[_ Old Earth _] The Development Stage Is Fatal

[jasoncran]

so what made the thing( bee ) just jump on say he let me sting this and decide what will happen, did it sit there and go hmm that sting stopped him, and moved on or did he conduct experiments to see what happened, what was the mechanism that drove the bee to fall on the cockroach.

The genes for stinging stuff already were in place. Eventually a gene gained prevalence that made bees specifically target cockroaches, as those were more successful at procreating than those that did not. And later on genes that made the bee stimulate the cockroaches antenna to make them move in a specific way could develop. Billions of bees who did it the wrong way perished, but those few who did it the right way could procreate and pass on their genes.can you show me the exact gene for that, since when does a gene hold knowledge? i mean if so then the what of languages. surely there no genes for this? that would violate tabual rasa?the book i mentioned that as a mystery.

because you have claimed how and want to know in exact terms how it happens. let me put this way if the lord cured of cancer and you know it and the docs show how that the growth is gone, would you want to know he the lord did it by naturals means

Of course i would let doctors examine me to search for clues how it happened. In case of the creation of the world there fortunately are plenty of clues.so you would look at gift horse in the mouth then, and if you saw the lord, rather then bow the knee would you ask for id.

[quote:j3ucze7n]i am asking you what the parable is.

You mean, how i interprete them? Or do you want me to recite them?what is your interpretation?

so what your view on the cross as that is just as impossible to believe for you , so it appears. do you expect that to line up with science? that was prophecied too, and the lord did talk about that.

There is no negative evidence that Jesus didn't die on the cross and was resurrected on the third day. That's not an event for which we'd expect to find positive evidence either, so lack thereof proves nothing.
ah what of the miracles recorded .
The creation of the world ex nihilo 6000 years ago is different. It's an event for which we can expect to find physical evidence. But we don't. On the other hand we find plenty of evidence that the world is much, much older.
ah so you pick what you to believe because you find 'evidence" that proves the opposite.

if one is going to call somethings that must be literal and others a parable. why isnt the cross a parable to you? i mean if we did a study and cruficied mean alive to see how many would live after the death and resurrection,how many would see life?

Because Jesus was a miracle case by definition, and the nature of this miracle is one of which we don't expect to find evidence either way after 2000 years. There is nothing physical left to study after all. Much unlike a spontaneous creation of the world ex nihilo. That's something that must have left evidence.

i asked you if you are a born agian? your respond i am a christian
now i'm not judging you just be up front

You didn't ask if i were "born again", but whether i was "saved". That's not the same in my understanding of the terms. No, i am not "born again" in the sense of certain American branches of Protestant Christianity.

where will be when you die? will you be with the lord? will he call you a child of his. hell?

The former, methinks.
then my friend based on your worsds salvation isnt yours. i know where i will be based on biblical promises.wit the lord.

i debate against the toe for this reason, it's hard to reconcile theologically. i would have to be like your belief. if you notice even barbarian who is a thiestic evolutionist hasnt answered this.

Theistic evolution doesn't have any official doctrine. Hence i may very well disagree with Barb on many matters. If you feel that he hasn't answered a specific question, then you should address it directly towards him. He'll likely respond.[/quote:j3ucze7n]

 

[jwu]

.can you show me the exact gene for that, since when does a gene hold knowledge? i mean if so then the what of languages. surely there no genes for this?

Genes are known to control the behaviour of animals, that's certain beyond doubt. I don't know which particular gene is responsible here (you haven't even named the species by the way, so i couldn't even start researching it in depth), but there is little reason for doubt that it actually is a gene that controls this behaviour. Do you disagree?

that would violate tabual rasa?the book i mentioned that as a mystery.

What tabula rasa? The book may be wrong by the way, or outdated. Some more specifics would be helpful though.

so you would look at gift horse in the mouth then, and if you saw the lord, rather then bow the knee would you ask for id.

Yes i would look the gift horse in the mouth, as there would be something very interesting to see. And yes, if there were good evidence that earth is young and a good explanation for the things that indicate that it is not, then i'd follow the evidence that way.

what is your interpretation?

Of which parable exactly? There are plenty.

ah what of the miracles recorded .

Which ones in particular?

ah so you pick what you to believe because you find 'evidence" that proves the opposite.

No i demand evidence for things for which i reasonably can expect evidence (events that involve massive amounts of physical matter, i.e. the earth), and no evidence for things for which evidence is not to be expected (events that involve little matter that likely won't be preserved).
Should i ignore the evidence instead?

then my friend based on your worsds salvation isnt yours. i know where i will be based on biblical promises.wit the lord.

