More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[YoursTrue]

I agree with you but they fall in the trap that it is ok with resources as the "completely scientific" Discovery Institute. I still would love to hear @YoursTrue answer as to wheLetther gods creation itself or a book written by humans holds the real truth. Humans or god?

I'm not sure I understand your question. It goes beyond the question. Creation itself testifies to God's existence, or a higher intelligent power than that of sheer creation. Clearly the earth was formed times unknown. The question comes in primarily about humans, when and how did they come into existence? Let me ask you this: do you believe, or do scientists believe, that plants and fish came before humans?
Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: (ASV)

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm not sure I understand your question. It goes beyond the question. Creation itself testifies to God's existence, or a higher intelligent power than that of sheer creation. Clearly the earth was formed times unknown. The question comes in primarily about humans, when and how did they come into existence? Let me ask you this: do you believe, or do scientists believe, that plants and fish came before humans?

The question is simple. Are the words written by humans a superior source that gods creation with all of its evidence available to humans? Seems to me you are placing the words of humans above the creation of god.

Scientist do believe that fish and plants were present on the earth before humans and bacteria were before plants and fish. Sponges and invertebrates came before fish also. That is how evolution worked.

 

[YoursTrue]

Personally, I think she will go for the Bible and find ever more feeble excuses to ignore the answers found in creation. Having watched so far and having seen no valid support for the claims that have been rendered, I think indoctrination and no thinking will be the rock on which a response will be founded.

So again -- you classify yourself as a Christian. And it eludes me as to in what way you declare yourself a Christian, although I am pretty sure that many who claim to be Christian do not really believe the Bible or that Jesus existed, along with you.
So let's figure this -- Jesus declared that God created the first man and woman. Do you reason he was deluded about this or that he fell for a myth about that? I mean we could go on about this, yet you say I "go for the Bible." (Yes, I do, by the way.)
Matthew 19:4, Jesus said: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

 

[YoursTrue]

The question is simple. Are the words written by humans a superior source that gods creation with all of its evidence available to humans? Seems to me you are placing the words of humans above the creation of god.

Scientist do believe that fish and plants were present on the earth before humans and bacteria were before plants and fish. Sponges and invertebrates came before fish also. That is how evolution worked.

Yes, the Bible was written by humans, but inspired by God. Now how was this inspired? First of all by encounters with men from a divine source and these encounters were transmitted. I can discuss why it seems so to me at another time, perhaps in another thread. However, Moses wrote that yes, the fish and plants came before humans. And really -- Moses did not have Darwin to lean on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So again -- you classify yourself as a Christian. And it eludes me as to in what way you declare yourself a Christian, although I am pretty sure that many who claim to be Christian do not really believe the Bible or that Jesus existed, along with you.
So let's figure this -- Jesus declared that God created the first man and woman. Do you reason he was deluded about this or that he fell for a myth about that? I mean we could go on about this, yet you say I "go for the Bible." (Yes, I do, by the way.)
Matthew 19:4, Jesus said: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

I am a Christian. That many things elude you is not an observation that anyone reading your posts would deny. The fact that I have never claimed that I do not believe in the Bible or think that Jesus did not exist seems to elude you as well. But this is not a discussion about me. You just made it one in a desperate attempt to divert from your flawed and failed arguments.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, the Bible was written by humans, but inspired by God. Now how was this inspired? First of all by encounters with men from a divine source and these encounters were transmitted. I can discuss why it seems so to me at another time, perhaps in another thread. However, Moses wrote that yes, the fish and plants came before humans. And really -- Moses did not have Darwin to lean on.

For you, inspired seems to mean dictated. But inspired does not mean dictated.

I would imagine that you would rather save these threads for personal attacks on others rather than explaining yourself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So again -- you classify yourself as a Christian. And it eludes me as to in what way you declare yourself a Christian, although I am pretty sure that many who claim to be Christian do not really believe the Bible or that Jesus existed, along with you.
So let's figure this -- Jesus declared that God created the first man and woman. Do you reason he was deluded about this or that he fell for a myth about that? I mean we could go on about this, yet you say I "go for the Bible." (Yes, I do, by the way.)
Matthew 19:4, Jesus said: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

You are just mad, because I read you like a book. You went for dogma and literalism rather than acknowledge the evidence of God's creation.

 

[YoursTrue]

For you, inspired seems to mean dictated. But inspired does not mean dictated.

I would imagine that you would rather save these threads for personal attacks on others rather than explaining yourself.

Again -- how is it a personal attack when I wonder out loud how a person says he's a Christian and then declares Jesus did not tell the truth? And then you attack me because I quoted Jesus who said that at the beginning God made them male and female, and wonder how a person declares himself a Christian if he doesn't believe Jesus and what is written about him?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Dan From Smithville -- I do not believe that inspired means dictated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again -- how is it a personal attack when I wonder out loud how a person says he's a Christian and then declares Jesus did not tell the truth? And then you attack me because I quoted Jesus who said that at the beginning God made them male and female, and wonder how a person declares himself a Christian if he doesn't believe Jesus and what is written about him?

