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.
Hi Im new to this forum
In regards to evolution as a creationist I believe there is some truth to forms of evolution such as geological evolution. The earth with out question has changed and is currently changing at this very moment. Volcanic eruption in the ocean are creating new Islands. We know that certain mountain tops were at one time ocean floors because sea creature fossils are logged in them. This being caused by continental plates sliping under each other causing the land to rise. Even the celestial heavens are currently evolving. Nebula's are creating new stars all the time. For me none of this takes away from creation. Because is has the signature and signs of a being with superior knowledge who set it in all motion. The Universe is still expanding and now new evidence points to an infinite expansion.I believe in a superior being whom many call God (which means a ruler). I came to this conclusion by just observing life and current science. The very fact that ecosystems exist in such a manner that they thrive and grow indicates organization, design ,purpose and meaning. Some being orchestrated every thing we see. I do not believe in the chaos theory. Oh sure sometime things can happen by chance. But not the sophistication that is demonstrated in living organisms. It is simple to complex and organized to be a product of chaos or evolution.
Could you elaborate a little more on what you mean by 'Creation' theory? I'm not trying to be snide, it's just that some people have different 'versions' of Creation. Are you referring to a sudden appearance of all the animals, plants, universe, etc?? Or are you referring to a 'guided' process that god helped move along via evolution, the Big Bang, etc???
Here ya go guys, one from the Evolultionists scientists themselves:
"The moral law cannot be readily explained in terms of evolution because it sometimes calls us to do things that are really quite the opposite of what evolution would ask - like jump into a river to save a drowning stranger. The moral law has been fully set in the heart of only one species - humankind. There's no bigger signpost towards the existence of a personal God."
– Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project
Here ya go guys, one from the Evolultionists scientists themselves:
"The moral law cannot be readily explained in terms of evolution because it sometimes calls us to do things that are really quite the opposite of what evolution would ask - like jump into a river to save a drowning stranger. The moral law has been fully set in the heart of only one species - humankind. There's no bigger signpost towards the existence of a personal God."
– Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project
What exactly is an 'Evolutionist Scientist'????????
Proof... Nikk??? Did I not ask you to bring to me some sort of observational and tested proof? Look, the reason I ask for such a thing is because any Joe Blow can make something up and make it look factual. That's why it's important to cite peer reviewed articles.
As I've already said, and perhaps you completely chose to ignore it, we can't prove that God is real so we can't really use that as evidence to explain anything else now can we? That's not science Nikk. It's like me saying that because I have gifts under the tree Santa must have brought them. I can't prove Santa exists so therefore any further explanation of why or how Santa left the gifts under the tree is speculative at best. It's not scientific, so don't pass it off as science. I'm asking for proof Nikk, not some Bible verse.
I hate to sound rude, but other than being a good work of fiction, the Bible means absolutely nothing to me. I don't feel any sort of 'connection' with it, it's just a book in my eyes. A fiction one at that. This is why it's important to back your statements up with empirical evidence.
The Bible is backed by empirical evidence. And since it is true on the things that are not spiritual, like the historical accounts then we must trust it to be true on the spiritual accounts. Remember, the Bible is not the writtings of one man, it is the writtings of over 40 authors. These authors when tested are proven to be acurate to what they are reporting. These men have written their testamony for us. As if we were standing in a court. The testamonies have weight. If we do not believe their testamony how can the American courts believe anyones testamony? So, because you reject their testamony, then I am sure that you will reject my testimony that I have met God, or that I have talked to God. And if you will reject anything I say, I am sure you would reject any Scientific Journal article I could site. I am sure you would have some other scientific report that would refute mine. Then we would begin some long useless battle which would never end on the proof for, or against God. My testimony is proof and the Bible is proof.
Maybe one day you will be able to take off the presuposition you have that "God does not exist". This is the plaight of most scientists. If you state instead that "God does exist" suddenly the world makes sense. Until then you will have to wallow in confussion and despair because your theories are constantly strained and tried and in the end usless.
God does exist. The Bible is his word to man. If you reject this great testimony of the Bible then it does not matter what scientific journal you can site. When you stand before God he will tell you the truth, but you may not like what you hear.
God does exist. The Bible is his word to man. If you reject this great testimony of the Bible then it does not matter what scientific journal you can site. When you stand before God he will tell you the truth, but you may not like what you hear.
The Bible is backed by empirical evidence. And since it is true on the things that are not spiritual, like the historical accounts then we must trust it to be true on the spiritual accounts.
That's a fallible argument Nikk. I read fiction novels all the time. Just because a fiction novel has accuracy in describing some locations, some even historical, it does not mean that the entire work should be taken as the truth. I suppose every international espionage book I've read about the Cold War should be taken as the truth because it mentions Red Square, Communists, the CIA and the KGB? Heck, some of them even mention real life characters like Reagan, Nixon, Gorbachev, etc... Should I take them as the truth? Should I take them as the truth 2000 years from now? Absolutely not.
Why not? Because the story within that novel can't be proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Remember, the Bible is not the writtings of one man, it is the writtings of over 40 authors. These authors when tested are proven to be acurate to what they are reporting. These men have written their testamony for us. As if we were standing in a court. The testamonies have weight. If we do not believe their testamony how can the American courts believe anyones testamony?
