- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 22 2007,02:10) Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 21 2007,08:58) Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 21 2007,14:22) Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 20 2007,20:48) Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 21 2007,04:34) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2007,04:00) That's 5 for, not 3! I know, I'm spinning the results as much as I can. I think A4J and I voted for, but I don't think Towshab has – no “yes” votes have appeared since he has. That leaves three dark horses here who know the truth!
Stuart
.
So what do you believe? Do you believe that Jesus was the Christ?
??
What does this have to do with evolution?Anyway, I am still looking into scripture to define for my life who Yeshua is. Christ — like Messiah — means “anointed”. So is he “the Christ”? The bible says so. Now I must determine what the Tanach says about him.
Quote Actually I voted “yes” some time back. The reason I did so was that I believe in microevolution therefore not throwing out the whole concept. I believe that God created the universe and also created organisms with the ability to adapt to their environment in order to survive. There is too much evidence to deny microevolution IMHO. Why would God want to create something He constantly had to redefine over time? I believe He did it right the first time So the seed was planted a while back. And now has sprouted
I've always believed in microevolution. I am 40 years old and have never doubted that God made life with the ability to adapt and survive. Its part of the beauty and awesomeness of life itself.
Have you ever heard life begins at forty?
Besides forty is not old…”If you are a tree”!
Why evolution attracts people:
2 TIMOTHY 4:3-4
“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.”Although evolution if usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind's selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in evolution say that they also believe in God.
However, they feel free to think of God as one who has not created things, does not intervene in man's affairs, and will not judge people. It is a creed that tickles people's ears.
Teachers of evolution are often motivated not by the facts, but by “their own desires,” perhaps a desire to be accepted by other scientists or the science community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine.There is no publication in the science holy books anywhere that explains how molecular evolution of any real biochemical system did occur. It is ALL BASED ON FAITH. Faith that there is no god, and that they are therefore not accountable for their actions.
Many well respected scientists just don't WANT their to be anything out there, beyond nature. The scientists are the gods of this world, (the “mighty ones,” the ones with the so called knowledge. But if it turns out they are wrong, then what happens to their position? Everyone knows how important position and prominence are. I believe that to be accepted by their peers, they must accept the orthodox doctrine of evolution–their holy grail, their “trinity doctrine.” If you do not accept this doctrine, you are not a true scientist, how could you be? So, what choice to any of them have, but to go on, perpetuating the idea of their faith, that there is evidence out there that molecular evolution happened, waiting to be found and understood, that their is a reason why the universe suddenly popped into being, and that those pictures of the horses with one extra toe really do prove evolution.The doctrine of evolution attracts many clergyman who want to appear wise. They are similar to those described in the apostle Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome:
ROMANS 1:19-22
“What may be known about God is manifest among them. . .His invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish”The question, I suppose, is how can we avoid being deceived by false teachers?
First, I think it's important that we demand evidence.The Bible writer David wrote:
PSALM 139:14
“I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Besides the amazing design of our own bodies, we can consider the mathematical precision and order of our universe. David wrote:
PSALM 19:1
“The heavens are declaring the glory of God; And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.”People have been studying the heavens for thousands of years. Half a century ago, they finally figured out the Bible truth of Gen 1:1: The universe had a beginning.
One day, I'm confident science will again catch up with the what else that scripture says: God was the one responsible for that beginning.david
Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 22 2007,02:42) So the seed was planted a while back. And now has sprouted
Quote kevin I've always believed in microevolution. I am 40 years old and have never doubted that God made life with the ability to adapt and survive. Its part of the beauty and awesomeness of life itself.[/quote]
quoteHave you ever heard life begins at forty? Besides forty is not old…”If you are a tree”!
[/quote]Lol yer 40… is a revelation.. Like the fourth trumpet that sounds..finally, now can you hear the voices of lightning from the other three trumpets behind ya
The Feast of Trumpet is near, I belief. It will sound before we know it. Watch and be ready. Love God with all of your Heart and your neighbor as thyself.
Peace and Love Mrs.
The 4 forces of nature are fine tuned. They seem set at the only numbers they could be. (If the strong nuclear force or weak nuclear force or gravity or the electromagnetic force were changed, life in this universe could not exist. The universe itself could not exist.) How do we account for this?
Hi David
Quote Although evolution if usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. Yawn.
Quote It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Sleepy!….
Quote Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind's selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in evolution say that they also believe in God. Haven’t you found any interesting or original fundamentalist tracts to download? No, I guess there probably aren’t any.
