[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
In other words, it doesn't actually say that they reproduce according to kind, but you'd like it to be so, so you add that.

This is what I was telling you was a bad idea.

The Bible does say that each created plant and animal reproduces after its own kind.

But you can't show me a verse that says so. Because it isn't in Genesis. You added it to scripture to make it acceptable to you.

You do not want it to be that way so that you can tout the deception of evolutionary origins of created life forms.

It's not in Genesis. And I accept God's word as it is.

I see that it isn't that your scripture is lacking, it is that your comprehension of the Word of God is lacking. The scripture that says that the reproductive portion of the plant and animal is after its kind. Read Genesis 1:12 very carefully:

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:12

This merely says that it is the nature of plants to have seed and fruit. It says nothing about whether or not they evolve or evolved. Because you can't accept it as it is, you've added doctrines that God didn't give us.

Most non-Christians believe that Genesis is not literal

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Most atheists I know, for example, agree with you on whether or not it was intended to be literal. Most Christians disagree with them.

You are wrong in this assessment as well, as atheists do not believe in creation, but instead believe in the lie of evolution.

All the atheists I know about, think that Genesis was meant to be literal. They agree with YE creationists, and both YE and atheists disagree with most Christians.

Whether they think it's true or not is a different issue.

Barbarian observes:
And that's not a recent development. As you see, even the earliest Christians realized this. In order to make Genesis acceptable to you, you added "reproduce according to kind" which is not in Genesis.

Let God be God, and accept it His way.

The scripture is quite clear on the reproductive attributes of each kind multiplying after its kind.

You took a statement saying that grass and trees produce seed as their kind does, and pretended that it said all creatures reproduce according to their kind. It won't work. Nowhere does it say that organisms don't vary and evolve from their parents. It doesn't even say there are kinds, it merely says "kind." All organisms on Earth are a kind.

I wouldn't expect someone who has sold their soul to the deception of evolution

The fact that you must foolishly claim evolution is "deception" and accuse Christians of selling their souls to it, reveals more about you than anything else. You can't serve God and creationism. You must chose.

Let God be God. Accept His creation as it is, and slander Christians no more.

And then you will have peace in Him.

 

[Heidi]

Barbarian observes:
In other words, it doesn't actually say that they reproduce according to kind, but you'd like it to be so, so you add that.

This is what I was telling you was a bad idea.

The Bible does say that each created plant and animal reproduces after its own kind.

But you can't show me a verse that says so. Because it isn't in Genesis. You added it to scripture to make it acceptable to you.

[quote:3f211]You do not want it to be that way so that you can tout the deception of evolutionary origins of created life forms.

It's not in Genesis. And I accept God's word as it is.

I see that it isn't that your scripture is lacking, it is that your comprehension of the Word of God is lacking. The scripture that says that the reproductive portion of the plant and animal is after its kind. Read Genesis 1:12 very carefully:

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:12

This merely says that it is the nature of plants to have seed and fruit. It says nothing about whether or not they evolve or evolved. Because you can't accept it as it is, you've added doctrines that God didn't give us.

Most non-Christians believe that Genesis is not literal

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Most atheists I know, for example, agree with you on whether or not it was intended to be literal. Most Christians disagree with them.

You are wrong in this assessment as well, as atheists do not believe in creation, but instead believe in the lie of evolution.

All the atheists I know about, think that Genesis was meant to be literal. They agree with YE creationists, and both YE and atheists disagree with most Christians.

Whether they think it's true or not is a different issue.

Barbarian observes:
And that's not a recent development. As you see, even the earliest Christians realized this. In order to make Genesis acceptable to you, you added "reproduce according to kind" which is not in Genesis.

Let God be God, and accept it His way.

The scripture is quite clear on the reproductive attributes of each kind multiplying after its kind.

You took a statement saying that grass and trees produce seed as their kind does, and pretended that it said all creatures reproduce according to their kind. It won't work. Nowhere does it say that organisms don't vary and evolve from their parents. It doesn't even say there are kinds, it merely says "kind." All organisms on Earth are a kind.

I wouldn't expect someone who has sold their soul to the deception of evolution

The fact that you must foolishly claim evolution is "deception" and accuse Christians of selling their souls to it, reveals more about you than anything else. You can't serve God and creationism. You must chose.

Let God be God. Accept His creation as it is, and slander Christians no more.

