[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution

[rthom7]

Many Christians have come to allow Science into their faith because of the so called evidence of origins, with the General Theory of Evolution. The General Theory states that matter time and space suddenly came from nothing and exploded with a big bang. The General Theory also says that molecules became ordered from energy using natural laws that came into being by themselves as well. The General Theory also says that living things arose from non-living things. The General Theory also suggests that once a living thing got started that all other living things arose from this single common ancestor. The Special Theory of Evolution cites lots of evidence of changes with species, adapting to new environment's; and so because of these observed changes, that all of the other origin theories must be true as well. It takes just as much faith to believe in Evolution, as it does to believe in Creation. Both Creation science and Evolution science has aspects of faith and aspects of evidence.

What Christian faiths have done over the years is to combine Evolution science with Creation science and call this Theistic evolution. Can such a concept exist with the Christian faith ? No

The Big Bang theorise that time space and matter came into our universe by nothing suddenly, with all these natural laws? So if the Big Bang is not subject to time, matter and space, and is outside of time, matter and space, why do we suppose God must be? God is also outside of time, matter and space, and not to subject to such trivial things.

God created order from disorder using His own natural laws, that make physics so complex that the Physics scientists cannot explain creation of matter, or the origins of stars or anything about our universe. The precise numerical precision of physics declares GOD is the Creator of our universe.

God created life with an Intelligent Designed code on a molecule called the DNA, that is so complex that it baffles Biological scientist's even to this day. God also programmed His creatures to change so that they could adapt to a changing world, should mankind allow missing into His Creation.

Some faiths suggest God started life and left evolution to guide the development of species on the earth over millions of years ? No. First our earth is not millions of years old. Second if God already programmed creatures to adapt, why make hypothese about origins, which it wrong?

So why do we observe changes today in the DNA ? All of the changes we observe are downhill changes which lead to disease. We do find many species have become pathogens, so where did this change come from? The answer is Intelligent Designers did this.

In the story of the wheat and the tares, Jesus remarks that an enemy sowed tares among the wheat.

Mt 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this.

Weeds come from an enemy. Now does that mean the weeds are naturally from God, a part of His Creation? Would that also mean bacterial pathogens are a part of His Creation? Since His Creation was declared very good, these changes came after man was found missing.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these

This verse suggests God's natural laws bring in chaos if His Creation is missing His presence. We see this increase in disorder in the DNA of creatures, increase in death, decay and chaos.

Ps 7:5 Let the enemy persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the earth,

Who is this enemy that disorders our soul?

Ps 7:14 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood.

Notice that the enemy can born falsehood and make one conceive trouble.

Job 4:8 Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.

The Hebrew word "aven" is a genetics term, just like the weeds in the parable, they sow iniquity they plough wickedness.

Job 15:35 They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit.

The same Hebrew word comes from the belly of genetics.

De 22:9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds:

This word "kilayim" is not used much in Scripture...

De 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

The concept is mentioned here with more clues. Both wool and cotton are natural, but the technology of making them weaved together in unnatural. Can mankind do such a technology today with genes ? Yes. it is called GMO, genetically modified organisms.

Could not Satan and wicked intelligent humans before the great flood have done GMO, engineering changes to the very genes of living things? And we see these changes today as Evolution?

Those wanting more studies

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1127.htm Creation science properly defined
http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1131.htm Study of kinds
http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1134.htm Study of genes
http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1120.htm Bacterial flagellum - a look at evolution

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

View attachment 6133
The Hebrew word miyin, is interesting. Written in the Ancient Hebrew letters, left to right, we read, the "Active flowing hands over the nations" is describing the hands of a powerful Creator over the head of each kind of animal, making the sperm develop for each generation (the letter N shown here, is a picture of seed travelling in each kind).
View attachment 6134 Within each kind of animal science will eventually find what I call miyin segments of DNA code, which will be found in similar animal species, such as all different species of ravens for example, or all different species of dogs, or cats. Science has so far only mapped the protein coding sections of the DNA and assumed the vast (90%) of the code to be for nothing else functional....how silly we assume things to be...the unmapped DNA code will prove a convincing test for God and His intelligent Design, as these miyin segments are found.

Old faith's believed God never designed species to change within their kinds, but this is not true...if you read the Hebrew in Genesis carefully you find a strange use of words....

Each kind of animal was engineered with all the DNA sequenced complex information required for a changing world, to develop variation in each kind as numerous species, according to the programming placed already in the DNA as code.
Ge 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring swarming (sharat) swarms (sharat) be 'living energy' (nephesh)(chay),

Strong's 8317. Swarmers. The Ancient Hebrew reads :
The "Pressed Head travels" aptly describes living systems travelling about in terms of biology and genetics.

Here we see the Hebrew written correctly in the verse. The swarming swarms, are two words of Hebrew, written as a verb and noun form. They have similar, but slightly different meaning. The verb means the action is incomplete, while the noun form says the action is complete. So this verse tells us the swarming swarms were to become complete as they filled the waters. Thus God intended his Creation to change, within the boundaries of their kinds.

