I believe in Creation ...and Evolution

[Scuba Pete]

So Sprinkled Wings...

Do you find any scripture that condemns evolution or the belief in it?

 

[painted wolf]

because the Bible doesn't say that God made a bunch of microorganisms that turned into men over millions of years. The Bible says God made man, and fish, and birds, etc. And he did it all in 6 days.

The bible also says that Ostrich are bad parents, bats are birds, illness is caused by evil spirits, and the sun goes around the earth...

The bible was written by people who didn't know what a microorganism was.

wa:do

 

[michel]

Because the Bible doesn't say that God made a bunch of microorganisms that turned into men over millions of years. The Bible says God made man, and fish, and birds, etc. And he did it all in 6 days.

I think that is what sprinkled wings is trying to say.

The 6 days were 6000 years.....

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ° ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years , and a thousand years as one day.

 

[greatcalgarian]

So Sprinkled Wings...

Do you find any scripture that condemns evolution or the belief in it?

There is no where in any scripture that condemns evolution or belief in it. It is the interpreter of the scripture (namely Evangelical Christians) that go around waving the holy bible and said that evolution is against the teaching of God

 

[Passerbye]

The bible also says that Ostrich are bad parents

As I have told you before "Painted Wolf" the Bible says that the Ostrich leaves it eggs to warm in the sun, not mindful that anyone would come and take them . That is true. Stop refering to it as proof of anything!

bats are birds

Bats were refered to as birds back then because they flew and thus were catagorised as such. Humans changed the definition a few hundred years ago. Stop refering to it as proof of anything!

illness is caused by evil spirits

Many people have been cured of what they had by the evil spirits being cast out. If you don't believe it that it up to you. Prove it wrong, then you can offer it as proof untill then...
Stop refering to it as proof of anything!

and the sun goes around the earth...

I would like to see the passage that says that. I don't remember it saying that anywhere. Come up with the passage or...
Stop refering to it as proof of anything!

I have told you this before, please don't make me say it again.

Thank you.

 

[Yerda]

Many people have been cured of what they had by the evil spirits being cast out. If you don't believe it that it up to you.

I'd love to hear this. Personally I think it's best described as starting with 'B' and ending with 'ollocks'.

Prove it wrong, then you can offer it as proof untill then...
Stop refering to it as proof of anything!

Oh, I think the impetus is on you to provide proof-positive here.

 

[painted wolf]

As I have told you before "Painted Wolf" the Bible says that the Ostrich leaves it eggs to warm in the sun, not mindful that anyone would come and take them . That is true. Stop refering to it as proof of anything!

Untrue...you should learn more about the Ostrich... they are very good and attentive parents.
They do not leave thier eggs alone, the male stays with them 24/7 untill they hatch, he sits on them to keep them warm at night and shaded during the day.

Bats were refered to as birds back then because they flew and thus were catagorised as such. Humans changed the definition a few hundred years ago. Stop refering to it as proof of anything!

point goes to the fact that bats are indeed not birds, never were birds and never will be birds... eaven though they fly.

Many people have been cured of what they had by the evil spirits being cast out. If you don't believe it that it up to you. Prove it wrong, then you can offer it as proof untill then...
Stop refering to it as proof of anything!

how many more died because people thought epilepsy, the flu and other diseases were 'evil spirits'? You will notice the population got much healthier and larger once figured out the 'germ' thing... Do you have any 'scientific' evidence by the way or is it all hearsay?

I would like to see the passage that says that. I don't remember it saying that anywhere. Come up with the passage or...
Stop refering to it as proof of anything!

will come up with the passages later...I'm just hopping on before work and need to get going.

I have told you this before, please don't make me say it again.

and I'll keep telling you, you are mistaken... The Bible is not a scientific treaste.. it reflects the knowledge of the people of the time...
I wouldn't have to keep saying it if it wasn't always being brought up.

your welcome

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

Painted Wolf...

bats can be "birds".

