Genesis 2

[outhouse]

Who is denouncing all modern education?

YOU and sincerely. :slap:

People teach what they want to teach out of their beliefs whether those beliefs are valid or not.

Utter garbage, complete nonsense.


That is why you cannot cite ANY examples that back your position what so ever.



Stop, you do not have the credibility to denounce all modern education and knowledge, who do you think you are?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Thief
But it is my education, knowledge and reason that led me to believe this reality is a creation....
and God did it.

So the credibility of the belief is a function of the quality of the education, the knowledge, and the capacity to reason. I suspect that this is generally true for all of us.

Hi Thief, We agree on this.

Hi Jay, not necessarily so, one's intellectual conclusions can be the results of garbage in is garbage out and one being satisfied with a wrong conclusion.
However, the generalization is the satisfaction with one's erronous interpretation-- (conclusion)---rather than the "Thus saith the LORD GOD

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
All of the ToE is claimed to be proven fact.
Originally Posted by sincerly
All of the ToE is claimed to be proven fact.

That is absolutely false, and I taught the subject for roughly 30 years, so I should pretty much have an idea of where we are coming from on this. Again, to repeat, there are multiple components to the ToE, some of which have been firmly established but a great many (probably most) that haven't. The mistake you continually make is to try the entire ToE as if it were monolithic, but it's simply not.

Hi metis, I posted that which many on here state as "fact" and you have not denied that their claim was "absolutely false"??

On this planet( and its "heavens"), the theory of evolution does have its "multiple components"----dealing with the "origins" of all that one "sees and does not see or experience", therefore, All those parts are ultimately involved with the "foundational one".
Mankind was not suspended from/placed upon "nothing". Neither was mankind sustained upon "nothing". Mankind and all that nourished him was given life---and that hasn't been from "nothing" and no creditable proven source has been discovered.
So since, one can not give that reproducible proof---that stack of cards "theory" in its multiple components" is false.

Actually new creatures are being produced since everything appears to be continually evolving, therefore new "creatures".

"Mutations" are not "evolutionary", but a change in the DNA formulation/recombination and are usually destructive. That is at the "micro" level and the change doesn't change the "species" in which the "mutation" took place.

The ToE has literally nothing to do with the BB, although some of the general process does apply in the sense that all things seemingly change over time. Again, the problem you have is that you are including things in the ToE that simply are not there or are not intrinsic with it.

"Seemly"?? "General process"?? Metis without the BB there would be no reason for the ToE to inhabit the earth with the varieties of plant and animal life---culminating with human Beings.

The general process is clearly visible in so many different ways but you won't be able to see it if you don't look.

Ps.139:14, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul(Being, person) knoweth right well."

All that I see about me, testifies that the ToE and is "components" are contrary to the "Creation" as completed by GOD.

And the fossil record clearly shows that this has indeed been the case.

You believe it as written by man, but I take the Scriptural record as my evidence.

Again, you are misrepresenting where I'm coming from as I have not stated in any of my posts that scripture is wrong. What I have stated, and continue to state, is that you are taking one interpretation of the creation accounts and refusing to even admit that there are other ways to interpret these same accounts. Anyone who has ever been in Bible studies well knows that two well-versed people can have different interpretations. Every Saturday morning I'm in Torah study, and even those of us of the same faith sometimes have differences of opinion as to how a verse or narrative may be rendered.

Judaism tends to operate out of this general principle: if an interpretation defies reason, go with reason and look for alternative interpretations. Therefore, the vast majority of us don't have a problem with science or evolution. Neither do most Christian theologians have a problem with it.

Shalom

Metis, mankind is a strange animal---Eve reasoned that what the Serpent was presenting was "truth" and what GOD had said was not for mankind's best interest.
Is there any correct way to safely render what GOD has said other than by comparing what GOD has said by other like principles? Not other mens "renderings"/opinions?? (Prov.14:12) Peace.

 

[outhouse]

Evolution is not up for debate here. It is fact and not going anywhere.


There are only those who do not wish to accept these facts due to their theistic belief/faith.

 

[outhouse]

You believe it as written by man, but I take the Scriptural record as my evidence.

Fossils are not written by man, they are factual evidence of species that lived before us. They are bones that have mineralized over hundreds of thousands too millions of years.


The bible however was factually written by men.

 

[Avi1001]

The bible however was factually written by men.

I agree, in fact I often say, "the Bible was written by men for men".

By the way, reform Jews believe the Bible was G-d inspired.

 

[sincerly]

Evolution is not up for debate here. It is fact and not going anywhere.


There are only those who do not wish to accept these facts due to their theistic belief/faith.

