Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Roberto View Post
    Nice. And if you like to read more about such topics, go to a forum where they discuss such, plenty of atheist also there giving their answers about their view
    Its nice to read both sides of the views, but im sticking to young earth theory, i dont think God is a liar, and He has been with mankind since beginning of time, i think man start to write early, and they write down about creation from Adams view, the things that were told amongst human that time, gather together their writings, and after Moses they created the beginning of the bible, and God has been there working on the history with them, untill the apostles wrote the last ones and God now lives amongst us through this writings which will be the best way to describe Him, Jesus is the key to what God for us.
    Here is a link to a forum where there are many creationists.
    http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/...showtopic=2106
    Hello Roberto

    It's not really a matter of calling god a liar (if there is one), it's more a matter of saying that the authors of the Bible got their facts wrong. The young earth theory comes from the Bible, don't you think that you should believe the evidence that creation declares instead of the writings of superstitious, primitive men who believed in a talking snake?

    The Bible is one book amongst hundreds of sacred texts whose authors thought they heard from a creator god, how do you know which author is right, if any? Just because the biblical authors said they received revelation from god does not mean it is so ... it is no different than Mohamed saying he received revelation of Allah from the angel Gabriel ... they both can't be right!

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  2. #12
    Research... Guest

    Thumbs up Research Unbiased!

    Rightly-Dividing Geology and the Book of Genesis Beyond
    the "Gap Theory" of Creationism


    In the beginning
    "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
    (Genesis 1:1 KJV) ?
    "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Genesis 1:2 KJV)
    Most people believe the seven days of Genesis must be some enigmatic description of the Earth's geologic history. Numerous interpretations have been put forth to harmonize the Biblical narrative with the observations of the geologic record. However, the Scriptural reality of the matter is this: The seven days are not a description of the Earth's geology, at all. There is a time-gap between the first two verses of Genesis.

    "On this website you will learn about a controversial, lesser known literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative that does not contradict the scientific evidence for an Old Earth. Commonly called the "Gap Theory" or "Ruin-Reconstruction" interpretation, it is a theological doctrine that predates Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It is based on the Scriptural fact that in the second verse of Genesis the Holy Bible simply and clearly states that the planet Earth was already here (but in a ruined state) before the Divine process described in those seven days even begins. In other words, the 4.5 billion years of Earth's geology and natural history took place before the time of the seven days. That makes the seven days of Genesis a new generation of the heavens and Earth. Understanding this Biblical mystery begins with the precise wording of this New Testament cross-reference:

    "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
    (2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)

    Contrary to popular fundamentalist interpretation, the above passage is NOT a reference to Noah's flood. And the only other place in the Bible where the Earth was covered in waters is Genesis 1:2. The ramifications are obvious: The literal wording suggests that the "heavens and the earth, which are now" (made during the seven days) was not the first-time creation of all things, as is traditionally assumed. The Word of God is telling the reader there was a previous populated world on the face of this old Earth before God formed the present world of Adam and his descendants, modern Man." http://www.kjvbible.org/

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Research... View Post
    The Word of God is telling the reader there was a previous populated world on the face of this old Earth before God formed the present world of Adam and his descendants, modern Man." http://www.kjvbible.org/
    The question of whether God has created other planets and life on those planets, we cannot answer. In view of what is said in the post I am replying to, it cannot be ruled out. God could have created the Dinosaurs and the vegetation as a prelude to the "new heavens and the new earth that was then formed". The destruction/killing of animals is not taken as murdering those animals to be compared with the murder of a human being. It is an interesting point of view which could be correct that the earth is millions of years old and the new creation took place very quickly with man being the pinnacle of that creation.

    The angels of God are a separate creation and also considered to have existed at the time of the (new) creation. Let us think that in all that time before God set about his new creation, man was in the mind of God to be created. Jesus his only begotten son was in his mind at that stage. God knew the man and woman he was to create could be perfect in the sense of being obedient. Hence Jesus was made perfect by the things he suffered and they did not make him sin and passing that test made him perfect. Sadly, the remainder of mankind has been less than perfect.

    As God is ONE and there is no other god beside him, the only begotten son is also a one-off. I think it fair to assume that God did not make another version of humans on another planet. We have to to accept Jesus as the " the one and only begotten..." and God has no other son than Jesus.

