Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

[YoursTrue]

We are part of everything that came before us on the evolution tree/branches all the way back to when life started. .

God told Adam, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
Life is...? Soil exists, doesn't it? Is it alive?
Plants can grow in soil. God told Adam he was from dust, and upon death, would go back to dust. Does dust think? (What do you think?)

 

[rational experiences]

God told Adam, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
Life is...? Soil exists, doesn't it? Is it alive?
Plants can grow in soil. God told Adam he was from dust, and upon death, would go back to dust. Does dust think? (What do you think?)

Garden nature does not talk.

A human theist in science thinks and talks at the same time

Ignored when preaching the science status word of God.

Thesis.

If God stone could speak then everyone would hear.

A human looking back pretending they were the earth. Dirt. Bacterias microbes in water present body would say. Wood body owns form from dirt microbes and from water oxygen heavens biomes at the same time.

Yet the tree wood never shifted.

Ask why man said I got crucified meaning burnt on wood as sacrifice.

Basic common human sense. Because your human life is not first. It is not origin to God first and are just human.

Yet ego in human does not seem to allow science to say I am wrong.

 

[We Never Know]

God told Adam, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
Life is...? Soil exists, doesn't it? Is it alive?
Plants can grow in soil. God told Adam he was from dust, and upon death, would go back to dust. Does dust think? (What do you think?)

"Does dust think?" Dust is simply dust. You may as well ask does a rock think?
Does water think? Does air think?

 

[metis]

It is?


Myth does not have a real good connotation here at Titus 1:13,14: "This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sternly, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of men who have rejected the truth. 15To the pure, all things are pure; but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure. Indeed, both their minds and their consciences are defiled."
(hmmm...)

Again, "myth" does not mean falsehood with theologians as it often does with those whom are not into theology.

 

[whosetosay...]

A "simple story" does not mean that it didn't actually take place. The early Church struggled with this but decided whether these parables were literal events or not was basically irrelevant.

Again, you don't understand what a "parable" may or may not entail.

Show me where the early Church, Jesus Christ and the Apostles struggled with Moses or Abraham being real?
Do you understand we are talking the difference between a 'parable' and a 'myth'.
To set the record straight. The creation cannot be a myth and a parable.

At no time does the early Church take away from the fact they believe Moses and Abraham were myths.

Creationism has God as the creator. Evolution is a man made theory and remains so because at no point does it show the first life and at no point does it explain why the first creation of humans and animals have to be mature adults.

I think it is important to use our own relationships with God to know why we accept one or the other. The two can never be mutual in agreement because only God provides a logical answer in his word as to how and why..

 

[whosetosay...]

Once again, the Bible is not evidence. It does not matter if it agrees with you or not if you cannot demonstrate that it is reliable. And no one has been able to do that. Instead the more one properly studies it the less reliable it is. Your projection is rather strong here.

I do not need to show that the Bible says anything differently since I am not relying on that flawed source. I can find better ones.

How can you even attempt such a statement when Gods word shows you are relying not only on a flawed source but one which is inferior to the bible.

In the day of creation God produces a mature world, mankind, animals and all living things.
Logically, the first animals and humans had to be mature to live and produce off-spring.
Where does your evolution allow for all creation to be mature at the beginning?
I do not mind disrespect if a logical argument brought forward. Evolution is the only flawed source as far as logic and first life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can you even attempt such a statement when Gods word shows you are relying not only on a flawed source but one which is inferior to the bible.

In the day of creation God produces a mature world, mankind, animals and all living things.
Logically, the first animals and humans had to be mature to live and produce off-spring.
Where does your evolution allow for all creation to be mature at the beginning?
I do not mind disrespect if a logical argument brought forward. Evolution is the only flawed source as far as logic and first life.

What makes you think that the Bible is "God's word"? Do you seriously think that your God is incompetent, evil, and vain?

The myths of the Bible have been refuted. One cannot understand the science and believe your fairy tales. You are in effect claiming that your God is a liar. Now the question is are you willing to learn? Or are you satisfied with saying " God lied"?

 

[metis]

Show me where the early Church, Jesus Christ and the Apostles struggled with Moses or Abraham being real?

I did not say nor imply that the Church did, so how di you get that out of what I wrote?

Do you understand we are talking the difference between a 'parable' and a 'myth'.
To set the record straight. The creation cannot be a myth and a parable.

Within theological circles, we understand that a "parable" is a form of "myth" and that "myth" does not mean falsehood. Maybe pick up a copy of "The Power of Myth" by anthropologist Joseph Campbell and Christian theologian Bill Moyers.

Creationism has God as the creator. Evolution is a man made theory and remains so because at no point does it show the first life and at no point does it explain why the first creation of humans and animals have to be mature adults.

Evolution does not in any way state nor imply that there cannot be God creating all, plus evolution is just plain old common sense anyway, namely that all material things tend to change over time, and genes and all living matter are material things.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Does dust think?" Dust is simply dust. You may as well ask does a rock think?
Does water think? Does air think?

So...since the earth started out, according to reason and the holy scriptures, like Mars or the moon (rocky, barren, maybe with some water) until God did his handiwork causing Adam's lifeless body to become alive, it is not unreasonable to say that from dust we came and we go back to dust.

 

[YoursTrue]

I did not say nor imply that the Church did, so how di you get that out of what I wrote?

Within theological circles, we understand that a "parable" is a form of "myth" and that "myth" does not mean falsehood. Maybe pick up a copy of "The Power of Myth" by anthropologist Joseph Campbell and Christian theologian Bill Moyers.

Evolution does not in any way state nor imply that there cannot be God creating all, plus evolution is just plain old common sense anyway, namely that all material things tend to change over time, and genes and all living matter are material things.

