Christians.

Matthew 7:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

James 4:8,11-12 (Phi) ...You are sinners: get your hands clean again. Your loyalty is divided: get your hearts made true once more... Never pull each other to pieces, my brothers. If you criticize your brother and judge your brother you have become a critic and judge of the Law. Yet if you start to criticize the Law instead of obeying it you are setting yourself up as a judge. There is only one Judge, the One who gave the Law, to whom belongs absolute power of life and death. How can you then be your neighbor's judge?

Rom 2:1-3 (Phi) Now if you feel inclined to set yourself up as a judge of those who sin, let me assure you, whoever you are, that you are in no position to do so. For at whatever point you condemn others you automatically condemn yourself, since you, the judge, commit the same sins. God's judgment, we know, is utterly impartial in its action against such evil-doers. What makes you think that you, who so readily judge the sins of others, can consider yourselves beyond the judgment of God?

1 Cor 4:5 (Jer) There must be no passing of premature judgment. Leave that until the Lord comes: He will light up everything that is hidden in the dark and reveal the secret intentions of men's hearts...
1 Cor 4:6 (NIV) ..."Do not go beyond what is written."...

Shall I keep going?

 

[Vic C.]

It amazes me how nonbelievers try to use scripture out of context in some uninspired accusation of hypocrisy on our part.

I'm not sure you understand the context or who the target audience was during the Sermon on the Mount.

He's speaking to a Jewish audience and the "dogs" in the passage are "us", Gentiles.

Romans2 is referring to, again, a disobedient and rebellious Jewish group.

James... writing to his Jewish believing brethren.

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Paul did have a problem in the church at Corinth, hence the reason for his letter.

But here's the rub for us, you can't claim we are not to judge our brethren and at the same time, post so judgmental like you did.

So, if you despise us for being hypocritical, fine, that's just one less hypocrite in the church. 8-)

 

[VaultZero4Me]

It amazes me how some people on this thread have emoted a feeling on me that I did not portray. Adhoms.

Can't attack the idea, attack the character.

I never said I despised anyone. Either you should back up that claim or retract it.

It also amazes me how you can take the context of a scripture and wrap it around how you want it portrayed.

Lets see, Gen is spoken in the context of telling a man existing about 4,000 or more years ago about how God created the earth. But, you say that context does not matter. The words should be taken at face value. That is literally how he did it. We should not consider the fact that the people who wrote those verses down, and the people who would read them would have no way to understand TOE and genetics.

Yet, I can bring evidence to say there are alot of things left out in Gen. Including the shape of the earth, the fact the sun is a start, the earth is not the only planet (indeed, nor is Sol the only solar system), water exists outside of the earth likely, anti-matter, atoms, gluons, black holes, galaxies, gravity, quarks, time dilation, energy=matter, electrical theory, creatures that are effectively immortal, uncertainty principle, etc. etc. etc.

I can go all day if you want more examples.

That establishes precedent. That precedent certainly brings evidence that the theory of TOE is not unbiblical just because it is not mentioned, nor seems to fit your interpretation.

I also established precedent in history in which certain theories in science were viewed as heresy because they did not align with some believers predisposed view of scripture (heliocentrism is at first glance contrary to some scriptures).

Yet, you accept those very theories now, and have no problem reconciling them.

Yet, when I quote scripture that indicates a believer should not condemn another believer, all of a sudden you cite a context which means it does not apply in this situation. It is not transcendent to include this situation. You cite that it was only relevant to that situation, so it need not apply. You can ignore it in this context.

.......?

Also, I did not call anyone a hypocrite. I can not determine how you view what I post. But I do know what my intent was. My intent was to show that maybe it would be best to think about what one does in contrast with scripture. Sometimes one can have such a strong feeling about something, it causes them to act in a manner that they do not intend.

I never used the word hypocrite. Why must you put that into my mouth?

 

[MarkT]

Lets see, Gen is spoken in the context of telling a man existing about 4,000 or more years ago about how God created the earth. But, you say that context does not matter. The words should be taken at face value. That is literally how he did it. We should not consider the fact that the people who wrote those verses down, and the people who would read them would have no way to understand TOE and genetics.

Why would this need to be considered if the TOE is false? Is the light of the TOE, anywhere, said to enlighten? No. Jesus said, "but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! Mt 6:23 and, "Therefore be careful lest the light in you be darkness." Lu 11:35 Does the TOE set us free? No. We are supposed to read the Scriptures in the light of Christ. But you're reading Genesis in the light of the TOE. The TOE is about as separate from the Scriptures as you can get. As a matter of fact, you can compare it to a virus that is trying to insert itself into the Scriptures to darken the light. Yeah. You can compare the TOE to an ERV; a viral infection that can destroy the body.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Lets see, Gen is spoken in the context of telling a man existing about 4,000 or more years ago about how God created the earth. But, you say that context does not matter. The words should be taken at face value. That is literally how he did it. We should not consider the fact that the people who wrote those verses down, and the people who would read them would have no way to understand TOE and genetics.

Why would this need to be considered if the TOE is false? Is the light of the TOE, anywhere, said to enlighten? No. Jesus said, "but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! Mt 6:23 and, "Therefore be careful lest the light in you be darkness." Lu 11:35 Does the TOE set us free? No. We are supposed to read the Scriptures in the light of Christ. But you're reading Genesis in the light of the TOE. The TOE is about as separate from the Scriptures as you can get. As a matter of fact, you can compare it to a virus that is trying to insert itself into the Scriptures to darken the light. Yeah. You can compare the TOE to an ERV; a viral infection that can destroy the body.

Some people find it to glorify God to understand how the universe works, and its mysteries. Such as TOE and the things I listed above.

