[_ Old Earth _] The Evolution Lie

[Barbarian]

God says that the truth will make you free. He is truth. Nothing that is contrary to His truth can bring you to Him. As you saw, YE creationism is an effective atheist-maker.

 

[Sparkey]

Well, let's take a look...

Gen. 1:[24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

The YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is contrary to Genesis. God used nature to create life.

God caused the Earth ( and seas ) to bring forth life maybe this is what Barbarian means. Have you found it interesting that there is no reference in the Creation account of God making water ?

Barb? I've always found it interesting (in the years that I've listened to you) that your consideration about the "how of it all" includes the command to the earth ('erets) but not the one to the waters (mayim). What do you make Gen 1:20?

Gen 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Gen 1:24
And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

I'm curious.

 

[Barbarian]

Barb? I've always found it interesting (in the years that I've listened to you) that your consideration about the "how of it all" includes the command to the earth ('erets) but not the one to the waters (mayim). What do you make Gen 1:20?

It says that fish and fowl were also created by natural means, from the waters. This fits the Mesopotamian idea of water producing one sort of living things and earth, a different sort.

It's merely a poetic way of saying "God used nature to make living things." In reality, God used both earth and water to make all living things.

 

[Sparkey]

There are other verses that need to be considered also. Those two speak of the earth and the waters.

So for instance, God commanded the waters to teem forth with life in Gen 1:20 and in the next verse we see that He created (bara') great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The word that is translated "created" carries a meaning of cutting something out -- to cut or pare down, to plane and polish. We also notice the phrase "after its kind" (miyn) which, as you know, also carries the meaning of 'separate out'.
View attachment 4180

 

[Barbarian]

The word that is translated "created" carries a meaning of cutting something out -- to cut or pare down, to plane and polish.

Very telling, that is. It makes sense, if God, rather than creating life ex nihilo, used existing creation to make something higher of it. I think this is partly why early Christians like St. Augustine thought that God created the Earth in a chaotic and raw state, and then produced more refined things from that, including "beasts" which developed from existing matter, he said.

 

[Sparkey]

It's similar to the poetic explanation (analogy) of us being the clay and He the Potter. God carves us. He shapes and molds us. Ultimately He also created all the materials (the 'flesh' of us) and that too came from the dust of the land. I don't see a big problem between what we (as followers of science) observe and what we (as Christians and believers in the bible) hold true.

Both parties want to insist they have the right of it but the truth of the matter is "Only God knows." I'm okay with that.

 

[Barbarian]

It's really all that counts. After all, if He didn't tell us specifically how He created life from the earth and waters, then it's probably not critical to our salvation.

Some things, He left for us to find out for ourselves.

 

[Pizza]

It's similar to the poetic explanation (analogy) of us being the clay and He the Potter. God carves us. He shapes and molds us. Ultimately He also created all the materials (the 'flesh' of us) and that too came from the dust of the land. I don't see a big problem between what we (as followers of science) observe and what we (as Christians and believers in the bible) hold true.

Both parties want to insist they have the right of it but the truth of the matter is "Only God knows." I'm okay with that.

I have not read the thread, just the last three posts, but this is where I stand. I'm okay with that - but I also enjoy the pursuit of science. I don't ever think we'll understand how life came about, nor do I think we'll understand much about the universe - I just find it very interesting to learn about.

My pursuit of math and physics is really to earn a B.S. so as to hang out a "Consultant" sign in a few years. I have the experience to do consulting, but would be taken more seriously with a degree and could certainly charge more. Along the way, I have learned a lot and find it fascinating to inch my way towards understanding and discovery.

 

[Barbarian]

Tough being a consultant. You get about ten rejections for every acceptance, until you build up a client base. Not that you can't make a good living at it. But be prepared to face all that rejection.

And be aware; you don't get any days off. Just days when you don't get paid.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said:

It's merely a poetic way of saying "God used nature to make living things." In reality, God used both earth and water to make all living things.

I suppose you have scripture to back this up "God used nature" what about man.. did he speak Adam into existance or use nature

i realize your following your church on the doctrine of evolution your salvation depends on it..

tob

 

[Free]

Barbarian said:

I suppose you have scripture to back this up "God used nature" what about man.. did he speak Adam into existance or use nature

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (ESV)

He sure didn't speak Adam into existence.

 

[Barbarian]

I suppose you have scripture to back this up "God used nature" what about man.. did he speak Adam into existance or use nature

God said that after He created the Earth, it was the Earth that brought forth life, as He intended. He says that Adam was also brought forth from the Earth; that's how he created Adam's physical form. His soul was given directly by God.

i realize your following your church on the doctrine of evolution your salvation depends on it..

As the man says, "it ain't what people don't know that hurts them; it's what they know that ain't so." It might be useful for you to learn what the Church has to say about it. There's no requirement to accept evolution or reject it.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said:

"it ain't what people don't know that hurts them"

there's where your wrong.. if you don't know Jesus you'll die in your sins..

tob

*edit: Ive learned and I've lived it they killed two of my brothers in Mexico for disobeying the pope

 

[turnorburn]

Sure He did Free those were his materials.. or are you suggesting He built Adam like a tinker toy

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
"it ain't what people don't know that hurts them; it's what they know that ain't so."

there's where your wrong..

Nope. You're just wrong about what the Church teaches. If you'd check, you'd find that I'm right.

 

[TOG]

Have you ever heard of a fish called "coelacanth"? It was supposedly an intermediate species betwen fish and tetrapods (4-limbed vertebrates) and was supposed to have been extinct for over 66 million years, with no evidence of it in the fossil record since then. Then one day in 1938, somebody caught one off the coasts of South Africa. There was no significant difference between that living coelacanth and the ones that have been caught since, and the ones that lived 66 to 360 million years ago.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, the modern coelacanths are not even in the same genus as the ancient ones, which were a very diverse and successful group of fresh-water and coastal fish. The modern ones are quite evolved, and cannot even survive in the environments of the ancient versions. Coelacanths were never considered to be our direct descendants, although they are, like lungfish, genetically more like land animals than they are like fish.

It's because land animals evolved from fish with limb bones that they used to walk about on the bottoms of shallow pools. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

 

[Barbarian]

I would be interested in seeing a 500 million year old fossil of any species that's stil alive today. I am not aware of any genus that old. Tell us about it.

 

[Vaccine]

500 million year old jellyfish:

and the Chambered Nautilus:

Here is the story of some boys trying to save the chambered Nautilus:
"Tween Boys Help Save a 500-million-year-old Species"





"In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world"
Gal 4:3


"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, following the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and not in accordance with Christ."
Col 2:8

 

[turnorburn]

tob