There is more than one way to organize the animal kingdom. Their term for "bird" obviously meant ANYTHING THAT COULD FLY. Our term means avian and not mammallian in nature. Don't let your modern day bias blind you to the fact that they saw things differently. They weren't always neccesarily wrong either... just a different perspective.

You might say that it displays the current knowledge AND perspective of the time.

 

[michel]

Aha! NetDoc, you just recvived a memory from my dog-walking yesterday (off topic, but forgive me) - as you were talking about birds, a lady I met told me that owls will feed the weakest chick to their other young in times of hardship. I guess it makes sense, but.....

 

[Passerbye]

Untrue...you should learn more about the Ostrich... they are very good and attentive parents.
They do not leave thier eggs alone, the male stays with them 24/7 untill they hatch, he sits on them to keep them warm at night and shaded during the day.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ostrich.html
Never said they weren't good parents, and neither does the Bible as far as I can see.

point goes to the fact that bats are indeed not birds, never were birds and never will be birds... eaven though they fly.

Painted Wolf...

bats can be "birds".

There is more than one way to organize the animal kingdom. Their term for "bird" obviously meant ANYTHING THAT COULD FLY. Our term means avian and not mammallian in nature. Don't let your modern day bias blind you to the fact that they saw things differently. They weren't always neccesarily wrong either... just a different perspective.

You might say that it displays the current knowledge AND perspective of the time.

Thank you NetDoc. Well stated.

how many more died because people thought epilepsy, the flu and other diseases were 'evil spirits'? You will notice the population got much healthier and larger once figured out the 'germ' thing... Do you have any 'scientific' evidence by the way or is it all hearsay?

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.

As far as I have heard anointing with oil was the best medical healing thing they had at the time. It says to do that in the name of the Lord along with asking people to pray for you. The Bible is not against going to a doctor, it says to do both. We have just upgraded our equipment since the Bible was written. Do you have a problem with him not saying that if you are sick to call on a doctor to perform an MRI followed by a blood transfusion, and then get people to pray for you?
Also... about the facts and not hearsay thing... I can get stories... I have heard many of them... I know people personaly that have been healed... and no it was not the placebo effect...
If you like I could try contacting some people and bringing together testimonies about being healed. How many stories do you think it would take for you to be convinced that it actualy happens?

will come up with the passages later...I'm just hopping on before work and need to get going.

Take your time... I'm in no rush.

and I'll keep telling you, you are mistaken... The Bible is not a scientific treaste.. it reflects the knowledge of the people of the time...
I wouldn't have to keep saying it if it wasn't always being brought up.

Try making sure your facts are strait before you state things in a "matter of fact" kind of way.
Thank you.

 

[Pah]

Passerbye,

You seem to have defended the bible with today's scientific knowledge from Holding and then turn right around and then praise NetDoc for explaining that the science in it was from the time of the authors. A lovely 180 degree turn. You seem to choose your stance depending on the questions.

If NetDoc is right, then the Bible is the work of man and creation is a myth written by man to explain a limit of scientific knowledge. If Holding is right, then creationism is just silly, but you get to keep the thought that God wrote it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Pah,

I have long contended that God merely "inspired" the Bible. It was never intended to be a transcription or a science book. Language reflects our understand of the world around us. At one point, fire and water were considered "elements": the basic building blocks. From our "enlightened" perspective, we shake our heads at how "foolish" they were. But hey, they were trying to sort out reality, much as what we are doing now.

You know, some of my favorite science teachers were the ones who caused me to seek out the answers. Yet somehow we expect God to give all the answers for science on a silver platter or even a leather bound Bible. God has seemed to provide us only the information we need in order to find him. No more and no less.

 

[Passerbye]

Passerbye,

You seem to have defended the bible with today's scientific knowledge from Holding and then turn right around and then praise NetDoc for expalining that the science in it was the time of the authors. A lovely 180 degree turn. You seem to choose your stance depending on the questions.

