|
Post by Pietro on Sept 16, 2003 12:14:09 GMT -5
Genesis 1 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
So then, Heaven seperates the waters above from the waters below. Do we want to call that science?
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Sept 16, 2003 14:47:24 GMT -5
Are you not understanding our POV here? We understand the authority of God behind genisis. We don't believe in a literal translation of it. There is a difference. I don't believe Jesus was literally a sheep, a door, or a vine. In the same way I don't believe the literal 6 day creation account to be true. We are all dissopinted on this side of the table Adam had no human ancestors. They didn't need to be recorded. Is that what you are going to use? You realize the book of Genesis is only around 40 chapters long, the creation story only 2 of that? Its 3 pages in my bible. There are almost no details. Don't you realize that God is perfectally able to use evolution? After all he is God? And after all no one said Genesis was literal. We doubt it because there is no sceitific evidence for it. If you believe we have missed it, please do share, as we have been asking you too the entire time. Contempt implies dislike. Who said we don't like Genesis? Believing something is NON-LITERAL doesn't mean we don't like it. As I've said before. I believe the bible to be entirely true. I don't believe it to be entirely literal. By the way theories and facts are on two different ladders, not different rungs on the same. The fact that you don't know this after having it explained many many times certainly doesn't say we are the ignorant ones. Time can only be defined in the physical world as change. God exists in the spiritual world without change. We are told this in the bible. God does exist outside of space. Heaven is a spiritual realm. Not another aspect to the physical.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 16, 2003 15:17:30 GMT -5
Now, if we go back to the beginning of time. God speaks, and an infinite amount of energy is placed at a point in space. This is all the energy that will be in the entire universe. By the laws of physics that God set up, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. So in the very beginning, God put the amount of energy in the universe that would be seen for all time. It is the same amount we have now, just scattered all over the universe. Now imagine all of this energy condensed into one point. This means that all the pkmtyolm in the universe would also be in this one point. You are reminding me of an old Yes song: Total pkmtyolm Retain Lyrics: My eyes convinced, eclipsed with the younger moon attained with love. It changed as almost strained amidst clear manna from above. I crucified my hate and held the word within my hand. There’s you, the time, the logic, or the reasons we don’t understand. Sad courage claimed the victims standing still for all to see, As armoured movers took approached to overlook the sea. There since the cord, the license, or the reasons we understood will be. Down at the edge, close by a river. Close to the edge, round by the corner. Close to the end, down by the corner. Down at the edge, round by the river. Sudden problems shouldn’t take away the startled memory. All in all, the journey takes you all the way. As apart from any reality that you’ve ever seen and known. Guessing problems only to deceive the mention, pkmtyolping paths that climb halfway into the void. As we cross from side to side, we hear the total pkmtyolm retain. Down at the edge, round by the corner. Close to the end, down by a river. Seasons will pkmtyolp you by. I get up, I get down. But any way sometimess I wonder if God isn't pure intelligent energy. Perhaps he shares a bit of it, if only as will, to create the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 16, 2003 15:25:52 GMT -5
And speaking of creation (indulge me):
The Revealing Science of God Lyrics:
[The revealing science of God can be seen as an ever-opening flower In which simple truths emerge examining the complexities and magic of the past And how we should not forget the song that has been left to us to hear. the Knowledge of God is a search, constant and clear.]
Dawn of light lying between a silence and sold sources, Chased amid fusions of wonder, in moments hardly seen forgotten Coloured in pastures of chance dancing leaves cast spells of challenge, Amused but real in thought, we fled from the sea whole.
Dawn of thought transfered through moments of days undersearching earth Revealing corridors of time provoking memories, disjointed but with Purpose, Craving penetrations offer links with the self instructor’s sharp And tender love as we took to the air, a picture of distance.
Dawn of our power we amuse redescending as fast as misused Expression, as only to teach love as to reveal pkmtyolpion chasing Late into corners, and we danced from the ocean. Dawn of love sent within us colours of awakening among the many Won’t to follow, only tunes of a different age, as the links span Our endless caresses for the freedom of life everlasting.