Quote However, they feel free to think of God as one who has not created things, does not intervene in man's affairs, and will not judge people. Or isn’t even there…
Quote Teachers of evolution are often motivated not by the facts, but by “their own desires,” perhaps a desire to be accepted by other scientists or the science community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
Quote There is no publication in the science holy books anywhere that explains how molecular evolution of any real biochemical system did occur. It is ALL BASED ON FAITH. Faith that there is no god, and that they are therefore not accountable for their actions. More lies. Go on! Sue me for libel, creationists! Or am I right?
{Snipped a really tedious bit…}
Quote One day, I'm confident science will again catch up with the what else that scripture says: God was the one responsible for that beginning. Although those proposing it really will have to actually come up with an actual Theory of Divine Creation.
Which they wont. ‘Cause there isn’t one.Stuart
Hi David
Quote The 4 forces of nature are fine tuned. They seem set at the only numbers they could be. (If the strong nuclear force or weak nuclear force or gravity or the electromagnetic force were changed, life in this universe could not exist. The universe itself could not exist.) How do we account for this? “Seem set at…”? To whom do they seem set? I am glad to see that you are arguing against the creationist argument for a recent change in the speed of light. I presume you have not been careless enough to make that argument elsewhere?!
Stuart
Forgetting the Bible for a moment…….
Would you consider that “God” (read: a higher power but nevertheless a being), started evolution rolling?
Hi kejonn
Your post makes an interesting read.
Quote Yes. But I meant people killing other people. Obviously that is typically not done as a matter of survival but because of many other reasons: hatred, fear, lack of respect for life, hunger for power, etc. Surely the emotions involved with these are not advantageous to the survival of humans.
You must remember that a lot of behaviour is a byproduct of the operation of genes that have an advantage in a different situation to the one imagined. Another factor in humans killing other humans is that often it is poor communication between the reptilian brain and the “human” neocortex that allows people to act “in the heat of the moment”, before they have time to think on a human level about the consequences. Most domestic homocides fall into this category. You only need to look at the behaviour of many reptile species towards their newly hatched offspring (indifference, abandonment or you better run away before the parents eat you!) to see how that part of the human brain works.Quote …the combination of what we are makes us the top. Its somewhat like a sports team: who will likely win, a team made up of average players or a team of poor players with one star? So while we are not the fastest we have high endurance. We cannot fly but we walk upright. We cannot make our own food but we know how to get food (the store ). As you said it is our intelligence that allows us to do this while the other organisms need certain other aspects to aid in their survival.
I’m not convinced that this makes us “the top”. In evolutionary terms there is no such thing.Quote … we have an average lifespan that exceeds any other time in history. Unless you count the time before the flood . Archaeological records indicate that at the time of Yeshua in the first century 30 years old was getting very close to old age. People then did not live much past 40 unless they were well-to-do and could afford the best of things. So even though some reduce their potential lifespan through various lifestyle choices overall we are living longer.
The same archeological record says the same thing long into the past. I wouldn’t put too much store in the myth about humans living many hundreds of years. The evidence in the soil and in our genes destroys that idea.Quote I had a theory one time that if people would have never made homosexuality a taboo, it would eventually eliminate itself. After all, people try to say it is a genetic thing (perhaps?) so it seems quite obvious that gay people cannot reproduce. Thus there would have been less “cover up” marriages where a homosexual married and had children to hide their sexuality. Since a gay couple would not be passing on the gene that led to such sexual tendencies — unless they used an artificial insemination method — it would eventually become much rarer and may perhaps be eliminated altogether. But people called me weird for thing such things. Oh well.
The fact that a person can be a carrier of a gene without it being expressed (because you have two copies and only one is used) also explains why life-threatening genetic conditions persist. Cystic fibrosis is an example, where only an individual unlucky enough to inherit two CF genes, one from each parent, will actually suffer the disease. The number of carriers of one defective copy is relatively high and will probably remain so, compared to the number of people who actually get the disease.Homosexuality is more complex than a simple monohybrid genetic cross would explain. Other factors appear to be important too, such as a mother’s immune response to the foetus, the degree of masculinisation of the (male) brain (and the female equivalent of this) and birth order of siblings. These factors in turn may be influenced by other genetic factors. of course different versions of the same factors produce heterosexuality, too.
Stuart
Quote (Not3in1 @ Nov. 22 2007,19:38) Forgetting the Bible for a moment……. Would you consider that “God” (read: a higher power but nevertheless a being), started evolution rolling?
Hi Not3in1I don't see the point of a deist god, except in the sense of representing in a non-being but an artistic concept, our awe at the beauty we see in the universe and its properties, an idea about which I agree with Einstein and Dawkins.
There is no really satisfactory explanation of abiogenesis, the event(s) that began the chain of evolutionary events that led to us, but that does not mean you need to have a god-of-the-gaps to explain the initial puzzle. Such gods tend to shrink very quickly as the years go by.
Stuart
Quote Forgetting the Bible for a moment……. Would you consider that “God” (read: a higher power but nevertheless a being), started evolution rolling?
Evolution isn't compatible with the Bible. Would you like me to explain?
Quote (david @ Nov. 22 2007,09:05) Why evolution attracts people: 2 TIMOTHY 4:3-4
“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.”Although evolution if usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind's selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in evolution say that they also believe in God.
However, they feel free to think of God as one who has not created things, does not intervene in man's affairs, and will not judge people. It is a creed that tickles people's ears.
Teachers of evolution are often motivated not by the facts, but by “their own desires,” perhaps a desire to be accepted by other scientists or the science community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine.There is no publication in the science holy books anywhere that explains how molecular evolution of any real biochemical system did occur. It is ALL BASED ON FAITH. Faith that there is no god, and that they are therefore not accountable for their actions.
Many well respected scientists just don't WANT their to be anything out there, beyond nature. The scientists are the gods of this world, (the “mighty ones,” the ones with the so called knowledge. But if it turns out they are wrong, then what happens to their position? Everyone knows how important position and prominence are. I believe that to be accepted by their peers, they must accept the orthodox doctrine of evolution–their holy grail, their “trinity doctrine.” If you do not accept this doctrine, you are not a true scientist, how could you be? So, what choice to any of them have, but to go on, perpetuating the idea of their faith, that there is evidence out there that molecular evolution happened, waiting to be found and understood, that their is a reason why the universe suddenly popped into being, and that those pictures of the horses with one extra toe really do prove evolution.The doctrine of evolution attracts many clergyman who want to appear wise. They are similar to those described in the apostle Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome:
ROMANS 1:19-22
“What may be known about God is manifest among them. . .His invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish”The question, I suppose, is how can we avoid being deceived by false teachers?
First, I think it's important that we demand evidence.The Bible writer David wrote:
PSALM 139:14
“I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Besides the amazing design of our own bodies, we can consider the mathematical precision and order of our universe. David wrote:
PSALM 19:1
“The heavens are declaring the glory of God; And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.”People have been studying the heavens for thousands of years. Half a century ago, they finally figured out the Bible truth of Gen 1:1: The universe had a beginning.
One day, I'm confident science will again catch up with the what else that scripture says: God was the one responsible for that beginning.david
This will help with understanding Stuart. It's the system he's trapped in.Quote (Stu @ Nov. 22 2007,20:36) There is no really satisfactory explanation of abiogenesis, the event(s) that began the chain of evolutionary events that led to us, but that does not mean you need to have a god-of-the-gaps to explain the initial puzzle.
Sure, it doesn't mean that we have to have a god-of-the-gaps theory to explain how it all began, but this line of reasoning doesn't rule it out either. Am I correct that it leaves both as possibilities?Quote (david @ Nov. 23 2007,13:22) Quote Forgetting the Bible for a moment……. Would you consider that “God” (read: a higher power but nevertheless a being), started evolution rolling?
Evolution isn't compatible with the Bible. Would you like me to explain?
No, thank you.Quote (david @ Nov. 23 2007,13:23) Quote (david @ Nov. 22 2007,09:05) Why evolution attracts people: 2 TIMOTHY 4:3-4
“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.”Although evolution if usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind's selfish, independent tendencies. Many who believe in evolution say that they also believe in God.
However, they feel free to think of God as one who has not created things, does not intervene in man's affairs, and will not judge people. It is a creed that tickles people's ears.
Teachers of evolution are often motivated not by the facts, but by “their own desires,” perhaps a desire to be accepted by other scientists or the science community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine.There is no publication in the science holy books anywhere that explains how molecular evolution of any real biochemical system did occur. It is ALL BASED ON FAITH. Faith that there is no god, and that they are therefore not accountable for their actions.
Many well respected scientists just don't WANT their to be anything out there, beyond nature. The scientists are the gods of this world, (the “mighty ones,” the ones with the so called knowledge. But if it turns out they are wrong, then what happens to their position? Everyone knows how important position and prominence are. I believe that to be accepted by their peers, they must accept the orthodox doctrine of evolution–their holy grail, their “trinity doctrine.” If you do not accept this doctrine, you are not a true scientist, how could you be? So, what choice to any of them have, but to go on, perpetuating the idea of their faith, that there is evidence out there that molecular evolution happened, waiting to be found and understood, that their is a reason why the universe suddenly popped into being, and that those pictures of the horses with one extra toe really do prove evolution.The doctrine of evolution attracts many clergyman who want to appear wise. They are similar to those described in the apostle Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome:
ROMANS 1:19-22
“What may be known about God is manifest among them. . .His invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish”The question, I suppose, is how can we avoid being deceived by false teachers?