    Of course, when this present "new heaven and earth" is done with (in the fulfilment of God's plan), he will then create another "new heavens and a new earth". (Rev 21:5) Behold, I make all things new.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Rose

    I am answering your post after replying to the post later in this thread from a guest on the forum. The guest has made a valid point, which cannot be ruled out. Since you have asked me a question, I am answering the question in light of the later post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello David

    Do you mean that you think only living organisms are 6,000 years old, but the inorganic matter of which the earth is made is millions or billions of years old?
    That was the gist of what I said. I believe mankind is only 6,000 years old and we have been eating "old" dirt. There is a possibility that there was created life millions of years ago and which God replaced with "a new heaven and a new earth". In replacing the old with the new, we have traces of the old remaining in the fossil record.

    If this is correct, and there is no reason to reject it, this means that both scientists and creationists are closer together in their reasoning than they thought. We could say perhaps that Evolutionists could be correct when determining the finds of the old creation in the fossil record, but are wrong concerning the new creation.

    This is more food for thought, which is what we want on this forum, to make us think or rethink our entrenched position.

    All the best
    David

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose

    I am answering your post after replying to the post later in this thread from a guest on the forum. The guest has made a valid point, which cannot be ruled out. Since you have asked me a question, I am answering the question in light of the later post.


    That was the gist of what I said. I believe mankind is only 6,000 years old and we have been eating "old" dirt. There is a possibility that there was created life millions of years ago and which God replaced with "a new heaven and a new earth". In replacing the old with the new, we have traces of the old remaining in the fossil record.

    If this is correct, and there is no reason to reject it, this means that both scientists and creationists are closer together in their reasoning than they thought. We could say perhaps that Evolutionists could be correct when determining the finds of the old creation in the fossil record, but are wrong concerning the new creation.

    This is more food for thought, which is what we want on this forum, to make us think or rethink our entrenched position.

    All the best
    David
    Hi David

    The evidence we have in the fossil record is exactly what one would expect ... it goes from simple organisms to more complex organisms. Life on our 4.6 billion year old planet started around 3.9 billion years ago and has steadily progressed forward since then. The first hominids are thought to have lived 6-7 million years ago with modern humans evolving form archaic homo sapiens around 200,000 years ago ... this is well before your 6,000 year creation point of human existence.

    Doesn't it seem odd to you how all the pieces fit so perfectly in place with the scientific evolutionary picture of human development, yet your theory must be cobbled together of made up pieces to try and make sense of the biblical account of human history? There is no "old creation" versus "new creation", all life on earth follows one continuous path forward ... every living creature can trace its linage back to a common ancestor that began with the formation of RNA. There is no need to create fully formed life out of dust, when after the formation of RNA every step can be explained in the process that leads to complex life. God is not needed to create humans out of clay 6,000 years ago, because the process of evolution began billions of years ago and it has been working fine ever since.

    As you know I have completely rethought my entrenched position, which is why I am no longer a Christian. I am 100% in favor of all the food for thought you can come up with.

    Take care
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Rose

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Doesn't it seem odd to you how all the pieces fit so perfectly in place with the scientific evolutionary picture of human development, yet your theory must be cobbled together of made up pieces to try and make sense of the biblical account of human history?
    No it does not. The links to humans is far from proven. There are difficulties and the lower level than humans. I know you think kinds do not exist and that only species exist. There is no real proof for the evolution for any of the different kinds like cats and dogs. I see a logical progression in complexity amongst the animals, but cats are cats and dogs are dogs (wolves actually) and they cannot interbreed. Of course, scientists are working hard to show there are links, but nothing is actually proven. It is like saying a motorized bike developed from the pedal bike. How do you show the gradual transformation from a pedal system to a motor system and what would be the half-way stage?

    The other difficult explanation is symbiotic relationships in nature between plants and insects or plants and birds. There is no explanation for how two interdependent species, like a plant and a bird could have developed separately, when one without the other cannot survive. Maybe you are ingenious enough to show how the symbiotic relationship came about.

    All the best

    David

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose



    No it does not. The links to humans is far from proven. There are difficulties and the lower level than humans. I know you think kinds do not exist and that only species exist. There is no real proof for the evolution for any of the different kinds like cats and dogs. I see a logical progression in complexity amongst the animals, but cats are cats and dogs are dogs (wolves actually) and they cannot interbreed. Of course, scientists are working hard to show there are links, but nothing is actually proven. It is like saying a motorized bike developed from the pedal bike. How do you show the gradual transformation from a pedal system to a motor system and what would be the half-way stage?
    Hello David

    First off, you cannot compare mechanical objects with individual parts that are clearly developed by a designer for a specific purpose, with organisms that evolve to more complexity over time through selection and mutation.