Talk to the sunlight caller Soft summer mover distance mine
Called out a tune but I never saw the face Heard but not replaced I ventured to talk, but I never lost my place
Cast out a spell rendered for the light of day Lost in lights array I ventured to see, as the sound began to play
What happened to this song we once knew so well Signed promise for moments caught within the spell I must have waited all my life for this Moment moment
The future poised with the splendour just begun The light we were as one And crowded through the curtains of liquid into sun
And for a moment when our world had filled the skies Magic turned our eyes To feast on the treasure set for our strange device
What happened to wonders we once knew so well Did we forget what happened surely we can tell We must have waited all our lives for this Moment moment moment
Star light movements in seasons Release forward Tallest rainbow Sun shower seasons Life flower reasons
They move fast, they tell me, But I just can’t believe that I can feel it There’s someone, to tell you, Amidthe challenge we look around in unison with you
Getting over overhanging trees Let them rape the forest Thoughts would send our fusion Clearly to be home
Getting over wars we do not mean Or so it seems so clearly Sheltered with our pkmtyolpion Clearly to be home
They move fast, they tell me, But I just can’t believe they really mean to There’s someone, to tell you, And I just can’t believe our song will leave you Skyline teacher Warland seeker Send out poison Cast iron leader
And through the rhythm of moving slowly Sent through the rhythm work out the story Move over glory to sons of old fighters past. Young christians see it from the beginning Old people feel it that’s what they’re saying Move over glory to sons of old fighters past.
The move fast, they tell me, But I just can’t believe they really mean to There’s someone, to tell you, A course towards a universal season
Getting over overhanging trees let them Rape the forest, they might stand and leave them Clearly to be home Getting over wars we do not mean We charm the movement suffers Call out all our memories Clearly to be home
We’ve moved fast We need love A part we offer is our only freedom
What happened to this song we once knew so well Signed promise for moments caught within the spell We must have waited all our lives for this Moment moment
Past present movers moments we’ll process the future, but only To touch him we know, send flowered rainbows That chased flowers of dark and lights of songs To you, show all we feel for and know of, cast round, Youth is the truth accepting that reasons will relive And breathe hope and chase and love For you and you and you
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Sept 16, 2003 16:47:13 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - "Here are some simple and very, very relevant, scriptural pkmtyolpages from the book of Genesis which clearly disprove the theory of evolution"Once again, using a religious text as a source of scientific information is as illogical as using a scientific text as a source of information on God. If you would debate science, please bring some scientific information to the table. "and the erroneous belief you have that Genesis is just some parable."So, you're using the Bible to prove that an interpretation of the Bible is accurate? Whether or not you are familiar with the concept of circular logic, you certainly are adept at using it. "Now if you're a Christian, you will accept that the authority of God is behind them"I am, and I do; the fact that I do not interpret them literally certainly does not imply that I do not accept God's authority behind them. Regarding the verses you posted, they no more demonstrate that the Creation parable is meant to be interpreted literally than The Odyssey establishes that the events in that book are meant to be historical accounts. If one would determine the appropriate interpretation of any verse, it is necessary to look at all evidence, scriptural and scientific. A conclusion made at the exclusion of evidence cannot be regarded as a logical one. "Note the words 'according to their kinds' in each of the above pkmtyolpages. There's no mention of any process of evolution."That is because the Creation parable was not meant to demonstrate how God created, but simply that He did so. No mention is made of evolution because the original audience of the Creation parable simply would not have been capable of understanding evolutionary theory. "It says in Genesis that Adam died when he was 930 years of age and had fathered many children by Eve."Of course, there is absolutely no evidence which would demonstrate that humans have ever lived for even two centuries in a lifetime, let alone nine. "Some of Adam's descendants are mentioned. But he had no ancestors."Only if one illogically insists that the Creation parable is a historical account, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. "The book of Genesis is not a parable as you seem to like to call it."Once again, truth will always be consistent with truth. If the truth that God has revealed to us through Scripture is not consistent with the truth that He has revealed to us through the natural world, then God must be lying to us in one way or the other. I am infinitely more willing to accept that the Creation parable is meant to be interpreted figuratively than I am the possibility that God be lying to us. "I don't understand why you doubt the Genesis account of Creation."I don't doubt a single word of it, I simply acknowledge that the evidence demonstrates that a literal interpretation of the Creation parable is inconsistent with reality. "Don't you realise that God is perfectly able to do what it says he did."While I certainly believe that God is perfectly capable of creating the universe in six days, the evidence demonstrates that He did not. "If your contempt for the book of Genesis is anything to go by, you place more faith in the theories of 'evolution' and the 'Big Bang' than you do in God's Word."Once again, I have no contempt for the book of Genesis, nor do I place any faith in evolutionary theory or the Big Bang Theory. As scientific principles, they are not things to be believed by faith, but theories demonstrated as accurate by mountains of evidence. "You place your trust in what men say instead of what God says."Not at all, I acknowledge both as sources of truth, simply revealed in different ways. "And by the way, theory isn't 100% fact."It's amazing that you are so incapable of using either word appropriately. Theories are not facts. Theories do not become facts. Theories describe facts. "You may be ignorant"Would you care to provide any evidence which would demonstrate my ignorance, or can we just assume that this is another of your unsupported allegations? "but I certainly am not."See Reply #69 of the UH OH Evolution thread; your ignorance of science has been demonstrated plenty. "I'm willing to accept what the scientists say, as long as it doesn't conflict with what God's Word says."Science does not conflict with what God's word says, so long as one does not insist that the Creation parable be interpreted literally in spite of all evidence. "God's Word must be acknowledged by ALL CHRISTIANS as the final word on the issue. It's not a science book"Then stop trying to use it as one. "it's Divine Author is all-knowing and all-powerful, and certainly didn't need the 'Big Bang' and 'evolution' to help Him create everything."While God certainly did not need them, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that He did use them. "And He certainly didn't require billions of years to put everything in place."He didn't need them, but the evidence shows that He used them anyways. It's got to be morbid curiosity that keeps me responding to your posts. As bad as your posts get, as much as I know that you're not going to look at the evidence I present or present any of your own, I can't wait to see the next whopper you come up with. Twelve posts on this thread and three on the other, and you still have yet to even attempt a valid scientific argument. Please, look at the evidence. This would be a lot more fun if you had some idea what you were talking about. --War Traf
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Sept 16, 2003 17:50:17 GMT -5
The Bible's account of Creation is good enough for me, but I'm willing to accept what the scientists say, as long as it doesn't conflict with what God's Word says. God's Word must be acknowledged by ALL CHRISTIANS as the final word on the issue. It's not a science book, but it's Divine Author is all-knowing and all-powerful, and certainly didn't need the 'Big Bang' and 'evolution' to help Him create everything. And He certainly didn't require billions of years to put everything in place. What you said about Time and Gravity is interesting, but I believe that Time has always existed because God has always existed. Surely you accept that there was a time before everything was created? Otherwise everything has always existed! Time is a Dimension. People say God exists outside of Time. I don't accept that. That's like saying God exists outside of Space! No, rather He fills it. And the same thing applies to Time. Anyway, thanks for the interesting Post. Your Brother in Christ, Andy. P.S: Funny how one feels naked without a time-piece..... God does exist outside of time and space. Eternity cannot possibly be put into the realm of time. Time is linear. It has an end and it has a beginning. God is eternal. God has no end and no beginning. He is, was, and will be. That being said, I do not mean that God cannot also be inside of time. He can have a very real presence inside of space and time, but he is not contained it it, like we are. This is why you cannot point at a particular place in the universe and say, that is where God is. He is outside of space and time, so he can be at all points of space in all times because he is outside of it. Also, you are right. God did not require billions of years to create the universe. God did not require 6 literal days to create the universe! He could have created it in a microsecond. Heck, he could have created it yesterday, and created all of us with memories as if the universe had been around for much longer. The Bible is true, and inerrant, and the word of God. I completely agree with this. There is not a single theological point in the entire Bible that is incorrect. That being said, the Bible does not contain ALL truth. In other words, it does not contain the 3 laws of thermodynamics. It does not have the plans on building the Hoover Dam. It does not have the formulas needed to put a satellite into orbit around the earth. It is not a science book. God gave us science, which is an explanation of the natural occurences in the universe. Some people say that there is more scientific evidence that God chose to create the univers in the span of billions of years, than there is that he created it in a literal six days. Like I said before, I haven't really decided which is correct, and don't know if I ever will. I do know however that God did create the universe. What I want to know though, is why do you question the faith of a person who says that God created the universe through evolution, and not the faith of someone who says that God created the universe in six days? Aren't they both putting their faith in God?
