Posted on 04/04/2009 10:51:32 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, most who believe these words cannot answer the questions raised by the thousands of fossils that archeologist's have dug up and claim are millions of years old. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...
Stop trying to make sense on these type of threads. LOL
Please explain it to us hillbillies. We'd like to know.
>>You’ll be waiting a long for an apology.
I am not surprised. People caught in lies rarely recant.
>>I’ve proved you proof of my OP. Whether you wish to pursue it is not my problem.
You provided a verified list of 10,000 scientists and thir quals who have publicly and verifiability provided their support for Creationism and away from TToE? Wow, if I missed it, I am sorry. Which post # was that? If it isn’t wiki, I’ll be happy to examine it.
Are you OneVike?
So you confess to having a profane point of view and accuse the other poster of it. Well Dang??
There are lots of things we share more DNA with than Monkeys/apes.
Dolphin may even be higher on the list than a snake. I’d have to look it up again.
wouldn’t the designer of all use many of the same tools when creating his masterpieces?
“Please explain it to us hillbillies. We’d like to know.”
You people really don’t understand forensics do you? You posed the question. It shows you don’t know anything about anthropology. Why is it my job to teach you in a thread what experts spend a lifetime to learn?
Are you ready to expound on 2VL vs 3VL? How about John Nash’s foundation theories of casino principles? Do quantum particles really move in time? If so, what causes them? What causes gravity?
The fact you don’t know is not relevant. The fact you won’t admit you don’t know is a much bigger problem.
Why is it people think they can opine on a technical subject of which they have no knowledge because they have formulated an opinion in camera?
Until you can answer my other questions, you really aren’t qualified to ask your questions. If you do, I’ll be happy to educate you — but it will be years in the making.
>>
Really? Creation says that without God there would be nothing. Evolution says...God? Who’s that? We don’t need no stinkin’ god!
No — it days that it is impossible to put God in the scientific framework. Unless you know a way that eludes science...?
God is not irrelevant — just external to the measurement process.
>>l. Only to those who seem to have a psychological aversion to the concept. If fact it is rejecting anything that doesn’t fit the TTOE scheme that would hinder progress.
Still waiting for you to prove your OP (or provde the Post # where you do). And still waiting for a single scientific publication that gainsays TToE.
Yea, because, nothing exploded and made everything, right? Seems to me an even further leap of faith than to believe at least SOMETHING made the explosion that made everything in an obviously ordered and purposeful way, rather than everything happening randomly by accident against all odds billions of times over.
How many people do you know have taken a shovel full of earth and thrown it up in the air, and down came a Mercedes? How many neighbors got Ferrari's? Has to happen, the odds of TTOE says it does.
Sure, in a general discussion about day and night you are correct. The word can take on various meanings.
However, if you confine yourself to the passage being discussed, Genesis 1, in order to discuss these particular events you will find that ver. 5 defines the first day as that in which the separation of light and darkness occurred, implying a span of 24 hours since it does not mention a series of separations of light and darkness...just one.
Thereafter in the passage the same standard can be applied since ...ex: ver. 8..."and there was evening and there was morning the second day" which points in the same way to another 24 hour period.
One can attempt to read between the lines and look at different ways "day" is used in other cultures and at other times, but to look simply and "scientifically" at the evidence before us here it seems the passage is fairly clear.
It's always necessary when one hears the term "Evolution" to ask, what does the person mean by this term? If one argues that a process of change accounts for much or most of the biological world, that is something that could be harmonized with the concept of a creating God. However Darwinian Evolution cannot be harmonized with the concept of a creating God, because by it's definition, things happen by chance rather than by intention or intelligent direction. If it is not an impersonal, undirected process, then it is not Darwinian Evolution.
>> If death was around before Adam sinned then death did not enter with sin. Thus we do not need Christ to ever come death.
Far be it from me to defend evolution (as I am not sure I completely buy it myself, I simply admit that it is a possibility). I’m no scientist or theologian. But, I think you made a theological leap there.
It seems to me that “evolutionary death” preceding the first human would be the death of animals prior to their “evolution” into sentient humans. The sin of the first sentient human (Adam) brought death on mankind from its inception — but I don’t see why the death of non-humans prior to the first man would be contrary to Biblical teachings in that respect.
In addition, God would certainly forsee the sin of Adam — and thus could’ve built the death of man into the “laws of nature”. Bit of a predestination paradox — chicken or egg? Did God created human death upon Adam sinning, or did He predetermine human death knowing that Adam would sin? Either way, it would seem to fit with death being the wages of sin (Romans).
>> God said it is good when he created. Evolution needs death decay and destruction to work. Where is the good in that.
Sometimes “good” can come from that which appears bad, like death. For instance, we often derive good from the death of animals (through the consumption of meat). Why would it be intrinsically “not good” to derive evolutionary benefit from the death of animals?
>> My God is very big, he created the very laws of nature we live with. he could if he so pleases, and will someday change them again.
Perhaps He will. Perhaps not. Perhaps the laws of Nature’s God have already built-in all that He needs.
SnakeDoc
Good thing you aren't a scientist. You'd still be clubbing animals to death and eating them raw.
You got me there. I’m an engineer. That means I evaluate data and make things work NOW. I don’t look at a jawbone and make exaggerated theories about how some person lived 10,000 years ago.
If this is all so complicated that only a PhD in anthropology can even discuss it, then why are you here? Let us have our uneducated fantasies, while you sit in your ivory tower smirking at us. You act like you are here to educate us, but when asked for specifics you insult us for not spending a lifetime learning a relatively useless science.
It doesn’t hurt you that we are ignorant, and it doesn’t hurt us either. Belief in evolution has absolutely no effect on anyone’s life, but a belief in God does.
You just can’t grasp the concept that God is everywhere, everything. He is the very law that keeps us from spinning out of control and crashing into the sun- until he removes himself from upholding the laws he created, and also follows for your sake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.