And on the debate level, there are those who disbelieve the Scriptural account; and they have not proven evolution because mankind has not artificially "created life".

 

[sincerly]

Fossils are not written by man, they are factual evidence of species that lived before us. They are bones that have mineralized over hundreds of thousands too millions of years.


The bible however was factually written by men.

"Fossils" haven't been factually been established as being the product of evolution, because man still has not created life nor has there been any experiments that show life spontaneously occurred. In fact, Pastuer proved otherwise.

Fossils are just as valid for Creationism.

 

[outhouse]

And on the debate level, there are those who disbelieve the Scriptural account; and they have not proven evolution because mankind has not artificially "created life".

Evolution is now fact. We will never being going backwards towards ancient mythology as a explanation for our origins.

You don't have to like it, or participate, you can denounce it all you want. But that will not change the facts surrounding evolution.


You are creating debate where there is none.

 

[outhouse]

"Fossils" haven't been factually been established as being the product of evolution

Yes they have. every living species is a product of evolution, including YOU.


And of course I know you cannot provide any sources, correct?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Originally Posted by sincerly
All of the ToE is claimed to be proven fact.
Originally Posted by sincerly
All of the ToE is claimed to be proven fact.




Hi metis, I posted that which many on here state as "fact" and you have not denied that their claim was "absolutely false"??

On this planet( and its "heavens"), the theory of evolution does have its "multiple components"----dealing with the "origins" of all that one "sees and does not see or experience", therefore, All those parts are ultimately involved with the "foundational one".
Mankind was not suspended from/placed upon "nothing". Neither was mankind sustained upon "nothing". Mankind and all that nourished him was given life---and that hasn't been from "nothing" and no creditable proven source has been discovered.
So since, one can not give that reproducible proof---that stack of cards "theory" in its multiple components" is false.



"Mutations" are not "evolutionary", but a change in the DNA formulation/recombination and are usually destructive. That is at the "micro" level and the change doesn't change the "species" in which the "mutation" took place.



"Seemly"?? "General process"?? Metis without the BB there would be no reason for the ToE to inhabit the earth with the varieties of plant and animal life---culminating with human Beings.



Ps.139:14, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul(Being, person) knoweth right well."

All that I see about me, testifies that the ToE and is "components" are contrary to the "Creation" as completed by GOD.




You believe it as written by man, but I take the Scriptural record as my evidence.



Metis, mankind is a strange animal---Eve reasoned that what the Serpent was presenting was "truth" and what GOD had said was not for mankind's best interest.
Is there any correct way to safely render what GOD has said other than by comparing what GOD has said by other like principles? Not other mens "renderings"/opinions?? (Prov.14:12) Peace.

So what's your educational background?

 

[metis]

On this planet( and its "heavens"), the theory of evolution does have its "multiple components"----dealing with the "origins" of all that one "sees and does not see or experience", therefore, All those parts are ultimately involved with the "foundational one".
Mankind was not suspended from/placed upon "nothing". Neither was mankind sustained upon "nothing". Mankind and all that nourished him was given life---and that hasn't been from "nothing" and no creditable proven source has been discovered.
So since, one can not give that reproducible proof---that stack of cards "theory" in its multiple components" is false.

"Mutations" are not "evolutionary", but a change in the DNA formulation/recombination and are usually destructive. That is at the "micro" level and the change doesn't change the "species" in which the "mutation" took place.

"Seemly"?? "General process"?? Metis without the BB there would be no reason for the ToE to inhabit the earth with the varieties of plant and animal life---culminating with human Beings.

Ps.139:14, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul(Being, person) knoweth right well."

All that I see about me, testifies that the ToE and is "components" are contrary to the "Creation" as completed by GOD.

You believe it as written by man, but I take the Scriptural record as my evidence.

Metis, mankind is a strange animal---Eve reasoned that what the Serpent was presenting was "truth" and what GOD had said was not for mankind's best interest.
Is there any correct way to safely render what GOD has said other than by comparing what GOD has said by other like principles? Not other mens "renderings"/opinions?? (Prov.14:12) Peace.

I hate to say this, but there are so many errors with the above that the only thing I can say is I give up, as you continually repeat the same errors over and over again. You really don't even have a basic understanding of the ToE. Even if you were just to carefully read the Wikipedia article on "evolution", you would be much better informed and less likely to mischaracterize the process: Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shalom

 

[sincerly]

I hate to say this, but there are so many errors with the above that the only thing I can say is I give up, as you continually repeat the same errors over and over again. You really don't even have a basic understanding of the ToE. Even if you were just to carefully read the Wikipedia article on "evolution", you would be much better informed and less likely to mischaracterize the process: Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shalom

Hi metis, When it comes to some topics, Wikipedia is very biased and the articles within its scope/printing are "edited" to reflect certain accepted criteria---anything that places a Creator GOD in favorable understanding is dismissed as "narrative mythology"/"symbolic narrative".