    Humans and chimpanzees share over 98% of their DNA which makes it fairly easy to genetically trace the less than 2% difference back to a common ancestor and calculate how those genes mutated and changed over time. It's only word play to try and make a distinctions between species and kinds. With the discovery of DNA the evidence for connections can be traced back to common ancestors.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The other difficult explanation is symbiotic relationships in nature between plants and insects or plants and birds. There is no explanation for how two interdependent species, like a plant and a bird could have developed separately, when one without the other cannot survive. Maybe you are ingenious enough to show how the symbiotic relationship came about.

    All the best

    David
    It has nothing to do with my ingenuity. One very important symbiotic relationship was the reason that prokaryotic cells evolved into eukaryotic cells. Scientists theorize that the reason mitochondria have their own DNA was because they originally were prokaryotic cells that formed a symbiotic relationship with other prokaryotic cells, thus forming eukaryotic cells that have organelles. This process of evolving from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells took close to 2 billion years, that is a very long time to make what seems like a small change, but time is what it's all about in the evolutionary scheme of things. What starts out as a mutually beneficial relationship between orgainisms, given enough time, develops into a symbiotic relationship where both parts become dependent upon the other and cannot survive without the other.

    Take care
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello David
    First off, you cannot compare mechanical objects with individual parts that are clearly developed by a designer for a specific purpose, with organisms that evolve to more complexity over time through selection and mutation.
    Hello Rose
    I was trying to think of a better example. Picking up on the point you make about increasing complexity, then using a mechanical model to compare with Evolution is not totally dissimilar. Cars today are far more complex than cars of 50 years ago. If we compare the design of cars over the decades, we see how the separate parts such as tyres and ignition systems have improved in design and increased in reliability. The improvements have been progressive year on year. Advances can be step with improving materials and miniaturization. More complexity in vehicle electronics is taking place year on year. The changes of different parts takes place at different rates. This is not too dissimilar the the evolution model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Humans and chimpanzees share over 98% of their DNA which makes it fairly easy to genetically trace the less than 2% difference back to a common ancestor and calculate how those genes mutated and changed over time. It's only word play to try and make a distinctions between species and kinds. With the discovery of DNA the evidence for connections can be traced back to common ancestors.
    Incidentally Rose, what did you think of Elaine Morgan's theory that humans came from aquatic apes? Why is it that humans are hairless and apes have a thick covering of hair?


    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    It has nothing to do with my ingenuity. One very important symbiotic relationship was the reason that prokaryotic cells evolved into eukaryotic cells. Scientists theorize that the reason mitochondria have their own DNA was because they originally were prokaryotic cells that formed a symbiotic relationship with other prokaryotic cells, thus forming eukaryotic cells that have organelles. This process of evolving from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells took close to 2 billion years, that is a very long time to make what seems like a small change, but time is what it's all about in the evolutionary scheme of things. What starts out as a mutually beneficial relationship between orgainisms, given enough time, develops into a symbiotic relationship where both parts become dependent upon the other and cannot survive without the other.
    That theory is far from being proven, but I grant you that is what is being suggested.
    You have not explained how a symbiotic relationship like that between the a bird and a plant took place. Why should a plant make its nectar more difficult to get and the bird has to grow a longer beak in order to reach inside the flower. This is just one of many symbiotic relationships I would like you to explain how they came about.

    All the best
    David

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose
    I was trying to think of a better example. Picking up on the point you make about increasing complexity, then using a mechanical model to compare with Evolution is not totally dissimilar. Cars today are far more complex than cars of 50 years ago. If we compare the design of cars over the decades, we see how the separate parts such as tyres and ignition systems have improved in design and increased in reliability. The improvements have been progressive year on year. Advances can be step with improving materials and miniaturization. More complexity in vehicle electronics is taking place year on year. The changes of different parts takes place at different rates. This is not too dissimilar the the evolution model.
    Hello David

    Improvements are exactly what a purposeful designer does with his creation. As flaws manifest themselves corrections are made till the designer is satisfied that the product is the best it can be. If humans had a purposeful creator the design of our bodies would not be flawed, which obviously is not the case. There are many improvements that could be made in the design of the human body, which is totally in keeping with how evolution works, but not the way a purposeful designer works.

    Things in nature do look designed, but only in the way that the natural process of evolution would design them, that is to say designed through natural forces that shape and form according to selection and mutation.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Incidentally Rose, what did you think of Elaine Morgan's theory that humans came from aquatic apes? Why is it that humans are hairless and apes have a thick covering of hair?
    I don't have much to say about Elaine Morgan's theory, except I think she is wrong.