Ge 1:29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb seeding (zara) seed (zara),

Strong's 2232. Seed. The Ancient Hebrew reads :
The "ploughing head sees" is a description of man sowing seed, rather than a description of the creation of the seed.

This shows us that Hebrew is more concerned with function and practical applications, rather than other matters of science.

Here in a parallel concept is the same verb and noun form for plants, again telling us the verb is an incomplete action making the noun a completed action. Thus we have a model for both plants and animals. Inside the plants is the seeding seeds, a replication of the plant as a seed, to make and change to different plants as required, but only within the boundaries of it's kind. Similarly inside the animal, the swarming swarms is the replication of it's parents, with the ability to change as required in a changing world, but only within the boundaries of it's kind.

There are other strange ways to use these words....

That ye love one another; as I have loved you, Joh 13:34

Let the swarming swarms fill the earth. Ge 1:20

Let the plough plough all day to sow. Isa 28:24

The verb case of a word has the same meaning of the noun case, but the action in the verb case is incomplete. The noun case is complete.

So if the LORD made swarming swarms, they were to become complete on their own, because they were all programmed that way.... A plough does not evolve while being a plough, yet one can change a plough functions all day to suit different soil types. Love does not become violent as the love is completed between the lovers, otherwise it's not love.
The swarm does not change as its does it's swarming...

Another example is the seeding seed. Inside each seed is a miniature plant with root and shoot, programmed for change.

SO why does GOD use two words with the same meaning side by side in Genesis ?

swarming swarm Ge 1:20
seeding seed Ge 1:29

To tell us something about Creation....
Shalom

 

[jasonc]

you are using a kaballah like method to do that. interesting. proto Hebrew to modern Hebrew. I wonder if chabad has that.

 

[Barbarian]

Many Christians have come to allow Science into their faith because of the so called evidence of origins, with the General Theory of Evolution.

In science, there is no such thing. It's the invention of creationists to serve as a strawman.

The General Theory states that matter time and space suddenly came from nothing and exploded with a big bang.

Nope. Evolutionary theory is only about the way living populations change over time. It's not about the big bang (which wasn't an explosion, BTW), or the origin of life, or anything else. If you want to deal in strawmen, you're probably in the wrong website.

It is possible to be a Christian and and a YE creationist, but logical consistency requires acceptance that God uses evolution to produce new species. Even most creationist websites now admit the fact of speciation.

Instead of peddling all this straw, how about showing us something of substance?

 

[rthom7]

Maybe you will have to define your terms Barbarian....

Nope. Evolutionary theory is only about the way living populations change over time. It's not about the big bang (which wasn't an explosion, BTW), or the origin of life, or anything else.

Please define the term "evolution".

Surely the term "evolution" has to encompass
Big Bang theory
Stellar theory
Molecular theory
Biological theory
to name a few....all these branches of science use the term evolution....

--------------------------------------------- my sources of authority-------------------------

A number of different Markov models of DNA sequence evolution have been proposed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_DNA_evolution


Stellar evolution is the process by which a star changes during its lifetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution


Chemical evolution may refer to:
Stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements by stellar thermonuclear fusion or supernovae
Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems
Molecular evolution, evolution at the scale of molecules
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmologicalmodel for the earliest known periods of the universe and its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barbarian, you will have to define evolution very carefully, and include at least some reliable science authorities to back your claim....and stop this reference to strawman whatever that word means....you seem to picking and choosing evolution to suit yourself....with your own defintions....do you have a evolution website that we can go to source credible definitions, because I can't find one.

Instead of peddling all this straw, how about showing us something of substance?

I take that because you did not respond that you agree Satan and other human Intelligent Beings changed our DNA to many creatures using GMO techniques we modern science people are capable to doing today?
So than Evolution comes from human theories, Satanic agencies, all designed to spoil God's original handiwork. Why would God need time to make creatures or rocks or stars? How small do you think God is?
God is outside of time, space and matter...God can call into existence a trillion galaxies in a single day...and speak living kinds into existence, pre-programmed for variation.

Have you read my studies, I do show material from Scripture of substance. The Hebrew word "aven" for example is a Hebrew word for genetic expression. Read my studies.

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Maybe you will have to define your terms Barbarian....

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory is only about the way living populations change over time. It's not about the big bang (which wasn't an explosion, BTW), or the origin of life, or anything else.

Please define the term "evolution".

Change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Surely the term "evolution" has to encompass
Big Bang theory

Nope. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about that.

Stellar theory

Nope. Long, long after Darwin's theory, some astronomers call the changes we see in stars, "stellar evolution." But it's not about evolutionary theory.

Molecular theory

Nope. Molecular theory was around long before evolutionary theory.

Biological theory

Never heard of it. You might as well says "physics theory." There are many, many theories in both biology and physics.

to name a few....all these branches of science use the term evolution....

To head off any further confusion about technical uses of the term, let's use Darwin's term "descent with modification." We'll shorten it to "DWM." If you mean what scientists call "evolutionary theory", use that. If you mean something else, use that.