Please elaborate.

 

[jasoncran]

.can you show me the exact gene for that, since when does a gene hold knowledge? i mean if so then the what of languages. surely there no genes for this?

Genes are known to control the behaviour of animals, that's certain beyond doubt. I don't know which particular gene is responsible here (you haven't even named the species by the way, so i couldn't even start researching it in depth), but there is little reason for doubt that it actually is a gene that controls this behaviour. Do you disagree?
by chance alone yes. it takes some means to store such knowledge. do genes record lessons learned by mistake? ie when i do bjj and excel i doubt my offspring will know how to that. to me that is what you are saying that is happening by chance.

that would violate tabual rasa?the book i mentioned that as a mystery.

What tabula rasa? The book may be wrong by the way, or outdated. Some more specifics would be helpful though.it recent as last year. that means black slate mean that outside some instincts, in short we aren't born knowing how to drive a car. and so on.

[quote:2939v2l1]so you would look at gift horse in the mouth then, and if you saw the lord, rather then bow the knee would you ask for id.

Yes i would look the gift horse in the mouth, as there would be something very interesting to see. And yes, if there were good evidence that earth is young and a good explanation for the things that indicate that it is not, then i'd follow the evidence that way.

what is your interpretation?

Of which parable exactly? There are plenty.the lion and lamb one

ah what of the miracles recorded .

Which ones in particular?ressrection of the dead, blind seeing,etc

ah so you pick what you to believe because you find 'evidence" that proves the opposite.

No i demand evidence for things for which i reasonably can expect evidence (events that involve massive amounts of physical matter, i.e. the earth), and no evidence for things for which evidence is not to be expected (events that involve little matter that likely won't be preserved).
Should i ignore the evidence instead?kimda like some the alleged tranistional evidence
why not the demand the evidence for the cross,? you acept evolution when it cant explain how we have languages and where and when the first speech was recorded.

then my friend based on your worsds salvation isnt yours. i know where i will be based on biblical promises.wit the lord.

Please elaborate.[/quote:2939v2l1]
the lord states in romans 10 that with the mouth is made confession and then unto salvation. if you confess himt the lord is savoir and live according the fruits of repentance and seek him , the lord will accept you, though its more then this

 

[jwu]

by chance alone yes. it takes some means to store such knowledge. do genes record lessons learned by mistake? ie when i do bjj and excel i doubt my offspring will know how to that. to me that is what you are saying that is happening by chance.

No, genes don't record lessons learned by the individual.
What is happening by chance are random changes - some of which result in improvements - of the programmed behaviour right at conception.

that would violate tabual rasa?the book i mentioned that as a mystery.

it recent as last year.[/quote]It may be poorly researched, or a field where there is work in progress.

that means black slate mean that outside some instincts, in short we aren't born knowing how to drive a car. and so on.

Insects have nothing but instincts, they don't learn anything from experience. Hence tabula rasa is not an applicable concept for them.

the lion and lamb one

I've already given a short interpretation before - that there will be overall peace.

[quote:2nfrki88]ah what of the miracles recorded .

Which ones in particular?ressrection of the dead, blind seeing,etc[/quote:2nfrki88]They were just that - miracles. Can we reasonably expect to find physical evidence of them after 2000 years? No. Hence the absense of such evidence means nothing.

why not the demand the evidence for the cross,? you acept evolution when it cant explain how we have languages and where and when the first speech was recorded.

I've already explained that several times. I do not demand evidence for the cross because that's something that wouldn't leave such long lasting evidence.

 

[jasoncran]

by chance alone yes. it takes some means to store such knowledge. do genes record lessons learned by mistake? ie when i do bjj and excel i doubt my offspring will know how to that. to me that is what you are saying that is happening by chance.

No, genes don't record lessons learned by the individual.
What is happening by chance are random changes - some of which result in improvements - of the programmed behaviour right at conception.
but that by chance with the bee. rather hard to believe. same with language.

that would violate tabual rasa?the book i mentioned that as a mystery.

it recent as last year.

It may be poorly researched, or a field where there is work in progress.

that means black slate mean that outside some instincts, in short we aren't born knowing how to drive a car. and so on.

Insects have nothing but instincts, they don't learn anything from experience. Hence tabula rasa is not an applicable concept for them.

the lion and lamb one

I've already given a short interpretation before - that there will be overall peace.

[quote:29ddtrqb]ah what of the miracles recorded .