You have witnessed to your beliefs as grounded in the assumptions made by man. I continue to witness to what is written in those Scriptural pages.

Eventually, those Scriptures inform us that we shall know the Truth of what the fact of the matter is----.Personally,---I prefer the Scriptural believers outcome.

 

[sincerly]

So what's your educational background?

On the subjects I have written/debated, my focus will continue to be grounded in the principles seen in the Scriptures.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

On the subjects I have written/debated, my focus will continue to be grounded in the principles seen in the Scriptures.

So have you studied and read the theories of evolution? Have you studied Jewish Scriptures and their principle Interpretation? What is your background in history? Have you studied cosmology? Or Astrophysics? How about geology and nuclear physics? How about anthropology and archaeology? What is your background or knowledge in those?

I ask because sure you can "write/debate" but if you don't actually have an understanding of what you are debating against, well then even if your focus is on scripture you'll still end up incorrect.

 

[metis]

Hi metis, When it comes to some topics, Wikipedia is very biased and the articles within its scope/printing are "edited" to reflect certain accepted criteria---anything that places a Creator GOD in favorable understanding is dismissed as "narrative mythology"/"symbolic narrative".

You have witnessed to your beliefs as grounded in the assumptions made by man. I continue to witness to what is written in those Scriptural pages.

Eventually, those Scriptures inform us that we shall know the Truth of what the fact of the matter is----.Personally,---I prefer the Scriptural believers outcome.

This issue at stake was dealing with the interpretation of the creation accounts and not whether the scriptures are accurate, and recognizing only one interpretation on such narratives is just a terrible approach to any serious Bible study. Anyone who teaches to take that approach is merely trying to brain-wash you.

 

[sincerly]

So have you studied and read the theories of evolution? Have you studied Jewish Scriptures and their principle Interpretation? What is your background in history? Have you studied cosmology? Or Astrophysics? How about geology and nuclear physics? How about anthropology and archaeology? What is your background or knowledge in those?

I ask because sure you can "write/debate" but if you don't actually have an understanding of what you are debating against, well then even if your focus is on scripture you'll still end up incorrect.

Hi FM, I'm more interested in how those subjects are used to relate/tell the truths of the Creator GOD. The Scriptures/Thy words are truth. Those things expressed by man contrary to HIS revealed word is what is "incorrect".

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi FM, I'm more interested in how those subjects are used to relate/tell the truths of the Creator GOD. The Scriptures/Thy words are truth. Those things expressed by man contrary to HIS revealed word is what is "incorrect".

Ah so it is not that you are ignorant of the material because you have not studied it, you have willingly chosen to be ignorant of the material.

So you must certainly believe that the Sun revolves around the earth?

 

[sincerly]

This issue at stake was dealing with the interpretation of the creation accounts and not whether the scriptures are accurate, and recognizing only one interpretation on such narratives is just a terrible approach to any serious Bible study. Anyone who teaches to take that approach is merely trying to brain-wash you.

Hi metis, First, the interpretation of the creation accounts isn't just a "bible study". Or "a debate", but a study of what everyone sees about themselves.

As for the "recognizing only one interpretation"---How many times have you informed me that I wasn't listening to your explanation??
The "narratives" are not only Scriptural, but the "opinions of man" based upon "assumptions".
You have acknowledged that some of the claims regarding the "components of Evolution can not be proven; and that you haven't denied that there is a GOD( or were you hiding behind--god??
However, your above "approach" of "recognizing only one interpretation" can only mean you are "brain-washing".

GOD only spoke of one method(in the Scriptures) of "Creating all things"---not a variety, nor pick your own interpretation--HE "spoke and it stood fast". Not complicated--simple, fast, and complete.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi metis, First, the interpretation of the creation accounts isn't just a "bible study". Or "a debate", but a study of what everyone sees about themselves.

As for the "recognizing only one interpretation"---How many times have you informed me that I wasn't listening to your explanation??
The "narratives" are not only Scriptural, but the "opinions of man" based upon "assumptions".
You have acknowledged that some of the claims regarding the "components of Evolution can not be proven; and that you haven't denied that there is a GOD( or were you hiding behind--god??
However, your above "approach" of "recognizing only one interpretation" can only mean you are "brain-washing".

GOD only spoke of one method(in the Scriptures) of "Creating all things"---not a variety, nor pick your own interpretation--HE "spoke and it stood fast". Not complicated--simple, fast, and complete.

So how did God create Electromagnetism?