Barbarian, you will have to define evolution very carefully, and include at least some reliable science authorities to back your claim....

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions

1. 1.
   the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
   synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
   "his interest in evolution"
2. 2.
   the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+evolution&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

evolution

Subject: Science and technology
In biology, the genetic transformations of populations through time, resulting from genetic variation and the subsequent impact of the environment on rates of reproductive success.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/sear...volution'&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true

The frequencies of all the alleles of a given gene often are graphed together as an allele frequency distribution histogram, or allele frequency spectrum. Population genetics studies the different "forces" that might lead to changes in the distribution and frequencies of alleles—in other words, to evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele_frequency

Evolution, also known as descent with modification, is the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

and stop this reference to strawman whatever that word means....

Technically, what you did here is called "equivocation."

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Notice the dictionary entry, in which both the biological and the common use are listed separately. The equivocation is obvious.

you seem to picking and choosing evolution to suit yourself....with your own defintions....do you have a evolution website that we can go to source credible definitions, because I can't find one.

I got a lot more hits than that. Try google.

I take that because you did not respond that you agree Satan and other human Intelligent Beings changed our DNA to many creatures using GMO techniques we modern science people are capable to doing today?

Are you messing with me, now? Do you honestly believe that?

Why would God need time to make creatures or rocks or stars?

God exists outside of time. It doesn't limit him at all. How small do you think God is?

Have you read my studies, I do show material from Scripture of substance. The Hebrew word "aven" for example is a Hebrew word for genetic expression.

The ancient Hebrews knew about genes? Show us that.

 

[rthom7]

Your terms are contradictory Barbarian....
noun: evolution;

1. 1.
   the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
   
2. 2.
   the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form

You cited this definition Barbarian, yet it agrees with my definition? What do you think energy in the form of light beams forming into elements is Barbarian ? (definition of evolution (2) ?)
The Big Bang also comes under (definition of evolution (2) ?)

Your other definition is the same as creation science....genetic change causing changing to phenotype is applicable to both evolution science and creation science....

Evolution, also known as descent with modification, is the change in heritable phenotype traits of biological populations over successive generations

How is this definition any different to creation science ? Creation science says GOD designed kinds to make phenotype changes are desired to fill the habitats each creatures desires forming new species.

If fact this strange sentence you cite is known as phenotype breeding by selection, first published by Edvard Bligh, years before Darwin's Origin of Species.

We spent much time if you remember trying to get you to cite me a single example of any organism creating brand new genetic code within the DNA, not just a mutational change of a few codons, but a purposeful increase in specified complexity... what I call Aven Evolution...and you did not show me a single example...
and interestingly this request from me to you is beyond the definition of evolution according to your definition...

Changing allele frequency is not creating specified brand new genes of alleles is it ? You only re-arranging what genes are already there....

I am so glad you have narrowed down evolution to a biological concept only....so God created the universe in six literal days as the Bible says, with man living on the sixth day along with dinosaurs....I am so glad you agree Barbarian..... I am so glad the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution ...

You asked me to prove Ancient Semitic people were familiar with genes ?

During the 1990's, gold prospectors on the small river Narada, on the eastern side of the Ural mountains, have found unusual, mostly spiral-shaped objects. Some of the spirals are very small and precise, and made of metals such as Tungsten and Molybdenum, metals of very high melting points.

There are many human footprints with dinosaur prints like this one found in Dinosaur Valley State Park, along the Paluxy River in 2000, in Texas. Clearly man lived and existed alongside dinosaurs. This prints along with others show larger animals fleeing from the rising flood waters.

Ancient man were very smart.... The Inca Peru has carving of brain surgery and evidence of healing of their operations....

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Your terms are contradictory Barbarian....

Wrong. I'm just pointing out your equivocation on the various meanings of "evolution."

noun: evolution;

1. 1.
   the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
2. 2.
   the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form

Notice that biologists use the term as in (1).

You cited this definition Barbarian, yet it agrees with my definition?

Wrong. You merely conflated the two different meanings.

Technically, what you did here is called "equivocation."

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

What do you think energy in the form of light beams forming into elements is Barbarian ?

Physics, not evolution. As I said, if this confuses you, let's use Darwin's term, "Descent with modification" (DWM).

We spent much time if you remember trying to get you to cite me a single example of any organism creating brand new genetic code within the DNA

It's always amusing to watch creationists demand that scientists show them something that never happens in evolution. Evolution never makes anything from scratch; it's always a modification of something existing.

not just a mutational change of a few codons, but a purposeful increase in specified complexity..

If the evolution of a new digestive organ is not "specified complexity", then evolution doesn't need specified complexity.

and interestingly this request from me to you is beyond the definition of evolution according to your definition...

Changing allele frequency is not creating specified brand new genes of alleles is it ?

Evolution, as Darwn pointed out, only involves modification of existing things. Hence a brand-new spiral valve in those lizards is really the result of modifying the existing digestive tract.