Some people are afraid of science and feel like it is the work of the devil to learn. Thus was the view of the church for many a year.

I never understood the rationale to run away from science. It certainly is not scripture.

I think some people may stand on a shaky faith, and are scared that science will drive people away from God. I have not seen that to be the case. I know many Christians who love science as well.

My opinion it is more pernicious to create a wedge between God and science.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Are you saying that millions of years ago, dinos ruled the earth, and then God destroyed them all to create man?

You get that from the scripture? Sounds a bit of interpretation to me.....

So let me get this straight, you extrapolate that much from Genesis to make it match science, yet when another Christian does the very same thing because they know the evidence for evolution is very very strong, you call them weak Christians.

Wow. Thats all I can say. Seems that you think a Christian who is not like you is weak. Very serious charge indeed.......

Not a charge at all. Why would you say that? I was responding to your statement below.

He didn't tell them that the universe and earth are billions of years old, yet we find the evidence for that to be pretty indisputable .

[Here again…you should spend more time in scripture. Genesis did not go into detail but why should it. But it did leave a clue. And so did Revelations. But only in case the subject came up because it is really not important in God’s plan for the ages of mankind.

Gen 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
KJV

Gen 1:7-8
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
KJV

Verse one talks about the beginning, the original earth. Verse two talks about the condition of the earth before he began his creation of the earth as we know it today. The second day he creates the same thing again that is mention creating in verse one.

The dinosaurs went extinct from an act of God not a meteor, (unless that is what God used). It happened fast. And God has promised that he is going to start over at least one more time.

Now, what was God’s motive, (as if He needed one).

Satan thought he was as great as God. God says, OK I’ll destroy what is there now and create a living being with a soul that you can tempt. They dinosaurs will come in handy one day when man starts using oil. Now Satan…give it your best shot.

Rev 21:1
21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
KJV

The old earth was “without form and void†it had passed away.

I offered the scripture and comments above to show you that the bible does indeed speak of not only creation, but re-creation, which, by the way, fits much better into the subject of this thread.

You say the bible only speaks of a world a few thousand years old. I show you scripture that speak of re-creation and you poke fun, and laugh. You disregard this because you have been in the practice of thinking that the bible is flawed and that only science can fill in the gaps.

I only said you should spend more time in the scripture other than your science journals because there you may find truth that you have misunderstood. I was not asking you to believe me, but for you to see for yourself. I was actually showing trust in God and your hunger to know the truth.

You have judged me to be a hypocrite…show me where I have been. Offering advice to you to spend more time studying scripture is not a personal attack on you. Being a young Christian is not an insult. We can all spend more time there. I only offered this advice because you were so quickly sarcastic of the scriptures I quoted.

I wonder if some scientist offered you some new way of looking at the universe…would you laugh immediately or attempt to understand what he was saying?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

You say the bible only speaks of a world a few thousand years old. I show you scripture that speak of re-creation and you poke fun, and laugh. You disregard this because you have been in the practice of thinking that the bible is flawed and that only science can fill in the gaps.

Why does everyone keep making stuff up??

Where did I say the bible speaks of earth only a few thousand years old? I merely stated that some interpret it say such.

Where did I poke fun in laugh??

Where did I saw the bible was flawed?

Grace:
I only said you should spend more time in the scripture other than your science journals because there you may find truth that you have misunderstood. I was not asking you to believe me, but for you to see for yourself. I was actually showing trust in God and your hunger to know the truth.

Hmm. Seems I remember seeing this as well in the same paragraph:

Grace: The only people left that support it are atheist and die hard delusional believers that think that being able to quote some unscientific mumbo-gumbo makes them sound intelligent.


I can understand the atheist, but a person that claims to believe in God and creation also, why? Why would a person that claims to believe in the bible even care if evolution was real. You either believe in creation or not…no lukewarm, middle of the road baloney.

Are you denying that you are implying a weaker Christian if they believe in TOE? Maybe I am having another “context†problem that I have been charged with previously……

You have judged me to be a hypocrite…show me where I have been. Offering advice to you to spend more time studying scripture is not a personal attack on you. Being a young Christian is not an insult. We can all spend more time there. I only offered this advice because you were so quickly sarcastic of the scriptures I quoted.

Please provide documented quotes when you make a charge. Where was I being sarcastic of scripture? If you make an adhom, at least back it up.

You implications of calling someone lukewarm are a young Christian, is that you judge them to be less strong in their faith than you. Please provide me with any other way to translate the meaning of that if I have it wrong…..

I then provided much scriptural evidence for teachings against judging another’s faith. I never used the word hypocrite. Vic did. Those were not my words. I said it may be wise to understand how your actions line up with scripture.

Of course, I had the response that somehow I pulled those scriptures out of context, and they do not apply to modern Christians. It is ok to judge another’s faith.

Yet, no one seems the need to take context into play with Gen………

 

[Vic C.]

I then provided much scriptural evidence for teachings against judging another’s faith. I never used the word hypocrite. Vic did. Those were not my words. I said it may be wise to understand how your actions line up with scripture.

Of course, I had the response that somehow I pulled those scriptures out of context, and they do not apply to modern Christians. It is ok to judge another’s faith.

Yes, I did use the word hypocrite. That was clearly the intent of your post. No one pulls out verses like those if they weren't quick to point out someone's hypocrisy. It's bad enough when Christians do it; it's wrong for someone who's not spirit-inspired to pluck scriptures out of context and use it as prooftext against us. You were using them as a means of judging us and at the same time, telling us it's wrong for us to judge.

That's hypocritical. Rationalize it any way you want. :-?

Now I respectfully request we drop it and get back on topic please.