Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really. Actually your analogy to a footballer makes MY point for me. Because such a footballer actually has invested and sacrificed and spent significant portions of his finite and limited existence. Something was actually invested and spent, never to return, out of a finite pool from which to invest.
This can not be said of an eternal deity of infinite time and resources and power.
So as I say, thanks for making my point for me, though I trust it was not your intent.
On the contrary, the investment and sacrifice in sports is to spend time learning your skill to the best of your ability, and sacrificing your time and other things that you may have wanted to do, to reach towards a goal of perfection. And that investment has great return, in monetary gain and popularity, and sometimes in having been able to guide others.
Jesus' sacrifice was much the same, because He spent, (or gave), His whole life learning of God, and He did it through reading the Hebrew scriptures of that time and also through experience and developing His relationship with His Father. His pure life is an example to anyone that desires to know God, and He did not use the power that could have come from Heaven for His own desires, but He stuck to the plan of God to be the perfect example for all of us. It could be compared to Superman learning how to be a perfect sports athlete while having a necklace of kryptonite around his neck. His death was also a sacrifice, in that, He could have refused to pay the debt for us and not died, and yet He would have lived forever with God. But He went against His own will, and crossed that line into total giving of Himself as a human. Of course He knew that His own reward was great, and the Bible even said that the joy set before Him was the main factor that helped Him endure the cross.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
In Exodus 1:15 Pharoah speaks to the Hebrew midwives--both of them---for the two million soon to be free Hebrew slaves. TWO for two million people. That has to be another Godly miracle!!
But biblical literalists will not accept that verse as literal, while demanding that the rest of us accept Genesis as literal. As a born again Christian blessed by God with the gift of reason, I find this to be both remarkable and hypocritical simultaneously.
Yes, there were two midwives, but did you ever consider that Pharaoh would have only called the two leaders of the midwives before his throne to question them? In verse 19, it says: And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives [that the two head Egyptian midwives were in charge of] come in unto them. By this verse, it is obvious that they were speaking of 'all' the midwives of Egypt, which couldn't keep up with the healthiness and quick delivery of the Hebrew women.
So...how about we get back to the OP's question?
Did God guide evolution?
In my opinion, the question is unanswerable, because in the pure sense of what most think evolution entails, I don't believe exists. I believe that the living creatures of the Earth change and adapt to some extent, but they do not ever change in Kind. I also don't believe that God "guides" things as a puppet master. I believe that He created the first of everything, but He has built into each living thing the ability to reproduce after its kind, and even though He has the ability to know what is going to happen, He rarely interferes with that process of natural growth.
In the case of Adam, and the timing of creation, I believe that Adam was originally a perfect human in a perfect world, and we have no idea how long he was walking daily in the Garden of Eden with God before he fell. I believe that the dating of his 930 year-long life began at the fall, not his creation. His pre-fall life could have lasted a very, very, long time.
Originally Posted by Eusebius The point is you believe God made no sacrifice nor did Jesus if Jesus is now enjoying the fruits of His sacrifice. The pro football player is an excellent type of what we are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Not really. Actually your analogy to a footballer makes MY point for me. Because such a footballer actually has invested and sacrificed and spent significant portions of his finite and limited existence. Something was actually invested and spent, never to return, out of a finite pool from which to invest.
This can not be said of an eternal deity of infinite time and resources and power.
So as I say, thanks for making my point for me, though I trust it was not your intent.
Actually the points of sacrifice are the same and disproves your point.
Where does the Bible say Jesus was an eternal deity of infinite time and resources and power? Please give book, chapter and verse.
Where in the Bible does it say if an animal is sacrificed for the sins of the people in the Old Testament but is later brought back to life that it wasn't a sacrifice?
Where in the bible does it say if Christ died for our sins and was later resurrected from the dead that His sacrifice doesn't count? Please be very specific. Please provide Book, chapter and verse.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumpethim
..............
In my opinion, the question is unanswerable, because in the pure sense of what most think evolution entails, I don't believe exists. I believe that the living creatures of the Earth change and adapt to some extent, but they do not ever change in Kind. I also don't believe that God "guides" things as a puppet master. I believe that He created the first of everything, but He has built into each living thing the ability to reproduce after its kind, and even though He has the ability to know what is going to happen, He rarely interferes with that process of natural growth.
Well, I guess you'll have to try and explain why this fish is growing legs:
I believe that the living creatures of the Earth change and adapt to some extent, but they do not ever change in Kind. I also don't believe that God "guides" things as a puppet master. I believe that He created the first of everything, but He has built into each living thing the ability to reproduce after its kind, and even though He has the ability to know what is going to happen, He rarely interferes with that process of natural growth.
I would never expect to see an animal kind give rise to a plant kind.
Yes, there were two midwives, but did you ever consider that Pharaoh would have only called the two leaders of the midwives before his throne to question them? In verse 19, it says: And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives [that the two head Egyptian midwives were in charge of] come in unto them. By this verse, it is obvious that they were speaking of 'all' the midwives of Egypt, which couldn't keep up with the healthiness and quick delivery of the Hebrew women.
So...how about we get back to the OP's question?
Did God guide evolution?
.
So it's okay for a literalist to make assumptions that Pharaoh only called "the leaders" of the midwives because that makes sense to literalists, but it doesn't make sense for others to use textual criticism in Genesis to see TWO creation stories, one speaking of God Eloheim as creator and the other speaking of God Jehovah as creator?
The very obvious answer is that Genesis is a conflation of different stories about creation. But now, decades after my college Bible courses, I am learning that creationists are beginning to explain away this criticism by claiming God created everything twice and left it up to modern apologists to figure it out.
Frankly it is easier to swallow the original creation story, flawed as it is, than to swallow the manipulation of Bible worshipers to make everything "fit" so that they can avoid using common sense.
Sorry Cupper, I'm not a fundy. And I also don't have any idea what those fish may be adapting to, or IF thay are even adapting for some reason. I just know that they look like FISH that are growing legs. So they're still fish. The 'kind' has not changed. If you want to prove your statement about blindness, you'll have to show where a 'kind' has changed. I don't know of any.
07-01-2014, 10:29 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumpethim
It's still a fish...Adaptation is not evolution.
Quote:
And I also don't have any idea what those fish may be adapting to, or IF thay are even adapting for some reason. I just know that they look like FISH that are growing legs. So they're still fish. The 'kind' has not changed.
Oh Vey!
Check out the 'kind' threads please!
What were the original 'kinds?'
What is its definition biologically speaking?
Where is the biological demarcation line between micro and macro evolution?
Do you even know what defines a fish? At what point does some morphological change start to be 'not fish?' You would think 'legs' would be one of them - nope not to creationists - they just move the goal posts. As Harris says - it is like playing tennis without the net.
And for your information adaptation (change) is evolution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