I am so glad you have narrowed down evolution to a biological concept only....so God created the universe in six literal days as the Bible says, with man living on the sixth day along with dinosaurs

That is a modern revision of Genesis, invented in the early 1900s.

You asked me to prove Ancient Semitic people were familiar with genes ?

That was your claim.

During the 1990's, gold prospectors on the small river Narada, on the eastern side of the Ural mountains, have found unusual, mostly spiral-shaped objects. Some of the spirals are very small and precise, and made of metals such as Tungsten and Molybdenum, metals of very high melting points.

So, you don't have any evidence for your claim?

There are many human footprints with dinosaur prints like this one found in Dinosaur Valley State Park, along the Paluxy River in 2000, in Texas.

Those man-made "fossils" were debunked. Not by scientists, but by YE creationists from Loma Linda University. As one ICR official said, "we need people walking around in the middle of the flood, like we need a hole in the head."

But no sign that the Hebrews knew about genes.

 

[rthom7]

I am surprised Barbarian by your remarks, your always wanting to criticize but I am always trying to ask you for your theories of faith, and yet they are never forth coming....

I get your idea that Physics can develop and make an origin model of the Big Bang, that leaves out GOD. And this model is not evolution. OK. I take it that seeing you believe in God, that you don't believe in the Physics Big Bang origin of our universe ?

You also state that evolution is not about the development of brand new alleles, but the modification of existing organism genes. OK. So God developed all the kinds, and evolution took over from there ? Is that your belief?

It's very hard, near impossible to understand you because you do not define your terms or your theories of faith....so please succinctly summarize things for me...

Evidence the Hebrews knew the word "Gene"....OK the fact the word "gene" is written in Scripture is proof enough...is it not ? Sure you can dispute the fact the Hebrew may not have been doing GMO, but you can't dispute the Hebrew word, does not relate to genetic propensities leading to degradation of genetic potential.

My other evidence is the Hebrew word "kilayim" Strong's 3610. This word is used only twice.

Le 19:19 ¶ Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse "kilayim" kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled "kilayim" of linen and woollen "shatnez" come upon thee.
De 22:9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers "kilayim" seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts "shatnez", as of woollen and linen together.

Now these words are strange indeed....they are used in the context of breeding, so genetics is meant....
but the term can't be hybridization, because naturally breeding animals within their kinds was practiced in Hebrew times. The only clue is technology....weaving wool and linen together is a context of technology.....

Now I am not sure how smart you think pre-flood humans were...but it seems to me they were up to GMO technology....what else could this Hebrew word kilayim mean ?

SHalom

 

[Barbarian]

I am surprised Barbarian by your remarks, your always wanting to criticize but I am always trying to ask you for your theories of faith, and yet they are never forth coming....

I have no "theories of faith." That's a contradiction in terms. Theories are inferences from evidence, and subject to new evidence. Faith is the knowledge of God's love and care for us. If you'd like to know what we believe, try the Nicene Creed. It sums it up quite well.

I get your idea that Physics can develop and make an origin model of the Big Bang, that leaves out GOD.

Ironically, the theory was first advanced by a Catholic priest, and assailed by some atheists, because it implies God.

And this model is not evolution.

Right.

OK. I take it that seeing you believe in God, that you don't believe in the Physics Big Bang origin of our universe ?

Given that it's consistent with God, and that a number of predictions of the theory were later verified, I'm inclined to think it's true. Most people though, don't really know what it is. "Big Bang" is a misnomer, coined by an opponent of the theory.

You also state that evolution is not about the development of brand new alleles,

As i mentioned, new alleles produced by natural selection and mutation, are always made by modifying old genes.

So God developed all the kinds, and evolution took over from there ?

By mutation and natural selection. Evolution never "took over." It's just His way of doing it.

It's very hard, near impossible to understand you because you do not define your terms or your theories of faith....

If you have "theories of faith", you're not putting your trust in Him. Once you put your faith in Him it's absolute.

Evidence the Hebrews knew the word "Gene"....OK the fact the word "gene" is written in Scripture is proof enough...is it not ?

Show us that. You forgot to document where that is. A quick search on a Bible database pulls up nothing.

My other evidence is the Hebrew word "kilayim" Strong's 3610. This word is used only twice.

Kil'ayim (Hebrew: כלאים, lit. "Mixture" or "Confusion")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kil'ayim_(Talmud)

Now these words are strange indeed....they are used in the context of breeding, so genetics is meant....

Nope. Merely indication of mixed breeds. Breeding was known, long before anyone knew about genes. In fact, people assumed inheritance was like mixing paint, before Mendel showed it was like sorting beads.

but the term can't be hybridization, because naturally breeding animals within their kinds was practiced in Hebrew times. The only clue is technology....weaving wool and linen together is a context of technology.....

Or you could just look up what the word means. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian , thanks for the reply....

I have no "theories of faith." That's a contradiction in terms. Theories are inferences from evidence, and subject to new evidence. Faith is the knowledge of God's love and care for us.

LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.
2 Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child.

If you have no personal theories of faith, than your not reading Scripture to discover Jesus, the jewel, in it.
Should we not develop our own personal insights into Jesus?

Our belief in God is balanced between evidence and faith. Our evidence is called a theory because we only have some evidence. The phrase "theory of faith" is a perfect way to describe the Science of salvation

If you'd like to know what we believe, try the Nicene Creed. It sums it up quite well.

An organization cannot represent an individual in thought , unless of course you not allowed to think differently.....I asked a person once, he said I believe what my Church believes and my Church believes what I believes and we both believe the same thing...yet such circular logic is futile...

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm

Let's test your idea

Through him (Jesus) all things were made.

That's it, so how much evolution do you read from that? I don't read any...
It is a creation science creed as well...

Ironically, the theory (of the Big Bang) was first advanced by a Catholic priest, and assailed by some atheists, because it implies God.


Really ? Please let me read a link of the Catholic inventor of the Big Bang ?


By mutation and natural selection. Evolution never "took over." It's just His way of doing it.

So your saying GOD made the first organism and evolution developed all the rest of the organisms?
Within 24 hours of time? Each organism changed that rapidly ? What about when God took man from the dust of the ground and formed Him? No other animals were made that way ? Nothing to do with ape descent notions....Again Barbarian I ask you to tell me what you believe, and you never do.....what are you afraid of ?
It is absolutely ridiculous idea to think God used evolution at all....your talking about "aven evolution".... such a concept does not exist...read my studies...at least I am willing to write my own ideas onto paper....

If you have "theories of faith", you're not putting your trust in Him. Once you put your faith in Him it's absolute.

Trust = faith, your not reading my phrase.....faith is never absolute....science by definition says all ideas must be falsifiable , nothing is ever absolute, except GOD....and we do not know Him much....we see darkly....

Heb 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

If you truly had absolute faith and trust in GOD, all His power would flow through you, you would be kind for example with your words, you would walk in His ways.

Show us that. You forgot to document where that is. A quick search on a Bible database pulls up nothing.

I have already, you ever read my links?
http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1127.htm Creation science properly defined
http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1131.htm Study of kinds
http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1134.htm Study of genes
http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1120.htm Bacterial flagellum - a look at evolution

You never study Scripture using human studies or human database ? You study Scripture using Scripture with the Holy Spirit as your teacher? You want proof for that too ?

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1094.htm Be sure to read the link...

Kil'ayim (Hebrew: כלאים, lit. "Mixture" or "Confusion")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kil'ayim_(Talmud)

As I said your using humans to read Scripture.....
http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1094.htm Be sure to read the link...

Nope. Merely indication of mixed breeds. Breeding was known, long before anyone knew about genes. In fact, people assumed inheritance was like mixing paint, before Mendel showed it was like sorting beads.
You don't have to always answer Nope. You could have said, just because they knew about breeding does not mean they also knew about genetics. Actually genetics means breeding. Your just being difficult for no reason. The point is did they do breeding on a genetic level as Mendel discovered ?

(1) Where people before the flood smarter than we are today ?
(2) Genetically they had less generational mutations to contend with...
(3) They lived longer than we do, had more size, physical strength and intelligent.

Only since the flood science has regained what we have lost....so I think they knew about GMO, and about genetic breeding....



Or you could just look up what the word means. It doesn't mean what you think it does

You see, you did not discuss my presentation of my argument....in my previous post regarding kilayim
Why is that ? It's a poor science person to just say nothing, as you have done....

So with detailed analysis, what do you think Kilayim means Barbarian ?

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I have no "theories of faith." That's a contradiction in terms. Theories are inferences from evidence, and subject to new evidence. Faith is the knowledge of God's love and care for us.

If you have no personal theories of faith, than your not reading Scripture to discover Jesus, the jewel, in it.

You don't read the Bible like a scientist mining data or a lawyer looking for loopholes. You read it prayerfully, in faith. If you want to get anything out of it.

Should we not develop our own personal insights into Jesus?

Why not just talk to Him, and then listen? He'll give you what you need.

Our belief in God is balanced between evidence and faith. Our evidence is called a theory because we only have some evidence. The phrase "theory of faith" is a perfect way to describe the Science of salvation

You have too much faith in science and not enough in God. Science is a very limited method, only able to help us understand the natural world.

If you'd like to know what we believe, try the Nicene Creed. It sums it up quite well.

An organization cannot represent an individual in thought

The Nicene Creed simply sums up what Christians believe.

Through him (Jesus) all things were made.

If you'll go that far, why not go all the way and accept the way He did it as well?

That's it, so how much evolution do you read from that?

I don't read any protons or nuclear fusion or gravitation or genetics in it, either. Do you have a point?

Barbarian observes:
Ironically, the theory (of the Big Bang) was first advanced by a Catholic priest, and assailed by some atheists, because it implies God.

Really ?

Yep:
Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Jesuit priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the French section of the Catholic University of Leuven. He was the first known academic to propose the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Barbarian observes:
By mutation and natural selection. Evolution never "took over." It's just His way of doing it.