Proven how Nikk? Last I checked, no one has ever proved that God existed. I mean that's a serious scientific discovery! Are you willing to back that up? Oh, let me guess... I already see where this is headed. It's not really proof is it? So, let's get down to the nitty gritty, Nikk, and I don't know why you are persisting in this argument... well I do, but it's not really doing much good. You take the Bible on faith that it is the word of God but that is not really empirical. It's circular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
So, because you reject their testamony, then I am sure that you will reject my testimony that I have met God, or that I have talked to God. And if you will reject anything I say, I am sure you would reject any Scientific Journal article I could site. I am sure you would have some other scientific report that would refute mine. Then we would begin some long useless battle which would never end on the proof for, or against God. My testimony is proof and the Bible is proof.
The crux of the argument is not for me to determine whether you or I reject or accept the "testimony of God". I will examine any scientific journal you give me because I am genuinely interested in what your answers to my questions are but I will refute them if I find errors in them which I so often do. It's not because I refuse to admit that I could be wrong, it's because when you really boil it down, Creation science or ID science is a well-woven web of lies and all it takes is a typically simple test to show that. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and I don't think I'm changing your mind, but your arguments have thus far held no weight as to why evolution is not real. That's the whole point of this debate. You have given me nothing to research, nothing to ponder over, nothing to even scratch my head at except what the Bible says. Well, that's not how science is performed Nikk. If it were, than we'd still believe the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Maybe one day you will be able to take off the presuposition you have that "God does not exist". This is the plaight of most scientists. If you state instead that "God does exist" suddenly the world makes sense. Until then you will have to wallow in confussion and despair because your theories are constantly strained and tried and in the end usless.
The world does not suddenly 'make sense' because I believe in God. It might make it easier because any complicated answer that is proposed can be easily knocked off as "God did it." Actually, to be quite honest with you, that is not the plight of most scientists. I think it's pretty fairly documented that most scientists are actually theists which adds a whole new matter into the argument. How could a scientist possibly perform scientific research and remain a theist? To that answer, it must be strict faith and faith alone.
As far as wallowing in confusion and despair, I have no idea what you're talking about. I really suggest you don't 'personify' me as a miserable person until you really know me. You know nothing about me so don't accuse me of being confused and in despair.
As far as my theories being strained, tried, and in the end useless, I'm not the one who has failed to cite any evidence whatsoever. I think I've been rather patient in dissecting your posts Nikk. As I said before, I'm not going to gloat over you if you concede that you're just not sure in the sense that you don't understand the theories I've provided. A lot of people don't understand them, Nikk. It's not an easy thing to learn and quite frankly I think it must be scary for many, so I'm not out for victory, I'm out for education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
God does exist. The Bible is his word to man. If you reject this great testimony of the Bible then it does not matter what scientific journal you can site. When you stand before God he will tell you the truth, but you may not like what you hear.
I hope that wasn't meant to instill fear. I heard the same thing from a Muslim not too long ago. I guess you probably wouldn't fear those words if a Muslim said that to you, now would you??
I'll admit I haven't read all 12 pages of this discussion. (Who has the time?) So if this has already been brought up, my apologies. Anyway, here goes...
I am neither a scientist nor a trained theologian, but what little I know of both leads me to believe that evolution is right there in Genesis.
Only three times did God create ex nihilo, speaking what Genesis gives as the word bara' in Hebrew/Aramaic. Bara' roughly means "create" or "be" as I understand it. Those three times were for the creation of matter (Genesis 1:1), the creation of life (Genesis 1:21), and the spirit of man (Gensis 1:27).
Throughout the rest of the creation account in Genesis, it says God "brought forth" or "formed" (depending on the translation you're reading). As in "Let the waters bring forth..." or "let the earth bring forth..."
So only three times did God create from nothing. Throughout the rest of the Genesis account, God is making or creating from pre-existing matter. How? I don't know. Genesis doesn't tell us because Genesis is not a science book. Genesis is not giving us the intricate details of how God created. It is telling us why God created.
We can't use Genesis to explain how God created any more than the scientist can use the fossil record to explain why.
The Bible is backed by empirical evidence. And since it is true on the things that are not spiritual, like the historical accounts then we must trust it to be true on the spiritual accounts. Remember, the Bible is not the writtings of one man, it is the writtings of over 40 authors. These authors when tested are proven to be acurate to what they are reporting. These men have written their testamony for us. As if we were standing in a court. The testamonies have weight. If we do not believe their testamony how can the American courts believe anyones testamony? So, because you reject their testamony, then I am sure that you will reject my testimony that I have met God, or that I have talked to God. And if you will reject anything I say, I am sure you would reject any Scientific Journal article I could site. I am sure you would have some other scientific report that would refute mine. Then we would begin some long useless battle which would never end on the proof for, or against God. My testimony is proof and the Bible is proof.
Maybe one day you will be able to take off the presuposition you have that "God does not exist". This is the plaight of most scientists. If you state instead that "God does exist" suddenly the world makes sense. Until then you will have to wallow in confussion and despair because your theories are constantly strained and tried and in the end usless.
God does exist. The Bible is his word to man. If you reject this great testimony of the Bible then it does not matter what scientific journal you can site. When you stand before God he will tell you the truth, but you may not like what you hear.
The bible is backed up by absolutely zero empirical evidence.. please look up what empirical evidence actually is. Testimony in the bible is heresay. Testimony is accepted in court when backed up by evidence that is beyond reasnoble doubt.
Your arguments on all threads are some of the lamest I have read.
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.