First, I think it's important that we demand evidence.The Bible writer David wrote:
PSALM 139:14
“I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Besides the amazing design of our own bodies, we can consider the mathematical precision and order of our universe. David wrote:
PSALM 19:1
“The heavens are declaring the glory of God; And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.”People have been studying the heavens for thousands of years. Half a century ago, they finally figured out the Bible truth of Gen 1:1: The universe had a beginning.
One day, I'm confident science will again catch up with the what else that scripture says: God was the one responsible for that beginning.david
This will help with understanding Stuart. It's the system he's trapped in.
you are posting this above your own name (twice!). Would you sue me if I called you a liar? Do you have wealth that would make the countersuit worthwhile?Stuart
Quote (Not3in1 @ Nov. 23 2007,16:04) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 22 2007,20:36) There is no really satisfactory explanation of abiogenesis, the event(s) that began the chain of evolutionary events that led to us, but that does not mean you need to have a god-of-the-gaps to explain the initial puzzle.
Sure, it doesn't mean that we have to have a god-of-the-gaps theory to explain how it all began, but this line of reasoning doesn't rule it out either. Am I correct that it leaves both as possibilities?
It depends if you want a scientific answer or a religious one. As David rightly points out in one of the few true things he has posted in quite a while, the two are incompatible. Creationists relish the chance to “debate” biologists because that gives them the respectibility that science has, and that creationism does not. In the case of the Intelligent Design crowd, this is not an idle accusation of the kind the idea-free David is now resorting to, it is evidenced by the conspiracies recorded in the Wedge Document http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.htmlYou don't need any fingers to count the number of honest creationists in the world!
Do you want an honest answer?
Here goes: You can't disprove god. There could be a creator. If there is, you would have to conclude that his methods are not consistent with the Judeo-Christian god. If all other aspects of the development of the universe and the evolution of life can be very straightforwardly explained in rational terms, why would you specifically have to insert a god just to explain that one thing that was less certain (abiogenesis). Scientists can live with uncertainty but it seems fundamentalists cannot.
Stuart
Thank you for your honest answer, Stu.
Quote You can't disprove god. There could be a creator. If there is, you would have to conclude that his methods are not consistent with the Judeo-Christian god. There appears to be two choices available then:
A: There is a creator/god/God but not the one depicted in the Bible.
B: There is no creator.
Is this correct?
Quote (Not3in1 @ Nov. 23 2007,19:50) Thank you for your honest answer, Stu. Quote You can't disprove god. There could be a creator. If there is, you would have to conclude that his methods are not consistent with the Judeo-Christian god. There appears to be two choices available then:
A: There is a creator/god/God but not the one depicted in the Bible.
B: There is no creator.
Is this correct?
I would not go with neither one. i believe in the Bible it might be flawed, but it has also fulfilled Prophecies. Also the Apostles are eye witnesses and the letters they wrote were rewritten by Catholic Monks. That eventually became the N.T.
Some do not want to belief that either, to each His own.
Peace and Love Mrs.Quote (Not3in1 @ Nov. 23 2007,19:50) Thank you for your honest answer, Stu. Quote You can't disprove god. There could be a creator. If there is, you would have to conclude that his methods are not consistent with the Judeo-Christian god. There appears to be two choices available then:
A: There is a creator/god/God but not the one depicted in the Bible.
B: There is no creator.
Is this correct?
Mat 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.If one denies the sacrifice that God provided then one denies God.
So both have the same message.
Isn't it ironic that both have NOT tasted of the Spirit.
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,So after these two are finished with their deception and causing some to fall they can repent and be saved! BUT some of those who have and will fall HAVE tasted of the SPIRIT for them their is NO repentance!
Once they are finished “weeding” they can repent and be saved!
But those plucked up will NOT be saved but put in bundles and burned up!
1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
1Jo 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
1Jo 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.Not sure where you are at? Step back on the foundation!
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
THE LORD'S WILL BE DONE!
IHN&L,
Ken
Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 24 2007,02:46) If one denies the sacrifice that God provided then one denies God. So both have the same message.
Isn't it ironic that both have NOT tasted of the Spirit.
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
You say we both have the same message. Let's pretend that's true. You condemn Tow but offer up a chance for me because I “never have” tasted the spirit (all pub jokes aside).Have I read that right?
Hardly seems fair, does it?
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
…is what I believe the Universalists use in these situations.
Of course objectively, rejecting then going back again later is a pretty bad thing for a church to condone, membership-wise. Islam has a similar (although more immediately deadly) policy.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