So your saying GOD made the first organism and evolution developed all the rest of the organisms?

No. God did all of it. He uses nature for most things He does in this world.

Within 24 hours of time?

Young Earth Creationism is a very modern revision of God's word. At the beginning of the 20th century, most creationists were aware of a very ancient world.

What about when God took man from the dust of the ground and formed Him? No other animals were made that way ?

All animals, according to the Bible were brought forth from the Earth. We are created in body as all animals are. But we are given a soul immediately by God, and that, as the Bible says, makes all the difference.

Nothing to do with ape descent notions....Again Barbarian I ask you to tell me what you believe, and you never do.....what are you afraid of ?

I've continuously told you. For some reason, the Nicene Creed, which for nearly 2000 years has defined what we believe, scares you. I don't understand why.

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

This is what we believe. Do you believe it?

It is absolutely ridiculous idea to think God used evolution at all....

Comes down to evidence. And that settles it.

Barbarian observes:
If you have "theories of faith", you're not putting your trust in Him. Once you put your faith in Him it's absolute.

If you truly had absolute faith and trust in GOD, all His power would flow through you, you would be kind for example with your words, you would walk in His ways.

None of us can do that perfectly, but we are called to approach perfection as best we can. Trust Him, not cleverness, or new interpretations of His word.

Barbarian suggests, regarding the Hebrews knowing about genes:
Show us that. You forgot to document where that is. A quick search on a Bible database pulls up nothing.

I have already, you ever read my links?

Sorry, nothing there. Just cite in the Bible where it speaks of genes. Shouldn't be that hard for you. The word you mentioned, is not about genes:

Kil'ayim (Hebrew: כלאים, lit. "Mixture" or "Confusion")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kil'ayim_(Talmud)

Nope. Merely indication of mixed breeds. Breeding was known, long before anyone knew about genes. In fact, people assumed inheritance was like mixing paint, before Mendel showed it was like sorting beads.

You don't have to always answer Nope. You could have said, just because they knew about breeding does not mean they also knew about genetics. Actually genetics means breeding.

No, it doesn't. People were breeding animals thousands of years before anyone knew about genes.

The point is did they do breeding on a genetic level as Mendel discovered ?

No, they were breeding on a phenotypic level. Until recently, it was impossible to do otherwise.

1) Where people before the flood smarter than we are today ?

We have no evidence for that.

(2) Genetically they had less generational mutations to contend with...

No evidence for that, either. Neandertal DNA seems to have about the same amount of non-coding, and allele distribution that we do.

(3) They lived longer than we do,

Actually, they had slightly shorter lives than we do, and the Bible says "three score and ten", which is less than most modern societies expect.

had more size, physical strength

Oldest known humans are slightly shorter than most modern humans, but there were exceptions.

and intelligent.

Show us that.

Only since the flood science has regained what we have lost....so I think they knew about GMO, and about genetic breeding....

I see you believe it. But you seem to have no evidence to support it.

Barbarian suggests:
Or you could just look up what the word means. It doesn't mean what you think it does

You see, you did not discuss my presentation of my argument....in my previous post regarding kilayim

I find scholarly sources more convincing than your claim.

It's a poor science person to just say nothing, as you have done....

Guess how I know you don't have a degree in science.

So with detailed analysis, what do you think Kilayim means Barbarian ?

KIL'AYIM ("Of Two Sorts"; "Heterogeneous"):


Name of a treatise of the Mishnah, Tosefta, and the Palestinian Talmud. It belongs to the order Zera'im, and deals with the exact definition of the Pentateuchal prohibitions (Lev. xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 9-11) which forbid the mingling of different kinds of seeds and vegetables, the pairing of different kinds of animals, the mixture of wool and flax in the same garment, etc.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian says: "Comes down to evidence. And that settles it."

We worship a supernatural God that created everything supernaturally to say other wise is to bring him down to our natural man way of thinking..

There isn't any evidence.. and that settles it..

tob

*edit: forgot this comment from Charles Spurgeon..

The great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his sermon ‘Hideous Discovery’, preached on July 25, 1886, made the following comment on evolution:

‘In its bearing upon religion this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter: this is not the time for soft speaking.’

http://creation.com/spurgeon-on-evolution

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian says: "Comes down to evidence. And that settles it."

We worship a supernatural God that created everything supernaturally

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.

God says that nature produced living things as He intended. To deny this is to bring him down to our natural man way of thinking..

The great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his sermon number 30, says:
But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “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.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.

Long before the new religion of YE creationism was invented, Christians knew that the "days" in Genesis were not literal 24 hour days.

And Spurgeon was objecting (quite properly) to the notion that science might overrule theology, or change theology:

According to this evolution doctrine, as applied to theology, the new birth is a development of that which is naturally within the heart. I hope we may be spared such births and evolutions!
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols31-33/chs1911.pdf
(My emphasis)

Spurgeon didn't quite know what to make of evolution, and was fixated on his personal interpretation of Genesis, but what got him wound up on this one was the idea that regeneration might be a natural process in man. His fear, as you see, was that science would somehow overcome faith.