And then you will have peace in Him.[/quote:3f211]

And the fact that you have exchanged the biblical account of creation for evolution shows that you have indeed sold your soul to the devil's lies. Anything that contradicts the bible is a lie of Satan which Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:4-15. Jesus himself said that many who call him Lord will not enter the kingdom of heaven. So I have no qualms about agreeing with him when those who call themselves Christians say he and the bible are wrong. The Word is Jesus Christ and anyone who disagrees with it, disagrees with Christ. So it appears that you live in a divided house which Jesus said will not stand. He said; "He who is not with me is against me." You cannot both say he's lying and is the truth at the same time. It's one or the other. So where do you stand? :o

 

[Barbarian]

And the fact that you have exchanged the biblical account of creation for evolution...

As you see above, I accept the Biblical account as it is. YE creationists have to revise it to make it fit their religion.

shows that you have indeed sold your soul to the devil's lies.

Fortunately, God hasn't made you Head Inquisitor. Your somewhat hysterical accusations are worthless.

Anything that contradicts the bible is a lie of Satan which Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:4-15. Jesus himself said that many who call him Lord will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

You call Him Lord, don't you, Heidi? Maybe that's a wake-up call for you, if you'll listen to Him.

So I have no qualms about agreeing with him when those who call themselves Christians say he and the bible are wrong.

I think you've gotten confused again. I was pointing out that the Bible is correct the way it's written, without your additions.

The Word is Jesus Christ and anyone who disagrees with it, disagrees with Christ.

Right. So why not stop trying to edit His word, and just accept it as it is?

So it appears that you live in a divided house which Jesus said will not stand. He said; "He who is not with me is against me."

If you can't even accept what He tells you in Genesis, how can you stand with Him? BTW, He said:
Mark 9:40 40For he that is not against us is on our part.

You cannot both say he's lying and is the truth at the same time.

No, you can't. You can't assert that Scripture is correct, and then revise it as you have. You have to chose between Him and your desires.

It's one or the other. So where do you stand?

I accept it as He tells it. You should do that, too, Heidi. He's God. You are not. Accept it.

 

[dad]

There is no way people are getting more violent.

In Ancient Rome violent crime was worse than it is today, people regularly assembled to watch men kill eachother and be killed by animals.

Your definition of worse seems to only be concerned with appearances. They never masked barbarity as more modern men do.
[quote:1da94]War was more violent. Less people died because the technology was more primitive,

For every man that was stuck with a spear there likely are men today whose flesh was burned with the fire of more modern war.

but you didn't drop bombs. You pushed your spear into someone until they blew their dying breath on your face. Violent conflict was engaged in at the drop of a hat.

Sounds like a schoolyard today! They need meteal detectors in some cases. Then there are the ghettos. Then there are civilized wars where whole cities, town, or blocks are wiped out by hellfire from the heavens. Chemical and bio weapons as well, already sneaking up their ugly heads in some wars, and likely may be widespred in the future.

Last I knew we don't Crucify tens of thousands of people along roadsides to prove a point, as the Romans did to the followers of Spartacus.

Right, they round them up into death camps, the more civilized way! Buldoze their houses and vineyards down to rubble, and build a giant wall cutting them off from others, and use tanks against unarmed civilians in market squares, justifying it by calling everyone terrorists.

But then, we don't keep slaves anymore either, so less violence there also.

Slavery is widespread. Then there are the slaves who think they are free. Then there are slaves drafted into armies, to be shot in some cases if they try to flee their bonds, or grow a concience.

As to sports, the tension between the fans of the Green and Blue chariot teams that erupted in the Nika revolt nearly destroyed Constantinople and brought down Justinian, the greatest Byzantine Emperor. Last I knew no sports shenanigans, even riots, threatened to physically destroy a city and the government of the nation.

"Wars even started because of a soccer game. Honduras and Salvador got involved in a Soccer War back in the 70s, when they were not happy with the outcome of the game. Peru holds the infamous record of having more people death or injury during a soccer game, when back in the 70s also more than 300 people died inside the stadium when Peru's national team was playing against their counterpart from Argentine. " http://members.tripod.com/~texcolca1/body/sports.html
" By the way, they call it the "Futbol War," since most of the world calls the game Football." http://www.historyguy.com/faq.htm#FAQ2

Were we as violent today as were our predecessors within Western Civilization we would have cut the trigger fingers off of every male Sunni in Iraq.

