The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[OmarKhayyam]

I have the Biblical creation account which is not compatible with the ToE. So if I know from experience that God exists, and I cannot know from experience that common ancestry is true, which one should I go with?

I see.

Please explain how this differs from: 'I believe what I believe because I choose to believe it and any evidence to the contrary is irrelevant'?

 

[Autodidact]

They way I saw it is if the process goes on, we will have more lizards.

Why? Are lizards a "kind?" How do you know, if you don't know what a kind is?

What I'm saying is that, hundreds of species later, you no longer have a lizard. You have something so different from a lizard that we would call it a whole different order. What, in your hypothesis, stops this from happening?

 

[ragordon168]

I have the Biblical creation account which is not compatible with the ToE. So if I know from experience that God exists, and I cannot know from experience that common ancestry is true, which one should I go with?

experience or faith?

 

[Man of Faith]

Why? Are lizards a "kind?" How do you know, if you don't know what a kind is?

What I'm saying is that, hundreds of species later, you no longer have a lizard. You have something so different from a lizard that we would call it a whole different order. What, in your hypothesis, stops this from happening?

You are asking me to disprove something I can't see? That is up to you to prove. Lizards are still lizards today, still pumping out lizards.

 

[Man of Faith]

experience or faith?

Faith first, then experience. You can't have the experience without the faith, that is God requirement 101.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"I have the Biblical creation account which is not compatible with the ToE. . . ."

Perhaps you could explain WHY this is so. IF we assume your god exists and assume he started this whole process and you agree that at least within "kinds" (ignoring for the moment you don't know what they are) species evolve into new species - assuming all that - WHAT is not compatible?

 

[Alceste]

I have the Biblical creation account which is not compatible with the ToE. So if I know from experience that God exists, and I cannot know from experience that common ancestry is true, which one should I go with?

You don't know from experience that the biblical account of creation is true. You may have witnessed what you felt to be miracles, which you feel is evidence of the existence of god, but that has nothing at all to do with the bible. People of every faith witness miracles that affirm their faith, regardless of which (if any) book contains their scripture and regardless of which (if any) creation story their culture has devised.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Faith first, then experience. You can't have the experience without the faith, that is God requirement 101.

Explain how this differs from #581. IF it does in your view.

 

[Man of Faith]

"I have the Biblical creation account which is not compatible with the ToE. . . ."

Perhaps you could explain WHY this is so. IF we assume your god exists and assume he started this whole process and you agree that at least within "kinds" (ignoring for the moment you don't know what they are) species evolve into new species - assuming all that - WHAT is not compatible?

The Bible says that death came about because of man's sin, so man came first then death, evolution says that death came first then man.

 

[Man of Faith]

You don't know from experience that the biblical account of creation is true. You may have witnessed what you felt to be miracles, which you feel is evidence of the existence of god, but that has nothing at all to do with the bible. People of every faith witness miracles that affirm their faith, regardless of which (if any) book contains their scripture and regardless of which (if any) creation story their culture has devised.

My faith is if God is real then the Bible is true because I found God from the Bible.

 

[MSizer]

Faith first, then experience. You can't have the experience without the faith, that is God requirement 101.

That is also delusion 101.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

The Bible says that death came about because of man's sin, so man came first then death, evolution says that death came first then man.

Really? That is the whole of your objection. Timing?

 

[Alceste]

You are asking me to disprove something I can't see? That is up to you to prove. Lizards are still lizards today, still pumping out lizards.

But geckos do not pump out komodo dragons. If all "lizards" were one distinct group, one would expect to see successful interbreeding between all lizard species. Instead we see 5000 + distinct groups of lizards that can not interbreed.

So either Noah had to take 5000 + pairs of lizards on his boat, or we should be seeing more than one brand new species a year that can not breed with its parents, or the theory of evolution (and the geological fact of an old earth) is correct.

Which is it?

 

[Alceste]

My faith is if God is real then the Bible is true because I found God from the Bible.

I see. Your faith is that since you once found an apple in a fruit basket, it must mean fruit baskets produce apples.

Tell me, what does your Bible say about idolatry?

 

[Man of Faith]

Really? That is the whole of your objection. Timing?

It's more than timing, it's the exact opposite of how we got here. The Bible says that man was created in his image and God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, no death was involved, no billions of years involved.

 

[Man of Faith]

But geckos do not pump out komodo dragons. If all "lizards" were one distinct group, one would expect to see successful interbreeding between all lizard species. Instead we see 5000 + distinct groups of lizards that can not interbreed.

So either Noah had to take 5000 + pairs of lizards on his boat, or we should be seeing more than one brand new species a year that can not breed with its parents, or the theory of evolution (and the geological fact of an old earth) is correct.

Which is it?

Noah took what the Bible said he took, it was spelled out specifically, scientifically.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Noah took what the Bible said he took, it was spelled out specifically, scientifically.

Oh? Scientifically? You don't know what a "kind" is. Pretty poor science that doesn't define its terms.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

It's more than timing, it's the exact opposite of how we got here. The Bible says that man was created in his image and God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, no death was involved, no billions of years involved.

Well at least we are - finally - getting some real answers.

SO your faith requires that you read your myth as a word for word day by day account. No metaphor no poetic license no imagery. Just the facts as they happened.

Is ALL of your bible to be read in this way. Every little word every little incident minute by minute accurate?

 

[MSizer]

It's more than timing, it's the exact opposite of how we got here. The Bible says that man was created in his image and God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, no death was involved, no billions of years involved.

Yes and the bible was written by people who knew very little about the world. They only knew of humans creating things (such as tools) so they decided that the world must have been "made" too, by something like a human (cuz only humans make things) only much much bigger than a normal human. (oh, and invisible too)

 

[ragordon168]

Noah took what the Bible said he took, it was spelled out specifically, scientifically.

2 of every animal? according to this link:

http://animals.about.com/b/2007/08/13/how-many-species-on-earth.htm

there are approx. 30 MILLION species of animal. that means 60 million animals had to go on the ark. add on the amount of food needed to sustain every animal (without them eating each other) for 40 days and nights.

there is no way that the ark could ever float.