If NetDoc is right, then the Bible is the work of man and creation is a myth written by man to explain a limit of scientific knowledge. If Holding is right, then creationism is just silly, but you get to keep the thought that God wrote it.

Okay... a 180 degree turn? A bat was considered a bird up to a few hundred years ago. Humans changed the meaning of the word. I praised the fact that NetDoc seemed to get that. What you don't get is that language changed. Were they right to put a bat under the classification of bird? Does it fly? If so then they were correct in defining it as that, since the word meant "something that flies". In stead of saying "OH WE SAY IT IS NOT A BIRD SO GOD IS WRONG" try thinking "hey, why didn't we make a new classifying word for things with an avian body system... bird was a word that was already taken for things that fly".

 

[Pah]

Okay... a 180 degree turn? A bat was considered a bird up to a few hundred years ago. Humans changed the meaning of the word. I praised the fact that NetDoc seemed to get that. What you don't get is that language changed. Were they right to put a bat under the classification of bird? Does it fly? If so then they were correct in defining it as that, since the word meant "something that flies". In stead of saying "OH WE SAY IT IS NOT A BIRD SO GOD IS WRONG" try thinking "hey, why didn't we make a new classifying word for things with an avian body system... bird was a word that was already taken for things that fly".

You missed the point. You defended the biblical verse regarding the osterich from Holding's current science. and now exclaim that the biblical verse regarding bats is correct in it's original form. You're eating the cake you wish to save. Current science is proof and contempory science is proof
:biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In stead of saying "OH WE SAY IT IS NOT A BIRD SO GOD IS WRONG" try thinking "hey, why didn't we make a new classifying word for things with an avian body system... bird was a word that was already taken for things that fly".

Because it was a superficial and primitive distinction. So, for example, flying insects have far more in common with their wingless counterparts than they do with hawks and humming birds, while flightless insects have far less in common with the emu, ostrich, and penguine than they do with those insect that fly. Granted, the distiction is far less silly when applied to kashrut than it is in Genesis 1, where God is much more obviously wrong.

 

[Passerbye]

You missed the point. You defended the biblical verse regarding the osterich from Holding's current science. and now exclaim that the biblical verse regarding bats is correct in it's original form. You're eating the cake you wish to save. Current science is proof and contempory science is proof
:biglaugh:

Because it was a superficial and primitive distinction. So, for example, flying insects have far more in common with their wingless counterparts than they do with hawks and humming birds, while flightless insects have far less in common with the emu, ostrich, and penguine than they do with those insect that fly. Granted, the distiction is far less silly when applied to kashrut than it is in Genesis 1, where God is much more obviously wrong.

The bat is bird part is one thing... the ostrich egg thing is another. Let's deal with one thing at a time pah. While the "bat is or isn't a bird" problem is about language the "ostrich egg" problem is about observed habits of a creature. Two unrelated problems.
The bat problem is that humans decided to make a more well defined definiton of bird. Man has changed its definitions repetedly and decided on a system a few hundred years ago. God simply filled the sky with flying things. God simply said to some people in the desert don't eat the bat. Using the old definition of bird it fit in the group that it was put in. These days it does not fit. Because of what? Because we changed the definition.

I don't know why you still think the Bible says an ostrich is a bad parent. I thought I listed a site that shows the habits of an ostrich. The habits are what the Bible discribes. What is the problem?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The bat problem is that humans decided to make a more well defined definiton of bird./QUOTE]It is unfortunate indeed that your God was incapable of anything better than a less well defined definition of a bird.

God simply filled the sky with flying things.

Including birds. And, if you accept Genesis, He simply did so before a day before he created flightless insects. Do you believe that there were birds before there were beetles?

 

[Passerbye]

If all they ate was plants then why not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If all they ate was plants then why not.

No particular reason - other than the fact that it stands in sharp contradiction to the findings of science, which is simply to say that one cannot embrace "Creation...and Evolution".

 

[Scuba Pete]

Deut,

Science has never contended that. YOU have contended that, but I don't look at you as being the penultimate scientist.