Which ones in particular?ressrection of the dead, blind seeing,etc[/quote:29ddtrqb]They were just that - miracles. Can we reasonably expect to find physical evidence of them after 2000 years? No. Hence the absense of such evidence means nothing.

why not the demand the evidence for the cross,? you acept evolution when it cant explain how we have languages and where and when the first speech was recorded.

I've already explained that several times. I do not demand evidence for the cross because that's something that wouldn't leave such long lasting evidence.[/quote]

 

[Barbarian]

i dont need to know how this all came to be. i wouldnt be able to understand it all and it wouldnt make a difference in my life. i debate against the toe for this reason, it's hard to reconcile theologically. i would have to be like your belief. if you notice even barbarian who is a thiestic evolutionist hasnt answered this.

Just ask. What about evolution is hard to reconcile theologically? YE creationism is directly contradicted by Genesis, but not evolution.

 

[jasoncran]

what is the end of it all then, and sorry i dont buy the argument agustine as the sirach isnt part of the bible.

if you say that we are to be on the earth what of the verse that say men wont die , is this doable for you

what of the verse the describe that adam and eve were vegeterians, and that all the animals were before the flood, and if not literal what is the meaning to this

the bible wastes no story, word, or parable, each has a meaning that is useful to interpret something else

if we are on the earth in the new age and the tree of life is there, what does that mean?

if we are just spirits then why is the earth told to be our inhertance? and take note that in the new age there's no sea.

 

[Barbarian]

what is the end of it all then, and sorry i dont buy the argument agustine as the sirach isnt part of the bible.

It isn't part of some revised Bibles. But it is part of the old one used in the time of Augustine.

If you say that we are to be on the earth what of the verse that say men wont die , is this doable for you

what of the verse the describe that adam and eve were vegeterians, and that all the animals were before the flood, and if not literal what is the meaning to this

Why would it be impossible for God to give us an allegory about real people?

the bible wastes no story, word, or parable, each has a meaning that is useful to interpret something else

So if Genesis is told in parables, what is wrong with that?

if we are on the earth in the new age and the tree of life is there, what does that mean?

Not sure. Never really thought about that one, but it doesn't seem to be a problem for Genesis.

 

[logical bob]

i debate against the toe for this reason, it's hard to reconcile theologically.

Then you need to reconcile harder. The world is the way it is, and it won't change for anybody's theological convenience. Theology is a poor way to find out about the physical world.

By denying the truth because it makes you uncomfortable you put your Christianity in conflict with reality and leave non-Christians with the impression they must believe the impossible in order to join. It's a terrible act of witness. I think my new sig puts it very well - it's a problem that's been around for 400 years.

 

[jasoncran]

what is the end of it all then, and sorry i dont buy the argument agustine as the sirach isnt part of the bible.

It isn't part of some revised Bibles. But it is part of the old one used in the time of Augustine.
the bible that he had, was that the same one approved by the appointed men of god that were in the nicean council?

[quote:378ax0ba]If you say that we are to be on the earth what of the verse that say men wont die , is this doable for you

what of the verse the describe that adam and eve were vegeterians, and that all the animals were before the flood, and if not literal what is the meaning to this

Why would it be impossible for God to give us an allegory about real people?

the bible wastes no story, word, or parable, each has a meaning that is useful to interpret something else

So if Genesis is told in parables, what is wrong with that?because of this part:
genesis 9:14,15 " and it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that bow shall be seen in the cloud: and I will remember my convenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh"


if this is allegorical then , what's the promise for? and if its only to the levant area or the area near turkey or whereever he(noah) landed, and there was rain before what did he just tell noah that the rainbow in sky you see when it rains, is the reminder that i shall never flood the earth again?

if we are on the earth in the new age and the tree of life is there, what does that mean?

Not sure. Never really thought about that one, but it doesn't seem to be a problem for Genesis.[/quote:378ax0ba]
it has meanings in both, and must both mean the same, see when you thiestic evolutions says its all a parable then what is the meaning of each symbol and it must allude something.

the parables that jesus taught from often had meanings so that the next parable written could be properly understood.

 

[jasoncran]

i debate against the toe for this reason, it's hard to reconcile theologically.

Then you need to reconcile harder. The world is the way it is, and it won't change for anybody's theological convenience. Theology is a poor way to find out about the physical world.

