Draka
Wonder Woman
Conversations are much nicer when the ignore function is used with certain people. I learned some time ago with Danmac.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution and Creationism both have equal value and scientific evidence to support them.
- Thread starter tumbleweed41
- Start date
Conversations are much nicer when the ignore function is used with certain people. I learned some time ago with Danmac.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Not a chance
So much my brain hurts.
Because you just contradicted a bunch of other verses. Interpreting scripture requires you to examine numerous verses side by side so that you can unlock the mystery. God purposely had the bible written in a way that would confuse unbelievers.
Lu 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
2nd Peter 3:16 as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Acts 28: 26 saying, 'Go to this people, and say, In hearing, you will hear, But will in no way understand. In seeing, you will see, But will in no way perceive.
Pro 1:6 To understand a proverb, and parables, The words and riddles of the wise.
So you excuse causing people suffering because your not God. What if everyone thought that way? The world would probably be full of suffering.
Were not done yet.
McBell
Unbound
frubals for you!!conversations are much nicer when the ignore function is used with certain people. I learned some time ago with danmac.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Conversations are much nicer when the ignore function is used with certain people. I learned some time ago with Danmac.
Well I must be doing rather well then.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
So....
Any verifiable scientific evidence for Creationism? ID?
Any verifiable scientific evidence for Creationism? ID?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Yes, seems some folks are secretly worshiping the trickster Loki, rather than Jehovah...
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
If prayer worked, I would be a theist. The fact that it doesn't is one of the main reasons I'm not. I'm empirical like that.
Odd, it doesn't show.
Not me, Danmac, I didn't say anything. I merely quoted the verse. The verses contradict each other. That's one of the ways we know the Bible is baloney. It contradicts itself all the time.
Now you're saying all those verses about praying are parables??? For what, bowling? I mean, if the Bible can't tell us about prayer, what on earth good is it?
So you excuse causing people suffering because your not God. What if everyone thought that way? The world would probably be full of suffering. Can we get back to the subject? According to you, an all-knowing, perfect, all-powerful, benevolent being deliberately inflicts suffering on innocent infants. Your concept contradicts itself, and is therefore logically impossible. *hint: I'm not an all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent being.
Once again, a straight answer would be polite, helpful, and go a long way to restoring your damaged credibility: Does God provide sufficient evidence of His existence, or does he not?
sniper762
Well-Known Member
i have debated this subject with many for years. i have my own view of the two and others have their's. most believe either one or the other. it seems that the ones that accept both cant explain to themselves nor to others why they believe it.
we're all familiar with the debate over the age of the earth (science/religion) and whether the creation days equalled 24 hour days or long periods of time. evolution/creation argue that either man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years or began with god's creation of the first man (adam).
i am, amoung many things, a genealogist. one thing that is not debatable amoung creationists nor evolutionist who believe in the biblical creation story (theistic evolutionists) is that adam's genealogy can be traced back to approximately 4000 bc. thats a little over 6000 years. so the question arises: was there "man that existed on this earth before adam", as evolutionists believe to have been?
the ONLY way that both evolution AND creation can both be correct (as i believe) is to assume that man existed on this earth (evolved from god's creation that was NOT CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE). adam's creation was god's creation of man IN HIS IMAGE. adam was created to be much more intelligent than the evolved man. look how far (technologically) man has advanced since adam's creation, in the last 6000 years compared to the 100's of thousands of years of the evolved man.
in believing in the biblical flood story, one could see that all of the existing evolved man would have been destroyed and only the noadic bunch (decenndants of adam, god's creation in HIS image) were spared, and thus modern man decends from.
moses, who tells the creation story knew nothing of today's geological or archaelogical findings, so he would not have mentioned them. our all knowing god would not have inspired him to know anything prior to adam or his formation of his
NEWLY designed home for his NEWLY formed man. this would be the god's NEW BEGINNING or starting over point.
who knows how many times that god had done this here on this earth or even somewhere else?
'
we're all familiar with the debate over the age of the earth (science/religion) and whether the creation days equalled 24 hour days or long periods of time. evolution/creation argue that either man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years or began with god's creation of the first man (adam).
i am, amoung many things, a genealogist. one thing that is not debatable amoung creationists nor evolutionist who believe in the biblical creation story (theistic evolutionists) is that adam's genealogy can be traced back to approximately 4000 bc. thats a little over 6000 years. so the question arises: was there "man that existed on this earth before adam", as evolutionists believe to have been?
the ONLY way that both evolution AND creation can both be correct (as i believe) is to assume that man existed on this earth (evolved from god's creation that was NOT CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE). adam's creation was god's creation of man IN HIS IMAGE. adam was created to be much more intelligent than the evolved man. look how far (technologically) man has advanced since adam's creation, in the last 6000 years compared to the 100's of thousands of years of the evolved man.
in believing in the biblical flood story, one could see that all of the existing evolved man would have been destroyed and only the noadic bunch (decenndants of adam, god's creation in HIS image) were spared, and thus modern man decends from.
moses, who tells the creation story knew nothing of today's geological or archaelogical findings, so he would not have mentioned them. our all knowing god would not have inspired him to know anything prior to adam or his formation of his
NEWLY designed home for his NEWLY formed man. this would be the god's NEW BEGINNING or starting over point.
who knows how many times that god had done this here on this earth or even somewhere else?
'
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
I'd like to debate that. Can you show me someone who can trace back their ancestry that far?
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
I googled it and found this article.
https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Can_I_Trace_Genealogy_Back_to_Adam_and_Eve?
https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Can_I_Trace_Genealogy_Back_to_Adam_and_Eve?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
snipe,
While I can see that you are simply attempting to reconcile beliefs with facts, the point here is to provide actual scientific evidence in support of Creationism. Evidence that is of equal value, or greater, than the evidence in support of the ToE.
While I can see that you are simply attempting to reconcile beliefs with facts, the point here is to provide actual scientific evidence in support of Creationism. Evidence that is of equal value, or greater, than the evidence in support of the ToE.
sniper762
Well-Known Member
i am simply attempting to point out the true relationship between evolution and creationalism.
the true understanding of the origin of man is relative and importan to this debate.
until one realizes the unrelated difference between adam, gods created (in his image)and the preadamic evolved man (evolved from god's creation NOT in his image), this contraversial debate will never be understood.
the true understanding of the origin of man is relative and importan to this debate.
until one realizes the unrelated difference between adam, gods created (in his image)and the preadamic evolved man (evolved from god's creation NOT in his image), this contraversial debate will never be understood.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Unless, as seems reasonable, Adam is an ancient myth and everything you're saying is a pile of malarkey.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well that's fascinating, but hardley "equal value and scientific evidence to support them" which is what the thread is about.
Said the newbie to the ancient crone and longtime habitue.