A foolish notion, which failed to materialize as much as his prediction that evolution would be tossed aside in 50 years.

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian, thanks for the reply...

I have no "theories of faith." That's a contradiction in terms. Theories are inferences from evidence, and subject to new evidence. Faith is the knowledge of God's love and care for us.



Yes the term is a contradiction in terms, but so is God dwelling with sinners upholding a dying world.
Do we not gleam ever new and refresh angles of our theories of faith, changing our theories of evidence slightly as we discover more about the science of salvation?

None of us can do that perfectly, but we are called to approach perfection as best we can. Trust Him, not cleverness, or new interpretations of His word

Therefore our faith is less than absolute, thus its a theoretical faith isn't it?

When Edison invented electric light, his theory of faith prevailed in testing thousands of metals until one test worked. Did he find the perfect artificial light? no, but He did find sufficient faith in his theory to succeed. When we use electricity we do so by a theory of faith. We hope the power does good things for us but we never fully understand the power we are using.


You don't read the Bible like a scientist mining data or a lawyer looking for loopholes. You read it prayerfully, in faith. If you want to get anything out of it.

Correct.

Why not just talk to Him, and then listen? He'll give you what you need.

Yes. However do you understand the science of salvation Barbarian? Do you have all the requirements of daily receiving power from God listed in chronological order in the correct order found in one passage of the Bible ? If you do not have this evidence, how can you claim to be saved daily by God?



You have too much faith in science and not enough in God. Science is a very limited method, only able to help us understand the natural world.

The Bible has a word for science. It is called "knowledge" in the NT.

2Pe 1:5 ¶ And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
So after faith we add science.
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
We are to avoid knowledge outside of the Bible, false science, especially if such knowledge ridicules the Bible science.

Da 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science,

The OT also has a word for science

2Ch 1:10 Give me now wisdom and knowledge,
Solomon prayed for wisdom and science

So believers are required to gain Bible knowledge or science....




I don't read any protons or nuclear fusion or gravitation or genetics in it, either. Do you have a point?
Yes. The Nicene Creed does not use the word evolution.


Barbarian observes:
By mutation and natural selection. Evolution never "took over." It's just His way of doing it.
God did all of it. He uses nature for most things He does in this world.

So if all things were made by Jesus, why did He need evolution anyway? I do not follow you. Science says materialism and naturalism created all the variation we see today, they call this process evolution.
It leaves out God and replaces things with millions of years. Thus evolution does not respect Jesus at all.

Young Earth Creationism is a very modern revision of God's word. At the beginning of the 20th century, most creationists were aware of a very ancient world.

The Bible says creation took place in 24 hour periods of time. Nothing can dispute that...its a recorded Hebrew statement using, "yom". Most believers prior to evolution theory were young earth creationists.

This is what we believe. Do you believe it?
I believe in Bible only. The only assembly "church" identified in Scripture is a Hebrew one. We are all required to be grafted into Hebrew assemblies. The word Hebrew does not mean Jewish.
Hope that helps.


People were breeding animals thousands of years before anyone knew about genes.

maybe that is true.

I will stop here for now, the discussion is fragmenting too much.
Shalom

 

[Free]

Yes the term is a contradiction in terms, but so is God dwelling with sinners upholding a dying world.
Do we not gleam ever new and refresh angles of our theories of faith, changing our theories of evidence slightly as we discover more about the science of salvation?
...
Yes. However do you understand the science of salvation Barbarian? Do you have all the requirements of daily receiving power from God listed in chronological order in the correct order found in one passage of the Bible ? If you do not have this evidence, how can you claim to be saved daily by God?

Where in the Bible is the phrase "science of salvation" found?

The Bible has a word for science. It is called "knowledge" in the NT.

2Pe 1:5 ¶ And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
So after faith we add science.
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
We are to avoid knowledge outside of the Bible, false science, especially if such knowledge ridicules the Bible science.

Da 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science,

The OT also has a word for science

2Ch 1:10 Give me now wisdom and knowledge,
Solomon prayed for wisdom and science

So believers are required to gain Bible knowledge or science....

Firstly, to equate "knowledge" with "science" is a serious error. Secondly, if you're suggesting that the Bible says we should seek either knowledge of the Bible or science, and not both, that is also a serious error, a false dichotomy.

Yes. The Nicene Creed does not use the word evolution.

And how is that relevant?

Barbarian observes:
By mutation and natural selection. Evolution never "took over." It's just His way of doing it.
God did all of it. He uses nature for most things He does in this world.

So if all things were made by Jesus, why did He need evolution anyway? I do not follow you. Science says materialism and naturalism created all the variation we see today, they call this process evolution.
It leaves out God and replaces things with millions of years. Thus evolution does not respect Jesus at all.

How so? You seem to be making the common error of putting evolution and God in the same category, as though they are polar opposites that one must choose between. But God is an intelligent agent and evolution is a process--different categories. Intelligent agents use processes.