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 17, 2003 5:28:13 GMT -5
God does exist outside of time and space. Eternity cannot possibly be put into the realm of time. Time is linear. It has an end and it has a beginning. God is eternal. God has no end and no beginning. He is, was, and will be. Eternity in infinite Time. It has no beginning or end. That being said, I do not mean that God cannot also be inside of time. He can have a very real presence inside of space and time, but he is not contained it it, like we are. This is why you cannot point at a particular place in the universe and say, that is where God is. He is outside of space and time, so he can be at all points of space in all times because he is outside of it. Time and Space have no boundaries. Same applies to God. Also, you are right. God did not require billions of years to create the universe. God did not require 6 literal days to create the universe! He could have created it in a microsecond. Heck, he could have created it yesterday, and created all of us with memories as if the universe had been around for much longer. True. The Bible is true, and inerrant, and the word of God. I completely agree with this. There is not a single theological point in the entire Bible that is incorrect. That being said, the Bible does not contain ALL truth. In other words, it does not contain the 3 laws of thermodynamics. It does not have the plans on building the Hoover Dam. It does not have the formulas needed to put a satellite into orbit around the earth. It is not a science book. I agree here too! God gave us science, which is an explanation of the natural occurences in the universe. Some people say that there is more scientific evidence that God chose to create the univers in the span of billions of years, than there is that he created it in a literal six days. Like I said before, I haven't really decided which is correct, and don't know if I ever will. I do know however that God did create the universe. Good. But it's interesting how the Bible talks about the days of creation, about them being divided by the night. What I want to know though, is why do you question the faith of a person who says that God created the universe through evolution, and not the faith of someone who says that God created the universe in six days? Aren't they both putting their faith in God? Very simple. The Genesis account provides a simple and true model for Creation that the true scientific facts will be able to fit into. Traffic Demon describes the Genesis account as being nothing more than a "parable" or made up story. If that is so, then how can he say that he accepts that it has the authority of God behind it? Is God a liar? Also, it is important to bare in mind that the book of Genesis speaks of the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It speaks of the Garden of Eden. It speaks of the Fall of Man into Sin and how God punished Adam and Eve for their disobedience. And so on..... Traffic Demon presumably doesn't believe in all this, whilst at the same time claiming to be a Christian. I do. If he cannot accept the story of Genesis and Man's Fall, how can he accept that we are sinners and that Christ had to die for us on a Cross at Golgotha? Can he accept that Christ was physically and spiritually resurrected back to life? I do. And by the way I never disputed his point that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Traffic Demon believes that the apes could have been created in God's image. Where in Genesis does it say that? Did Christ die for the apes as well as us? Was He a God-ape-man? I don't think so. I get the impression that Satan is playing mind-games with Traffic Demon, and I refuse to play along with him. He has been calling me "ignorant" for refusing to agree with him. Now, if he's so sure about what he believes, then why say that? By the way, I once read a book on 'evolution' as a kid and didn't believe in it then. I found it wholly unconvincing. That was before I became a Christian. And my opinion of this man-made theory of 'evolution' has not changed in over 20 years. It is all to do with Satan preventing Man from accepting the knowlege that he has been created in God's image. Satan is saying "You are no higher a creature than the ape. God never made you in His image." What one needs to understand is this: The Bible is the only book that's ever been written by the Divine inspiration of the Spirit of God. It is a record of God's dealings with Man. Simple. Your Brother in Christ, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Sept 17, 2003 6:19:57 GMT -5
Very simple. The Genesis account provides a simple and true model for Creation that the true scientific facts will be able to fit into. Traffic Demon describes the Genesis account as being nothing more than a "parable" or made up story. If that is so, then how can he say that he accepts that it has the authority of God behind it? Is God a liar? Also, it is important to bare in mind that the book of Genesis speaks of the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It speaks of the Garden of Eden. It speaks of the Fall of Man into Sin and how God punished Adam and Eve for their disobedience. And so on..... Traffic Demon presumably doesn't believe in all this, whilst at the same time claiming to be a Christian. I do. If he cannot accept the story of Genesis and Man's Fall, how can he accept that we are sinners and that Christ had to die for us on a Cross at Golgotha? Can he accept that Christ was physically and spiritually resurrected back