Every scripture I have read regarding the word myth is not positive. Joseph Campbell et al to the contrary.

 

[metis]

Every scripture I have read regarding the word myth is not positive. Joseph Campbell et al to the contrary.

Again, in theology and in anthropology, we use "myth" in a different way, which is why I had to post and did repeatedly post how we define it. If one looks "myth" up in a standard dictionary, you'll see there's more than one definition, such as here:
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
"ancient Celtic myths"

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, in theology and in anthropology, we use "myth" in a different way, which is why I had to post and did repeatedly post how we define it. If one looks "myth" up in a standard dictionary, you'll see there's more than one definition, such as here:
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
"ancient Celtic myths"

According to joseph Campbell. In reference to the Bible. But the Bible writers speak of myths in a derogatory sense.
Titus 1:14 "not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth." Truth: Jesus said he is the truth.

 

[metis]

According to joseph Campbell. In reference to the Bible. But the Bible writers speak of myths in a derogatory sense.
Titus 1:14 "not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth." Truth: Jesus said he is the truth.

By a different definition as I've repeatedly pointed out. Again, with any serious theology, one often has to define certain terms that may be used to avoid confusion, and in science we often must do the same.

An example of the latter is the use of the term "theory", which means one thing in most modern usage of the term but something quite different when used scientifically. So, if one says "It's only a theory", that means they're using a nonscientific definition.

So, for the last time, I highly recommend you pay attention to how a word may be defined, and if it's not clear what is, then ask the person to define it for you.

Take care.

 

[whosetosay...]

What makes you think that the Bible is "God's word"? Do you seriously think that your God is incompetent, evil, and vain?

Can you clarify that statement with proof? Can you show anything to substantiate it? No! So you believe that do you? Do you really think you are qualified to be part of this discussion?

The myths of the Bible have been refuted. One cannot understand the science and believe your fairy tales. You are in effect claiming that your God is a liar. Now the question is are you willing to learn? Or are you satisfied with saying " God lied"?

REFUTED... BUT the truth is that despite any refuting they have never been proved myths or wrong. Science is manmade the bible is not. The bible holds more truth by sheer possibility than any science. You have to remember how many times over the centuries scientist have changed their minds about what they believed with new advances. But take for instance the fact human life produces human life and you need a male and female. God made the first humans adults. Where did the very first human life come from and start? I guess you need to stop repeating your own made up versions of things and suggesting unproven and illogical comparisons and face facts. You know nothing and make unfounded allegations that are neither supported by anything you write. Now I think we have that cleared up. You might want to study and find out what the truth is out there. Including scientific.

 

[Smokey2141]

By a different definition as I've repeatedly pointed out. Again, with any serious theology, one often has to define certain terms that may be used to avoid confusion, and in science we often must do the same.

An example of the latter is the use of the term "theory", which means one thing in most modern usage of the term but something quite different when used scientifically. So, if one says "It's only a theory", that means they're using a nonscientific definition.

So, for the last time, I highly recommend you pay attention to how a word may be defined, and if it's not clear what is, then ask the person to define it for you.

Take care.

Metis, I am working on an article on the evolution-creationism controversy and am looking for a person to interview, would you be interested? On the telephone with follow up email

 

[metis]

The authors of the books of the Bible were not scientists.

 

[metis]

Metis, I am working on an article on the evolution-creationism controversy and am looking for a person to interview, would you be interested? On the telephone with follow up email

I'm sorry but I have to say no. My wife is very much opposed to me having any contact beyond RF because two of her cousins left their spouses for another woman, and I promised her that I would never have such outside contacts.

OTOH, I'm more than willing to use the p.m. link here at RF if you're interested. Either way, thanks for the honor of being asked.

 

[Smokey2141]

I am a long ways from you, also happily married to a woman so unlikely. I scanned your responses and liked them, was born in Michigan, and like restore antique stained glass windows.... What is the p.m link?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you clarify that statement with proof? Can you show anything to substantiate it? No! So you believe that do you? Do you really think you are qualified to be part of this discussion?

Probably more qualified than you are. Of course I can substantiate my claims... By the way, you do not even appear to understand what is required. You just made your qualifications extremely suspect.

REFUTED... BUT the truth is that despite any refuting they have never been proved myths or wrong. Science is manmade the bible is not. The bible holds more truth by sheer possibility than any science. You have to remember how many times over the centuries scientist have changed their minds about what they believed with new advances. But take for instance the fact human life produces human life and you need a male and female. God made the first humans adults. Where did the very first human life come from and start? I guess you need to stop repeating your own made up versions of things and suggesting unproven and illogical comparisons and face facts. You know nothing and make unfounded allegations that are neither supported by anything you write. Now I think we have that cleared up. You might want to study and find out what the truth is out there. Including scientific.

Oh my, you really are not qualified. The Bible is man made too. If you want to claim anything else you take on a huge burden of proof.

 

[whosetosay...]

Probably more qualified than you are. Of course I can substantiate my claims... By the way, you do not even appear to understand what is required. You just made your qualifications extremely suspect.

It says it all, really, If you could substantiate your claims you would have done it. Wind up merchants do not tend last very long. Everyone but you can see your slip.

Oh my, you really are not qualified. The Bible is man made too. If you want to claim anything else you take on a huge burden of proof.

You see another slip. You need proof and you don't have any. I was not the one who forgot to engage their brain before making statements. It takes and requires only personal proof, the type that causes miracles to happen and the type of power and understanding beyond your ability to cope with. WUM'S get no respect and those who know what I am talking about will give you a wide berth if they want a sensible and worthwhile debate.