How much shorter a leash do you think you could keep them on, while trying to appear civilized to the world?

We would have beheaded fleeing refugees from Fallujah and thrown the heads into the city to dispirit the insurgents.

And admitted it.

We wouldn't have tortured detainees, we would have crucified every one of them in public.

If you could have.

Were we as violent today we would not be able to have a multiparty system.

Too bad the media Party doesn't need votes, like the mickey mousers.

At the beginning of the Republic the Federalists would have marched soldiers into Virginia and rural Pennsylvania and started burning farms rather than allow the political opposition of the Jeffersonian Republicans.

[/quote:1da94]
And the bluecoat Indian masacres, and word breaking was really a tea party too, I suppose?

 

[Frost Giant]

Now, I don't believe that people are getting more violent, but, even if they are, what's the point?

 

[dad]

Now, I don't believe that people are getting more violent, but, even if they are, what's the point?

Good question. I can't remember, just came up I suppose as a sideline. It is also related to the endtime.

 

[Heidi]

And the fact that you have exchanged the biblical account of creation for evolution...

As you see above, I accept the Biblical account as it is. YE creationists have to revise it to make it fit their religion.

[quote:65f0c]shows that you have indeed sold your soul to the devil's lies.

Fortunately, God hasn't made you Head Inquisitor. Your somewhat hysterical accusations are worthless.

Anything that contradicts the bible is a lie of Satan which Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:4-15. Jesus himself said that many who call him Lord will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

You call Him Lord, don't you, Heidi? Maybe that's a wake-up call for you, if you'll listen to Him.

So I have no qualms about agreeing with him when those who call themselves Christians say he and the bible are wrong.

I think you've gotten confused again. I was pointing out that the Bible is correct the way it's written, without your additions.

The Word is Jesus Christ and anyone who disagrees with it, disagrees with Christ.

Right. So why not stop trying to edit His word, and just accept it as it is?

So it appears that you live in a divided house which Jesus said will not stand. He said; "He who is not with me is against me."

If you can't even accept what He tells you in Genesis, how can you stand with Him? BTW, He said:
Mark 9:40 40For he that is not against us is on our part.

You cannot both say he's lying and is the truth at the same time.

No, you can't. You can't assert that Scripture is correct, and then revise it as you have. You have to chose between Him and your desires.

It's one or the other. So where do you stand?

I accept it as He tells it. You should do that, too, Heidi. He's God. You are not. Accept it.[/quote:65f0c]

And where does the biblical account say that man came from primates? :o Does your bible not say that God formed man from the dust of the ground? Or do you simply like to lie and at the same time call yourself a Christian?

Are you all right? How have I edited God's word, when I believe it verbatim? :o

And how have I revised scripture? I have actually quoted it whereas you have not. How have I contradicted the bible? :o

I suggest you back up your statements with scriputre and/or proof. Otherwise they're nothing more than lies.

 

[Quid]

And where does the biblical account say that man came from primates?

Men are primates. How thick are you to not understand this? I've linked several sources that show this and all you've done is shout and change the subject.

Nor does evolution state how man was created. Only how he got here. Do you know the process God used to turn the dust into man?

 

[Heidi]

And where does the biblical account say that man came from primates?

Men are primates. How thick are you to not understand this? I've linked several sources that show this and all you've done is shout and change the subject.

Nor does evolution state how man was created. Only how he got here. Do you know the process God used to turn the dust into man?

And who says humans are primates? Scientists? :o The bible doesn't. The bible makes specific distinctions between men and animals even if scientists can't tell the difference. So again, which do you believe? Fallible human beings or God's word? Or don't you believe God's word? Once again, your house is divided.

 

[Quid]

And where does the biblical account say that man came from primates?

Men are primates. How thick are you to not understand this? I've linked several sources that show this and all you've done is shout and change the subject.

Nor does evolution state how man was created. Only how he got here. Do you know the process God used to turn the dust into man?

And who says humans are primates? Scientists? :o The bible doesn't. The bible makes specific distinctions between men and animals even if scientists can't tell the difference. So again, which do you believe? Fallible human beings or God's word? Or don't you believe God's word? Once again, your house is divided.

Yes. Scientists. Because scientists are the leading authority on science. Not bible thumpers. You're confusing science and religion.