to life? I do. And by the way I never disputed his point that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Traffic Demon believes that the apes could have been created in God's image. Where in Genesis does it say that? Did Christ die for the apes as well as us? Was He a God-ape-man? I don't think so. I get the impression that Satan is playing mind-games with Traffic Demon, and I refuse to play along with him. He has been calling me "ignorant" for refusing to agree with him. Now, if he's so sure about what he believes, then why say that? By the way, I once read a book on 'evolution' as a kid and didn't believe in it then. I found it wholly unconvincing. That was before I became a Christian. And my opinion of this man-made theory of 'evolution' has not changed in over 20 years. It is all to do with Satan preventing Man from accepting the knowlege that he has been created in God's image. Satan is saying "You are no higher a creature than the ape. God never made you in His image." What one needs to understand is this: The Bible is the only book that's ever been written by the Divine inspiration of the Spirit of God. It is a record of God's dealings with Man. Simple. Your Brother in Christ, Andy. I have to say that I've been enjoying this little "debate" between you and TD. It has been pretty entertaining. I'd like to mention a few things: 1.) It seems that you are unwilling to use the logical reasoning that we all posess. TD keeps pointing out the flaws in your "argument", but you never seem to be able to understand what he is telling you. 2.) A parable is a simple story that is meant to illustrate a lesson. The creation is story is a nice parable meant to illustrate that God created everything, and it is done so in a way that a more simple-minded person could understand. Could you imagine telling the pkmtyolmes in 1200 B.C. the story of creation involving evolution and a "Big Bang"? Most of those people were unable to even write their own names. The Bible is full of parables and metaphors so that the reader can understand the important points. It is not meant to be taken literally. God gave you the ability to use logic to understand things. I would admonish you to use it. 3.) I'm not sure if you have any experience with debating, but if you do you are not very good at it. If this thread were an "on stage" debate, you would have lost hands down. You keep bringing up the same old tired arguments without responding to the points of your opponent. Have a great week.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Sept 17, 2003 6:42:08 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - "The Genesis account provides a simple and true model for Creation that the true scientific facts will be able to fit into."But they don't fit into that model, at least when it is interpreted literally. You are forming a conclusion first and insisting that the facts conform to it; this is the complete opposite of how science works. Once again, truth will always be consistent with truth; if the truth that God has revealed to us through Scripture is inconsistent with the truth that He has revealed to us through the natural world, then we either need to re-examine our interpretation of Scripture, or accept that God is lying to us in one form or another. I prefer the former, as the latter is wholly contrary to a Christian belief. "Traffic Demon describes the Genesis account as being nothing more than a 'parable' or made up story. If that is so, then how can he say that he accepts that it has the authority of God behind it?"In the same way that the parables Jesus used had the authority of God behind them. "Is God a liar?"I've never made any statements to that effect. "Also, it is important to bare in mind... Traffic Demon presumably doesn't believe in all this, whilst at the same time claiming to be a Christian." I do believe the story, I simply acknowledge that interpreting the story literally is inconsistent wit reality. "If he cannot accept the story of Genesis and Man's Fall, how can he accept that we are sinners and that Christ had to die for us on a Cross at Golgotha?"Since I do accept the story of man's fall, the question is irrelevant. "Can he accept that Christ was physically and spiritually resurrected back to life?"I did so a long time ago, and still do. "And by the way I never disputed his point that the Bible is not a scientific textbook."Then stop trying to use it as one. Stop insisting "that the true scientific facts will be able to fit into" a literal interpretation of the Creation parable. Theories describe facts, facts never are bent to conform to theories. "Traffic Demon believes that the apes could have been created in God's image."No, I don't, nor have I ever made any statements to that effect. "I get the impression that Satan is playing mind-games with Traffic Demon, and I refuse to play along with him."For those scoring along on the Talk.Origins Home Game, I2AM4GOD just awarded me 8 points. Woo-hoo! Sorry, no satanic influence, and no mind games here. Just sound science backed up by a hundred fifty years of evidence. It's kind of fun how your argument is focused on the one defending the theory instead of on the theory itself. "He has been calling me 'ignorant' for refusing to agree with him."No, I have been calling you ignorant because you apparently have no idea how to go about debating a scientific principle, and have shown that you have no idea what that principle says, what the evidence supporting that principle is, or what basic scientific terms mean. "Now, if he's so sure about what he believes, then why say that?"Because you have demonstrated your ignorance of science quite conclusively. "By the way, I once read a book on 'evolution' as a kid and didn't believe in it then. I found it wholly unconvincing."Given the level of scientific understanding that you have demonstrated, I'm not surprised. When one understands what evolutionary theory actually says, and is fluent in the vocabulary of science, the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing. "It is all to do with Satan preventing Man from accepting the knowlege that he has been created in God's image."Not surprisingly, you don't provide any evidence to back yourself up here. "What one needs to understand is this: The Bible is the only book that's ever been written by the Divine inspiration of the Spirit of God."That is your belief. As the statement can only be accepted by faith, it is wholly irrelevant to a scientific discussion. If you're so convinced that evolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory are inaccurate, why is it that you and the other young Earth creationists on this thread and the other have not been able to present a single piece of evidence contradictory to them? Why have you not produced any evidence that would support another model? Science is based on evidence, and evidence alone. If your claims would have any weight, they must be backed up by falsifiable evidence. So far, you've shown none, giving us no reason to believe your claims. --BDT
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 17, 2003 7:45:25 GMT -5
Traffic Demon, So what God says in His Word is wholly irrelevant to this debate? It's wholly relevant. Christ dying on the Cross because of what happened in the beginning when Man sinned against Him is relevant. The book of Genesis is relevant in describing the order in which all living things were created. It is also relevant when it says that Man, was created in the image of God - not the animals. You did say that you didn't see why the apes could not have been created in the image of God. Going by your attitude towards the book of Genesis, I take it that you don't believe that Adam and Eve ever lived and you don't believe they ever ate some of the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Tree of Knowledge was a real tree, as was the Tree of Life. Do you believe that Man is in rebellion towards God? And if so, where and when did the original sin occur? I believe God's Word when it says that the original sin occurred in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve sinned against God. I believe God's Word 100%. Do you? Oh, I get it, you believe God's Word when it only suits you! I see. Care to show me where in the Bible it says that Genesis is only a parable? Christ sometimes spoke in parables, but He never said that the Genesis story was a parable. And He should know, because He was there in the beginning, a claim that no evolutionist can make. You can't compromise God's Word with unproven science, yet claim be a Christian who accepts the Bible as having the full authority of God behind it. It just doesn't work....... Your Brother in Christ, Andy. P.S: So, you are amused by what I'm saying. I wonder whether God is amused by your unbelief?
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 17, 2003 9:03:46 GMT -5
Traffic Demon,
Please tell me which parts of the Genesis account you don't take literally and why. And which parts you do take literally and why.
Andy.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 17, 2003 11:45:21 GMT -5
The Genesis account provides a simple and true model for Creation that the true scientific facts will be able to fit into. How can one explane the diversity of order in the two accounts of creation in Genesis? Chapter 1 speaks of this order: Heaven, earth, wind, water 1st day Light 2nd day Sky 3rd day Land, sea & vegetation 4th day Sun, moon, Stars 5th day Living creatures- birds & fish 6th day Animals, cattle and man is last In Chapter 2: 5-7 God created man before there was any vegetation. Genesis 2 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. It was never meant to be scientific.
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Sept 17, 2003 15:30:08 GMT -5
I am under the impression he doesn't take anything untill after the flood story literally.
I on the other hand am just in dispute with just the creation account, while i do believe the adam and eve being the first human part. I believe the flood was localized.
We believe the way we do because all current evidence points to the model of evolution to be true. We know that truth will always be consistant with truth. The bible also says the heavens, which earth is part of, declare his handiwork.
That being said, there is no reason to take the genesis account literally when the bible gives no reason to.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Sept 17, 2003 21:34:41 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - "So what God says in His Word is wholly irrelevant to this debate?"
Yes. The Bible is a religious text, and therefore inapplicable to any scientific discussion. You are not basing your argument on any evidence, but on an interpretation of a four thousand year old story that contradicts all known evidence. You want to debate science, bring evidence, not theology.
"Christ dying on the Cross because of what happened in the beginning when Man sinned against Him is relevant."
It certainly does in a discussion of Christianity or theology in general, but not to evolutionary theory.