By denying the truth because it makes you uncomfortable you put your Christianity in conflict with reality and leave non-Christians with the impression they must believe the impossible in order to join. It's a terrible act of witness. I think my new sig puts it very well - it's a problem that's been around for 400 years.

because it makes GOD appear to plan evil and want to kill men just so that the species can improve.

would you serve a god like that? hmm
that started a process, made a germ such as these, aids, malaria and the h1n1, just to kill men so that( whether they were in sin or not) the species as whole can benefit from those selected genes.

that makes the God of the bible sound evil. hitler like, maybe those persons in china who died from the earthquakes were being selected to die by that method called natural selection.


if we assume that God is like this , then he is most evil. i have a problem with that as that isnt the God described in the bible. we can then blame God for all aids victims that have done no wrong to get it, malaria victims. and he would have to say yes i planned for your loved ones deaths so that eons from now that genes in the descendents would have evovled into a better man.

 

[jasoncran]

the cross is impossible by your reasoning! bob.
if i put you on the cross ,and let you die, do you honestly think that you would live ? and come back to tell me what the other side was?
hebrews 11:6
"But without Faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is,and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him"

logic doenst please god.

did you know that the bible never proves God, or give proof that he is real, only that the lord is presented? you my friend want to prove God's work and miracles by science, and try to reconcile things by science

by your thinking we shouldnt believe in the devil, cant prove him
the idea of the after life, if the beginning is in doubt then what of the end times promises? see my arguments with the person jwu.



no man can on his lonesome understand God, God give us the faith when he let him do this by repentance.
my testimony and all are truth to this. I tried to understand things of the bible that God didnt show me yet and i couldnt, but by his divine revalation i could.

 

[logical bob]

Jason, I can only say it again. There's a wealth of evidence for evolution but you close your eyes and refuse to see it because it would suit your theology better if it wasn't there. You need to fit your theology to reality, not the other way round. It makes you look as if you're just burying your head in the sand.

we can then blame God for all aids victims that have done no wrong to get it, malaria victims. and he would have to say yes i planned for your loved ones deaths so that eons from now that genes in the descendents would have evovled into a better man.

Well, if God is all powerful then he could, if he chose, prevent every earthquake and every death from AIDS or malaria. Whatever his reason, he chooses to allow these things. I think that means we can blame God for those deaths, just as you'd blame a person who walked away from someone they could have rescued.

the cross is impossible by your reasoning! bob.

You and I have discussed this before and I agree with what jwu said above. We wouldn't expect the resurrection to leave any testable evidence one way or the other. Creation ex nihilo 6000 years ago would have left testable evidence, but we find none.

logic doenst please god.

Perhaps not, but surely wilful ignorance of the facts doesn't please him either.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. Galileo

The church in Galileo's day insisted that the sun went around the Earth.

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. Judges 10:13

As far as they were concerned, the Bible said that the sun went around the Earth and nobody with a telescope was going to persuade them otherwise. They ignored the evidence just like you do.

Today, of course, everyone accepts that the Earth goes around the sun and the Biblical verse is interpreted in a different way. Today also, the vast majority of Christians worldwide realise that the Earth is very old and that species are produced by evolution. Because they believe that the Bible doesn't lie they accept that it can't really be saying otherwise. Yet you YEC folks are determined to make a lie of the Bible, which is a strange way to treat what you call the word of God. I think that one day YEC will seem as much of a historical curiosity as the Earth-centred universe.

did you know that the bible never proves God, or give proof that he is real, only that the lord is presented?

Yes, I did know. If it proved God, I'd believe in him.

you my friend want to prove God's work and miracles by science, and try to reconcile things by science

No, but I think we should both accept what is visibly true rather than pretend that it isn't there.

by your thinking we shouldnt believe in the devil, cant prove him

Indeed.

if the beginning is in doubt then what of the end times promises?

I stay out of end times discussions. I have no horse in that race.

 

[jasoncran]

so then we cut and paste the word of god based on our limited knowledge.

if we cant acept the creation account , how can we accept the end times?

in the end theres no sea, now death, and no sun,moon or stars.

so what then is this a poem as well.

 

[jasoncran]

Jason, I can only say it again. There's a wealth of evidence for evolution but you close your eyes and refuse to see it because it would suit your theology better if it wasn't there. You need to fit your theology to reality, not the other way round. It makes you look as if you're just burying your head in the sand.please,

we can then blame God for all aids victims that have done no wrong to get it, malaria victims. and he would have to say yes i planned for your loved ones deaths so that eons from now that genes in the descendents would have evovled into a better man.

Well, if God is all powerful then he could, if he chose, prevent every earthquake and every death from AIDS or malaria. Whatever his reason, he chooses to allow these things. I think that means we can blame God for those deaths, just as you'd blame a person who walked away from someone they could have rescued.
he didnt planned them,did he make us to die? what then when we come back to the earth? die again?

the cross is impossible by your reasoning! bob.