Young Earth Creationism is a very modern revision of God's word. At the beginning of the 20th century, most creationists were aware of a very ancient world.

The Bible says creation took place in 24 hour periods of time. Nothing can dispute that...its a recorded Hebrew statement using, "yom".

Firstly, yom has more than one meaning, including an indeterminate period of time. Secondly, there are some very Godly scholars and theologians who disagree with the idea that "The Bible says creation took place in 24 hour periods of time."

To sum then, we must be very careful to not make Scripture say more than it does, to make it say things it doesn't. The Bible simply does not say how old the earth is or give the exact details of how God created everything, what processes he may have used.

 

[Barbarian]

When Edison invented electric light, his theory of faith prevailed in testing thousands of metals until one test worked.

Actually, he didn't invent electric light. He didn't invent the incandescent electric light. He didn't even get the first patent for a practical incandescent light. But he had no use for faith. He needed data.


Why not just talk to Him, and then listen? He'll give you what you need.

Barbarian observes:
By mutation and natural selection. Evolution never "took over." It's just His way of doing it.
God did all of it. He uses nature for most things He does in this world.

So if all things were made by Jesus, why did He need evolution anyway?

He didn't need any particular way. It's just the one He chose. It happens to be more elegant in operation than tinkering or design.

I do not follow you. Science says materialism and naturalism created all the variation we see today, they call this process evolution.

For us, it's the way God did it.

Young Earth Creationism is a very modern revision of God's word. At the beginning of the 20th century, most creationists were aware of a very ancient world.

The Bible says creation took place in 24 hour periods of time.

No, it doesn't. Go and look. "Yom" can mean a variety of things, not necessarily a day, much less a 24-hour day.

Most believers prior to evolution theory were young earth creationists.

No, that's wrong. For example, Spurgeon accepted millions of years. The creationism presented at the Scopes trial was Old Earth. Young Earth is a very new doctrine.

(The Nicene Creed) is what we believe. Do you believe it?

I believe in Bible only.

That seems inconsistent with your adding "24 hours" and "genes" to scripture.

 

[turnorburn]

Everything is supernatural in Gods kingdom, for him to do anything natural is out of character, as he demonstrated the entire time he walked with us some 2000 years ago, we could start with water to wine and finish with Lazarus instantly coming alive when Jesus spoke the words Lazarus come forth.. The problem lies in the inability of the natural man to understand the things of God.. for they are spiritually discerned..

Lessons begin in Genesis 1:1

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Everything is supernatural in Gods kingdom, for him to do anything natural is out of character,

Obviously not, since we have His own words testifying that He used nature to make living things.

as he demonstrated the entire time he walked with us some 2000 years ago, we could start with water to wine and finish with Lazarus instantly coming alive when Jesus spoke the words Lazarus come forth.

God doesn't have to use miracles to get things done. Miracles are done to teach us something, not a necessity on God's part.

 

[rthom7]

Free,

welcome to discussing things. First let us limit the questions so things can be kept simple.


Firstly, to equate "knowledge" with "science" is a serious error.
Why is equating "science" with "knowledge" a serious error ?

Isn't that what secular science does? to discover knowledge, use knowledge appropriately (wisdom) and apply such knowledge into technical applications (engineering) ?

Isn't that what spiritual science does? to discover knowledge about Jesus or His Creation, use knowledge appropriately (moral wisdom) and apply such knowledge into technical applications (salvation) ?

You seem to be making the common error of putting evolution and God in the same category, as though they are polar opposites that one must choose between. But God is an intelligent agent and evolution is a process--different categories. Intelligent agents use processes.

I see, Free. So why do non-believers use evolution? Does that not conflict with a believer who also uses evolution? Aren't non-believers allowed to have their own beliefs and their own religion? So why would a believer want to use some of their words as if its OK for believers to use ? Would they not confuse one's religion? Maybe I am wrong, but prove to me "evolution" is NOT a "Religious term", or at least have "religious implications" , we would have to ask a Naturalist religious person or an atheist religious person.
I know science people use "evolution" a lot, most do not believe in God, and are "Naturalists" , is this a religion? And so is "evolution" a religious term. That would be the first question that really needs answering. And I don't have the answers I am afraid....so I am asking you.



Firstly, yom has more than one meaning, including an indeterminate period of time. Secondly, there are some very Godly scholars and theologians who disagree with the idea that "The Bible says creation took place in 24 hour periods of time."

I receive my scholarship from Gerald Schroeder on the accuracy of the word yom. He is a Jewish professor and uses only ancient commentary from respected Rabbi on the Hebrew meaning of words.
A simple way to allow me to agree with you, is show me some Bible contexts where yom does not mean a day.


To sum then, we must be very careful to not make Scripture say more than it does nor to make it say things it doesn't. The Bible simply does not say how old the earth is or give the exact details of how God created everything, what processes he may have used.

Yes I agree. My information only comes from Scripture. Some may differ on how Hebrew is interpreted?