Your Christian beliefs on evolution (mercy, eternal, Romans, cross)
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.
That is not meaningful dialogue. Please try again.
It may not be meaningful for you, but it is true. I suppose you could say instead that the Biblical story is allegorical. Would that be more meaningful?
Yep, most likely during the first eon between Genesis 1:1 to 1:2.
These "eons" that you keep bringing up are pure fabrications. They are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible (unless you have some obscure unsupported version).
It may not be meaningful for you, but it is true. I suppose you could say instead that the Biblical story is allegorical. Would that be more meaningful?
I'm sorry mensaguy but for one to state "Which is why the bible is flat-out wrong" is neither meaningful dialogue nor true.
To state it is flat-out wrong that the first eon was perhaps millions of years long and no plants nor animals migrated over to the second eon of Genesis 1:2 is just him saying so without proof. It is just him saying so based on his own say so. At least science agrees with the scriptures that the earth is much older than 6,000 years.
There is no actual, scientific proof that humans evolved from ape-like creatures so why say it?
Since we know evolution could not occur rapidly enough in 6,000 years, evolution is false. The truth is that God created Adam and Eve fully developed without the need for evolution. All the animals on the earth today were created the way they are since they could not possibly have evolved within a time frame of 6,000 years.
If you can prove mankind evolved from ape-like creatures within 6,000 years I am more than willing to hear your ideas on this. Otherwise it is all fluff.
I'm sorry mensaguy but for one to state "Which is why the bible is flat-out wrong" is neither meaningful dialogue nor true.
To state it is flat-out wrong that the first eon was perhaps millions of years long and no plants nor animals migrated over to the second eon of Genesis 1:2 is just him saying so without proof. It is just him saying so based on his own say so. At least science agrees with the scriptures that the earth is much older than 6,000 years.
There is no actual, scientific proof that humans evolved from ape-like creatures so why say it?
Since we know evolution could not occur rapidly enough in 6,000 years, evolution is false. The truth is that God created Adam and Eve fully developed without the need for evolution. All the animals on the earth today were created the way they are since they could not possibly have evolved within a time frame of 6,000 years.
If you can prove mankind evolved from ape-like creatures within 6,000 years I am more than willing to hear your ideas on this. Otherwise it is all fluff.
You are dead wrong again. Evolution has taken many, many thousands of years, and is clearly established as scientific truth. Your idea of a limit of 6000 years is pure fantasy on your part and is entirely unsupported by any evidence of any sort.
These "eons" that you keep bringing up are pure fabrications. They are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible (unless you have some obscure unsupported version).
I didn't think so either, but I didn't want to bring it up in case I was wrong.
But it IS ironic that the argument is that "evolution can't be proven" and "the Bible goes against pseudoscience"..and then what IS believed is an archaeologically impossible set of superstitions plus a little later-day backpedaling, entirely fabricated apologetics thrown in. I mean the who what now...?
And by the way, just for the sake of argument. Let's suppose that somehow, tens of thousands of scientists over the course of a century and a half were wrong about evolution.
Why on earth would that mean the only other possible explanation were a Biblical one?
I mean I might as well say, "You can't prove that the universe ends somewhere, and I believe after the universe there are fairies...therefore, since you can't prove the universe ends somewhere the only alternative is that there ARE fairies."
Erm no, wouldn't that just mean that there might be some alternate explanation...that didn't include fairies?
Why would it have to be fairies?
Same thing with God. If there is something somehow off about the theory of evolution, why does it have to be God that's the final answer to species on earth and their present state (and the evidence of change within human and animal bodies)?
It's kind of like archaic Polynesians believing volcanoes were the gods being angry. They did not have an alternative explanation they could count on, so the volcanoes had to be erupted by gods. Period. That doesn't make any sense, in light of what we know today...correct?
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.