You and I have discussed this before and I agree with what jwu said above. We wouldn't expect the resurrection to leave any testable evidence one way or the other. Creation ex nihilo 6000 years ago would have left testable evidence, but we find none.so we just should rip the bible to the gospel only to please athiesm, after all its all uneeded poetry. bob what will you do when its toe is throw out. and another comes in. evolution assumes that life was here, no origin was so ever.

[quote:1oxf81sz]logic doenst please god.

Perhaps not, but surely wilful ignorance of the facts doesn't please him either.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. Galileo

The church in Galileo's day insisted that the sun went around the Earth.

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. Judges 10:13

As far as they were concerned, the Bible said that the sun went around the Earth and nobody with a telescope was going to persuade them otherwise. They ignored the evidence just like you do.please bob, i could go into the many holes that the GOD your worship has found, its there, even my friend who has read the book i have talked about sees that, as he is a BIOLOGY major.

Today, of course, everyone accepts that the Earth goes around the sun and the Biblical verse is interpreted in a different way. Today also, the vast majority of Christians worldwide realise that the Earth is very old and that species are produced by evolution. Because they believe that the Bible doesn't lie they accept that it can't really be saying otherwise. Yet you YEC folks are determined to make a lie of the Bible, which is a strange way to treat what you call the word of God. I think that one day YEC will seem as much of a historical curiosity as the Earth-centred universe.hasnt happened yet. been around for yrs after DARWIN, and still is there.

did you know that the bible never proves God, or give proof that he is real, only that the lord is presented?

Yes, I did know. If it proved God, I'd believe in him.

you my friend want to prove God's work and miracles by science, and try to reconcile things by science

No, but I think we should both accept what is visibly true rather than pretend that it isn't there.

by your thinking we shouldnt believe in the devil, cant prove him

Indeed.

if the beginning is in doubt then what of the end times promises?

I stay out of end times discussions. I have no horse in that race.[/quote:1oxf81sz]

 

[jasoncran]

the rcc views on the galeleo thing, as ususal the athiest love to twist thing to thier advantage. :verysad and distort words.

i let the rcc speak for itself on this.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

and then there's this.
theres alot of what i am seein here. and this site agrees with a lot of what i am saying on the bible.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... d-scholars

 

[jasoncran]

so i guess that post where you acknowledge the creationsist scientist credentials and even the one that designed the mri was false.
i guess that individual held back "progess".
keep that in mind each time you get and mri.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Barbarian observes:
Man came later. Again, if you'd spend some time with the Bible, it might help.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your argument, but come on, Barb: We can be more civilized than this.

It's there in Genesis for anyone to see. Don't we have some responsibility to at least try? BTW, do you think I did better than this:

Barbarian, you might impress your little buddies with this foolishness but you simply don't have the skull capacity to get your clap trap by me my friend.
Actually it really goes to show your complete ignorance of scripture Barbarian.
I’ll give you a free lesson, pay attention and you might learn something.

I certainly hope so.

You're right, I got stupid and I apologise brother.
I still asert that God created Adam and eve in the begining just as the sriptures tell us.
It was on day 5 Barb, that's the begining.
In any case, your argument should be with God not me because I didn't write the scriptures God did.
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Take care Barb.
John

 

[Barbarian]

You're right, I got stupid and I apologise brother.

No problem. Easy to get frustrated.

I still asert that God created Adam and eve in the begining just as the sriptures tell us.
It was on day 5 Barb, that's the begining.

That's not what God says. He makes it very clear:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

If God is right, neither male nor female were there in the beginning. Obviously, Jesus is talking about the beginning of mankind.

In any case, your argument should be with God not me because I didn't write the scriptures God did.
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

See above. Jesus cannot be contradicting God's word in Genesis.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Barb

Bronzesnake wrote; In any case, your argument should be with God not me because I didn't write the scriptures God did.
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

See above. Jesus cannot be contradicting God's word in Genesis.

I agree. When God says "in the beginning" and He goes on to describe a six day creation, it is most obvious that the entire six day period encompasses the "beginning"

For example; I am a huge Toronto Maple Leaf fan (I know they suck) and when I'm talking hockey with my sons or friends, we will for example refer to the "beginning" of the season.
This does not refer to the first day of the season but rather it encompasses the first several weeks, or the first couple of months of the hockey season.
So yes, Jesus says in the beginning they were created male and female"
This leaves no room for any kind of evolutionary process Barb.

Take care brother.

Bronzesnake