The use of lies is one give away. I never said any such thing about Jesus. I never made any of the claims you keep repeating. You clearly do not hold all of Christian values or you would not be doing that. You divert the thread to a discussion of me and heavy on the implication that you seem not to have the courage to come out and say straight. None of which has anything to do with what you are claiming about science.

I wonder how a person can claim to be a Christian and promote lies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville -- I do not believe that inspired means dictated.

You write as if it does.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again -- how is it a personal attack when I wonder out loud how a person says he's a Christian and then declares Jesus did not tell the truth? And then you attack me because I quoted Jesus who said that at the beginning God made them male and female, and wonder how a person declares himself a Christian if he doesn't believe Jesus and what is written about him?

I have not attacked you. I have addressed your attack on me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again -- how is it a personal attack when I wonder out loud how a person says he's a Christian and then declares Jesus did not tell the truth? And then you attack me because I quoted Jesus who said that at the beginning God made them male and female, and wonder how a person declares himself a Christian if he doesn't believe Jesus and what is written about him?

Since you are aware now of quote mining and that they are a version of false witness, will you continue to use them? Your use so far is out of obvious ignorance of the subject in discussion and the fact of their mendacity. But continued use going forward would be with willful intent. Is that something you think a Christian should do?

 

[YoursTrue]

You are just mad, because I read you like a book. You went for dogma and literalism rather than acknowledge the evidence of God's creation.

Jesus did not go into detail about creation, but he spoke of it as a reality. I did not speak to Stephen Gould about his beliefs, although I was well acquainted with a relative of his. I give him credit. Gould was honest with his questions and points, even though he believed in evolution and declared himself to be an atheist.
Jesus said that God created man and woman. So then since I quoted Jesus as saying that God created man and woman from the beginning, and in reply you tell me I believe in dogma and literalism, my answer now to you is: hmmm... ...(What?)
It is a valid and logical question. Did Jesus know what he was talking about, or do you think maybe he did not? I'm not asking you to define Jesus' words. I truly thank you for the conversation.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have not attacked you. I have addressed your attack on me.

If I attacked you, I am sorry. It does lead to questions. And since I wonder how a person declares himself a Christian yet does not believe Jesus knew what he was talking about when he spoke of creation of man and woman, I hope you don't take that as a personal attack or insult. Just a question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since you are aware now of quote mining and that they are a version of false witness, will you continue to use them? Your use so far is out of obvious ignorance of the subject in discussion and the fact of their mendacity. But continued use going forward would be with willful intent. Is that something you think a Christian should do?

Again -- here's the problem. Evolutionists themselves, while saying they firmly believe in the process of evolution (and I'm not defining creation for you, just as Jesus did not detail how God did it), have differences. And again -- while a person may support the concept of evolution as Darwin explained it to a degree, there is simply no proof, living or dead, WHATSOEVER, that any distinct (or indistinct) form gradually evolved into a further and slightly or greatly different form and stayed there. And as I look into the considered opinions of evolutionists about the human race and how it got here, I see again -- there is no real proof (evidence of any sort in reality) that humans evolved from some other type, kind, or species before them. No chemical or real evidence, only supposition. Now one might speculate, based on what is considered as fossil evidence, but DNA is not resolved regarding that previous types of those considered as precursors to humans came to be the present types of humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure I understand your question. It goes beyond the question. Creation itself testifies to God's existence, or a higher intelligent power than that of sheer creation. Clearly the earth was formed times unknown. The question comes in primarily about humans, when and how did they come into existence? Let me ask you this: do you believe, or do scientists believe, that plants and fish came before humans?
Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: (ASV)

No. It really does not. You are just using circular reasoning.

Here is how you can tell:

What reasonable test could refute your claim if it is wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I attacked you, I am sorry. It does lead to questions. And since I wonder how a person declares himself a Christian yet does not believe Jesus knew what he was talking about when he spoke of creation of man and woman, I hope you don't take that as a personal attack or insult. Just a question.

Jesus could have been speaking poetically. He did that quite often. The people of that time were not equipped to understand evolution so why confuse them?

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus could have been speaking poetically. He did that quite often. The people of that time were not equipped to understand evolution so why confuse them?

There is no confusion. I will only say essentially in this post what the Bible says. And the Bible says that Jesus (1) spoke of creation by God, and (2) that he healed the sick and raised the dead. AND Moses had the order of creation even as scientists get it, pretty well in hand.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. It really does not. You are just using circular reasoning.

Here is how you can tell:

What reasonable test could refute your claim if it is wrong?

The reasonable test is creation itself. While microscopes can uncover many wonderful things, they do not reveal evolution of the Darwinian kind. Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
The Bible does not say that organisms are made up of genetic quality. But it does say that God created the heavens and the earth, without going into detail as to how He did it. And reasonable minds would recognize that each day of creation could be many thousands of years long.