    Humans did not come from apes, we share a common ancestor ... those are two very different things. Scientists calculate that our ancestors split from chimpanzees around 6 million years ago. Apparently mutations occurred in our ancestors that led to less and less hair, those mutations were selected for till we became the mostly hairless beings we are today. Maybe sexual selection played a role in causing us to lose our hair or maybe it was climatic conditions that caused individuals with less hair to survive the heat better ... it's probably something that we will never know for sure. It makes no sense to think that a god would design humans with very little hair, because naked bodies are far more vulnerable than bodies with a tough hide, and a nice coat of fur like our primate cousins.


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    That theory is far from being proven, but I grant you that is what is being suggested.
    You have not explained how a symbiotic relationship like that between the a bird and a plant took place. Why should a plant make its nectar more difficult to get and the bird has to grow a longer beak in order to reach inside the flower. This is just one of many symbiotic relationships I would like you to explain how they came about.

    All the best
    David
    Its all about reproduction, the flowers that get pollinated better are the ones that have more seeds which make more plants. Darwin showed how the beaks of finches changed with the type of food that was available to them, as the plants that provided seeds changed with climatic conditions so did the birds beaks. All these changes take place in micro steps dependent on selection and reproduction, symbiotic relationships develop slowly over time starting with a mutually beneficial relationships that gradually develop into dependent relationships. Things did not just appear in the state you see them today, they evolved very slowly over an extremely long period of time by micro steps.

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Rose

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello David

    Improvements are exactly what a purposeful designer does with his creation. As flaws manifest themselves corrections are made till the designer is satisfied that the product is the best it can be. If humans had a purposeful creator the design of our bodies would not be flawed, which obviously is not the case. There are many improvements that could be made in the design of the human body, which is totally in keeping with how evolution works, but not the way a purposeful designer works.

    Things in nature do look designed, but only in the way that the natural process of evolution would design them, that is to say designed through natural forces that shape and form according to selection and mutation.
    There is NO "design process" in evolution. I am saying that for you. This is what you must say in order to believe in evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    I don't have much to say about Elaine Morgan's theory, except I think she is wrong.
    She was an advocate for evolution right up to her death (not long ago), but she did not agree with the evidence/argument presented by Evolutionists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Humans did not come from apes, we share a common ancestor ... those are two very different things. Scientists calculate that our ancestors split from chimpanzees around 6 million years ago. Apparently mutations occurred in our ancestors that led to less and less hair, those mutations were selected for till we became the mostly hairless beings we are today. Maybe sexual selection played a role in causing us to lose our hair or maybe it was climatic conditions that caused individuals with less hair to survive the heat better ... it's probably something that we will never know for sure. It makes no sense to think that a god would design humans with very little hair, because naked bodies are far more vulnerable than bodies with a tough hide, and a nice coat of fur like our primate cousins.
    Unfortunately, the false published material of long past is there to keep us confounded and is regurgitated by those not keeping up. The word of God has not changed from the day it was first given.

    If you are never going to know for sure, why waste time reading about those things you can never be sure of?

    God designed humans to be "clever" and creative. Humans can make clothes and decide when and where to wear them. How "clever" does that make God which designed of man? I am sure of that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Its all about reproduction, the flowers that get pollinated better are the ones that have more seeds which make more plants. Darwin showed how the beaks of finches changed with the type of food that was available to them, as the plants that provided seeds changed with climatic conditions so did the birds beaks. All these changes take place in micro steps dependent on selection and reproduction, symbiotic relationships develop slowly over time starting with a mutually beneficial relationships that gradually develop into dependent relationships. Things did not just appear in the state you see them today, they evolved very slowly over an extremely long period of time by micro steps.
    The sensible thing for evolution (assuming evolution could decide or design) would be for that particular flower to make pollination easier; not more difficult. For every bird that did not have a long enough beak (and the bird can only survive on that one flower), the bird born with the short beak dies. It is too late to decide to grow a longer beak once it is dead. The flower would also not reproduce when it puts its nectar out of reach of the bird. A step too far in the opposite direction for both parties causes death to both. We envisage that with varying lengths of beak and flower chambers that started off short and of varying lengths, a point of equilibrium is reached, in which beaks do not get shorter and chambers do not get longer. Evolution must therefore have stopped for that pairing. Where else would evolution of that flower or that bird in this symbiotic relationship lead to? There is no sense for the flower to lengthen its chamber without first telling the bird to lengthen its beak. Without that essential communication in evolution, the symbiotic relationship would not continue in the direction it has taken. The only reasonable explanation is that it had to be designed that way from the start.

    All the best
    David
    Last edited by David M; 09-11-2013 at 04:04 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •