G
Glark
Guest
If I have misappropriated the words of Augustine, please demonstrate how.
I am “the king of scripture”? I didn’t know that!
Last edited:
- Status
I am “the king of scripture”? I didn’t know that!
R
Rau
Guest
is it your view that not one single solitary fossil, aged greater than 5778 years and claimed to be of animal or plant origin, is in fact older than 5778 years? I presume it’s a literal reading of genesis upon which you base that judgement? Makes for a heck of a lot of mistaken palaeontologists!
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I think it was you who told me that a literal reading of Genesis is what leads to the conclusion that life on earth started 5778 years ago.
Anyway, I should reword my statement to “In my experience, it is quite unusual…”. And I’m not a young’un…
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Please read my post, #720.
I
IWantGod
Guest
I Refuse. I believe that You will just ignore it. All i want is for you to admit that you might be wrong. I have no interest in convincing you.
G
Glark
Guest
Please try. I will admit that I’m wrong if you can demonstrate that I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong in the past and I will be wrong in the future. But how will I know that I’m wrong if no one points it out to me?
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
You have to put aside biases to accept a demonstration. You believe that your faith is disproved if you accept evolution so i doubt you will accept any argument that will help the evolutionist cause. I was in the same boat once. The problem is when you are a yec you have to ignore commonsense, reason, and science to justify that position. I just can’t do it. To much ad-hocing.
G
Glark
Guest
I was hoping you could back up your accusation that I misappropriated Augustine’s words. It seems you can’t. Not a good look.
Btw, I’m not a YEC. I have stated that the earth could be billions of years old.
Btw, I’m not a YEC. I have stated that the earth could be billions of years old.
I
IWantGod
Guest
My only intention was to point out the possibility that you may be doing the very same thing that you are accusing others of doing.
Why accept the universe could be billions of years old and not accept the theory of evolution?
You just admitted that a literal reading of genesis leads to the view that life on earth started 5778 years ago. In fact a literal reading of genesis implies a young earth and a young universe. But you are willing to make compromises when it suits you.
If God didn’t intend that creation should naturally evolve then what is the point of an ancient universe and an ancient earth? Why not create everything in one instant including life? It doesn’t make sense.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
One species of Green Warbler splitting into two separate species of Green Warbler is indeed speciation and hence macroevolution. Where before there was one species there are now two. A very very long time ago one species of simple bilateran worm split into two different species of simple worms. One of those two species was the ancestor of the insects (protostomes) and the other was the ancestor of fish and land tetrapods (deuterostomes).
Speciation/macroevolution happens at the level of species. It is an error to confuse that with what happens at higher taxonomic levels.
That is the way common descent works to form the tree of life.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Dobzhansky was a devout Russian Orthodox Christian, you are doing him a disservice here. You would do well to read the entirety of his article: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
God made the universe, and the evidence in that universe shows that the sun came before the earth. Are you saying that the god who made the universe was Loki/Trickster and put things into the universe to deliberately deceive astronomers?
Alternatively, we know that there are hundreds or thousands of different interpretations of Genesis in the Christian and Jewish religions among the different denominations. Some of those interpretations of Genesis have to be wrong.
A deceptive god or a human misinterpretation of scripture. Which do you think is more likely?
rossum
T
Techno2000
Guest
No, that’s just the way they were raised . They didnt know they were naked, because that’s all they ever saw from their parents.Techno2000:
But these kids - Adam and Eve - were the first monkey-men injected with God Juice (or whatever it was), so shouldn’t they have known better?
B
Bradskii
Guest
With some luck the mods will ban discussions on evolution again. For your sake.IWantGod:
Please try. I will admit that I’m wrong if you can demonstrate that I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong in the past and I will be wrong in the future. But how will I know that I’m wrong if no one points it out to me?
M
MountCarmel
Guest
My personal take on the ‘Science vs Religion’ question, is that it is the question itself that is flawed. Since Mother Church and myself appear to be in a oneness with the belief that God is the creator of both humanity and science, I can perceive of no contradiction. I personally take the Adam and Eve story as being somewhat allegorical; that at one stage, before the advent of ‘our’ knowledge of ‘good and evil’ and ‘right and wrong’, that our bodies could well have not contained a human soul, and were therefore not fully human. That at the time of the ‘eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge’, the human soul was imparted by God, and the fullness of human essence bestowed. Part of that human essence is that ‘we’ can know right from wrong, and have the choice of going either way, and by thus facing the consequences. It is sin that keeps us from Heaven, but by the grace of Jesus’ personal blood sacrifice in atonement for humanity’s humungous numbers of sins, great and venial, together with our own humility and contrition, and our prayers, and the prayers of others, these sins can be, and are mitigated in the loving mind and power of God.
T
Techno2000
Guest
You mean as soon as they got the knowledge of good and evil, God transformed them from Neandertals to Adam and Eve ?
N
niceatheist
Guest
How do you propose to explain the twin nested hierarchy of life without evolution?niceatheist:
Dobzhansky came up with, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” … which I think is pure Darwinist fantasy. The truth is, evolution needs biology, but biology doesn’t need evolution - at all.
By evolution, I mean the theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms over billions of years. Take this useless theory away from biology and biology wouldn’t suffer in the slightest degree. This theory’s only “use” is to make atheists feel “intellectually fulfilled”.
E
edwest21
Guest
If you say so. I still see the conflict.
E
edwest21
Guest
I’ve seen that written before. It doesn’t mean anything. Nothing practical.
- Status