And while we're on it, simply because the bible doesn't mention something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or hasn't happened. The bible doesn't mention germs. It doesn't mention DNA. It doesn't mention me eating oatmeal for breakfast this morning. All of these things are true though.

 

[Heidi]

And where does the biblical account say that man came from primates?

Men are primates. How thick are you to not understand this? I've linked several sources that show this and all you've done is shout and change the subject.

Nor does evolution state how man was created. Only how he got here. Do you know the process God used to turn the dust into man?

And who says humans are primates? Scientists? :o The bible doesn't. The bible makes specific distinctions between men and animals even if scientists can't tell the difference. So again, which do you believe? Fallible human beings or God's word? Or don't you believe God's word? Once again, your house is divided.

Yes. Scientists. Because scientists are the leading authority on science. Not bible thumpers. You're confusing science and religion.

And while we're on it, simply because the bible doesn't mention something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or hasn't happened. The bible doesn't mention germs. It doesn't mention DNA. It doesn't mention me eating oatmeal for breakfast this morning. All of these things are true though.

When scientists contradict the bible, then they are simply wrong, period. And the theory of evolution contradicts how God formed man. You have thus made it completely clear that you believe fallible scientists over the bible. Well sorry but Jesus said we have one teacher and that is the Christ. The fact that you don't blieve him makes you a wolf in sheep's clothing. Therefore, you have nothing further to say that could possibly interest me. I'd rather talk to atheists who are at least honest about their unbelief.

 

[Quid]

So you're just going to make false accusations rather than address what I said?

Come on Heidi. I said I had oatmeal this morning but the bible didn't.

Is what I say in conflict with the bible?

 

[Heidi]

So you're just going to make false accusations rather than address what I said?

Come on Heidi. I said I had oatmeal this morning but the bible didn't.

Is what I say in conflict with the bible?

That's because the bible didn't mention oatmeal. But it does mention how human beings were created. And that is the point.

 

[Quid]

Evolution is the process where new species occur through small mutations over time.

Find the part of that sentence that says how life was created.

All you know is God created man from dust. You don't know how he did it.

 

[Heidi]

Evolution is the process where new species occur through small mutations over time.

Find the part of that sentence that says how life was created.

All you know is God created man from dust. You don't know how he did it.

Genesis 2:7, "the Lord God formed the man out of the dust and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being."

It's right there in print. It says nothing about man being the offspring of an ape! Zero. That is all made up by fallible human beings which, by definition, makes it fallible.

The bible also says in Genesis 2:19, "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

That passage clearly shows that man has power over the animals, not the other way around. Nothing about evolution agrees with the bible. Nothing. Sorry.

 

[Quid]

Does that refer to spiritual life or physical life?

 

[Heidi]

Your posts clearly show, Quid, that you don't have spiritual understanding or you wouldn't need to ask how God formed man. You obviously don't understand that God is by definition, supernatural, not human. Human reasoning is not supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent or miraculous. It is fallible.

And that's why Paul says that "the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from God for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned." And that is why you need a human explanation for creation because you don't have spiritual understanding. But that is precisely what Jesus tells us will get us to heaven; being born again of the Holy Spirit. And that is what you have to do to consider yourself a Christian. Otherwise you fall into the group of people whom jesus told us will call him Lord but will not get to heaven. So if you truly want to go to heaven, you need to ask God for the Holy Spirit. Otherwise you you're up a creek without a paddle.

 

[Quid]

Whenever you'd like to answer my question.

I trust you can show where it clearly states which. Otherwise, you'd have to be interpreting what it says. And we all know how creationists feel about that.

 

[Heidi]

Whenever you'd like to answer my question.

I trust you can show where it clearly states which. Otherwise, you'd have to be interpreting what it says. And we all know how creationists feel about that.

Again, it is obvious that you don't believe the bible but would prefer to make up your own instead, or you wouldn't keep asking the same question. Since you do not believe that God made man out of the dust, then you're looking for an explanation that you understand. That is also what atheists do only they don't disguise themselves as sheep. So it is even further confirmation for me that conversing with you will be a complete waste of time.

 

[Quid]

Sorry. Not atheist. Try again.

And as I recall I didn't disagree with God creating man from dust either, as I've already stated that evolution is the process that got us where we are, but not what started the process.

Feel free to answer my question instead of throwing out accusations at any point.