"The book of Genesis is relevant in describing the order in which all living things were created."
Why do you insist upon interpreting the Creation parable in a way that contradicts the evidence? To do so mandates that God be lying to us, either in Scripture, or in the evidence that He has left us in the natural world.
"It is also relevant when it says that Man, was created in the image of God - not the animals."
I have never disputed that man alone was created in God's image, but such a statement has no bearing on science.
"You did say that you didn't see why the apes could not have been created in the image of God."
You'll note that when I have responded to a statement of yours, I have done you the courtesy of quoting your words so what you actually said might be seen. Please show me that same courtesy; what I actually said was that God "certainly created both of us [humans and apes] in the image of a shared ancestor." That statement is a far cry from stating that apes might have been created in the image of God. If you would cite my past statements, please make an effort to honestly represent my position.
"Going by your attitude towards the book of Genesis, I take it that you don't believe that Adam and Eve ever lived"
While I certainly do not believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, or that they lived for hundreds of years, I am perfectly willing to accept that a historical patriarch named Adam existed, and that Jesus' ancestry can be traced to him.
"and you don't believe they ever ate some of the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."
No, I believe that the eating of the fruit was a parable meant to describe the origins of sin. However, whether the story was meant to be interpreted literally or figuratively is irrelevant; the important thing is the fat that all humans have sinned, and are therefore in need of Christ's salvation.
" The Tree of Knowledge was a real tree, as was the Tree of Life."
Of course it was. I'll believe it when you show your evidence.
"Do you believe that Man is in rebellion towards God?"
Yes.
"And if so, where and when did the original sin occur?"
I believe that the first sin occurred the first time one of our ancestors capable of distinguishing right from wrong chose to do wrong.
"I believe God's Word when it says that the original sin occurred in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve sinned against God."
And I believe the story as well, just not literally.
"I believe God's Word 100%. Do you?"
Absolutely.
"Oh, I get it, you believe God's Word when it only suits you!"
Again, you are making a false accusation against me, knowing full well that you have no evidence to support your claims. Maybe you could help me out, doesn't the Bible say a thing or two about bearing false witness?
"Care to show me where in the Bible it says that Genesis is only a parable?"
One need not limit onesself to the Bible as a source of evidence. If one wishes to form an accurate conclusion as to whether any events in the Bible are historical, one must examine all available evidence. When one looks at that evidence, it becomes clear that a literal interpretation of the Creation parable cannot hold true.
"Christ sometimes spoke in parables, but He never said that the Genesis story was a parable."
He also never stated that several other parables He used were actually parables; we have come to know this through looking at all the available evidence.
"And He should know, because He was there in the beginning, a claim that no evolutionist can make."
Once again, direct observation is certainly not necessary to confirm that an event has taken place.
"You can't compromise God's Word with unproven science"
The scientific statements that I have posted are anything but unproven; they have been "proven" accurate by every piece of evidence known to exist. Furthermore, I have in no way compromised God's word by acknowledging those scientific theories as accurate; I have reconciled the two, allowing them to coexist and even complement each other.
"yet claim be a Christian who accepts the Bible as having the full authority of God behind it. It just doesn't work"
Once again, I'll believe you just as soon as you bring your evidence to back up your claims.
"So, you are amused by what I'm saying. I wonder whether God is amused by your unbelief?"
What unbelief?
"Please tell me which parts of the Genesis account you don't take literally and why. And which parts you do take literally and why."
I take the entire Bible literally whenever possible, only interpreting a pkmtyolpage in a non-literal manner when a literal interpretation would contradict the evidence that God has revealed to us through the natural world. The primary pkmtyolpages that I have adopted non-literal interpretations for are the fantastic events described in Genesis 1-11.
Once again, your objections to evolutionary theory are not based on evidence of any kind. Please, if you would continue in this debate, bring some actual evidence in to support your claims. Don't bring in theology, don't bring in straw man models of science, bring real, falsifiable evidence. If you would show a scientific model to be inaccurate, that is the only way you will accomplish your aims.
--War Traf
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 19, 2003 7:08:50 GMT -5
Traffic Demon,
If you don't believe that Adam and Eve sinned against God in the Garden of Eden by eating some of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, how do you know that Man is in rebellion towards God?
Your Brother in Christ, Andy.
|
|