Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Are we though?
If you want to try and convince posters like Wolfsbane and JC they are wrong about their interpretation be my guest, others have tried and failed. It is your funeral.
My interpretation might also be wrong and I already know where. As an objective interpretation it is mostly correct as it compares scientific unknowns with a Biblical record.
The YEC, Creationist view may be acceptable as a world view, not as a scientific view and most of them know that. ID is neo-freemasonry0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »My interpretation might also be wrong and I already know where. As an objective interpretation it is mostly correct as it compares scientific unknowns with a Biblical record.
The YEC, Creationist view may be acceptable as a world view, not as a scientific view and most of them know that. ID is neo-freemasonry
Explain that to them. I dare you :pac:0 -
robindch
As in that famously quotation that the creationist Ben Stein quoted at the end of his trash mockumentary, "Expelled"?
Last year, AFAIR, even you yourself were forced to admit -- finally -- that his quotation was disgracefully deceitful. Here's the full extract from Darwin's Descent of Man, with the bit that Stein left out, helpfully left in:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darwin, as mangled by Mr Stein
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
... and with the immediately-following paragraph completely omitted:Such intentionally-deceitful quote-chopping is of course, completely dishonest, but as I said above, doing so appears to be normal practice for creationists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darwin
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darwin
We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.
In every country in which a large standing army is kept up, the finest young men are taken by the conscription or are enlisted. They are thus exposed to early death during war, are often tempted into vice, and are prevented from marrying during the prime of life. On the other hand the shorter and feebler men, with poor constitutions, are left at home, and consequently have a much better chance of marrying and propagating their kind.*
* Prof. H. Fick (Einfluss der Naturwissenschaft auf das Recht, June, 1872) has some good remarks on this head, and on other such points.
Man accumulates property and bequeaths it to his children, so that the children of the rich have an advantage over the poor in the race for success, independently of bodily or mental superiority. On the other hand, the children of parents who are short-lived, and are therefore on an average deficient in health and vigour, come into their property sooner than other children, and will be likely to marry earlier, and leave a larger number of offspring to inherit their inferior constitutions. But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilised races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races. Nor does the moderate accumulation of wealth interfere with the process of selection. When a poor man becomes moderately rich, his children enter trades or professions in which there is struggle enough, so that the able in body and mind succeed best. The presence of a body of well-instructed men, who have not to labour for their daily bread, is important to a degree which cannot be over-estimated; as all high intellectual work is carried on by them, and on such work, material progress of all kinds mainly depends, not to mention other and higher advantages. No doubt wealth when very great tends to convert men into useless drones, but their number is never large; and some degree of elimination here occurs, for we daily see rich men, who happen to be fools or profligate, squandering away their wealth.
Primogeniture with entailed estates is a more direct evil, though it may formerly have been a great advantage by the creation of a dominant class, and any government is better than none. Most eldest sons, though they may be weak in body or mind, marry, whilst the younger sons, however superior in these respects, do not so generally marry. Nor can worthless eldest sons with entailed estates squander their wealth. But here, as elsewhere, the relations of civilised life are so complex that some compensatory checks intervene. The men who are rich through primogeniture are able to select generation after generation the more beautiful and charming women; and these must generally be healthy in body and active in mind. The evil consequences, such as they may be, of the continued preservation of the same line of descent, without any selection, are checked by men of rank always wishing to increase their wealth and power; and this they effect by marrying heiresses. But the daughters of parents who have produced single children, are themselves, as Mr. Galton* has shewn, apt to be sterile; and thus noble families are continually cut off in the direct line, and their wealth flows into some side channel; but unfortunately this channel is not determined by superiority of any kind.
* Hereditary Genius, 1870, pp. 132-140.
Although civilisation thus checks in many ways the action of natural selection, it apparently favours the better development of the body, by means of good food and the freedom from occasional hardships. This may be inferred from civilised men having been found, wherever compared, to be physically stronger than savages.* They appear also to have equal powers of endurance, as has been proved in many adventurous expeditions. Even the great luxury of the rich can be but little detrimental; for the expectation of life of our aristocracy, at all ages and of both sexes, is very little inferior to that of healthy English lives in the lower classes.robindch
What the Mad Hatter said -- thanks for demonstrating the point so elegantly for me0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »My interpretation might also be wrong and I already know where. As an objective interpretation it is mostly correct as it compares scientific unknowns with a Biblical record.
The YEC, Creationist view may be acceptable as a world view, not as a scientific view and most of them know that. ID is neo-freemasonry
... anyway, when it comes to history, the Evolutionists exaggerate the timeline of Human History by thousands of years ... and they expand the timetable of the Earth's Geology by millions of years!!!!
... all in a doomed attempt to give themselves extra time to justify the impossible ... the spontaneous evolution of Human CSI.
.0 -
What the Mad Hatter said -- thanks for demonstrating the point so elegantly for me
There are some posts in this thread, usually caused by J C missing the point absolutely, that really make it worth reading. I think this is one of them.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Mad Hatter wrote: »There are some posts in this thread, usually caused by J C missing the point absolutely, that really make it worth reading. I think this is one of them.
"2Scoops hypothetical Evolutionary Scientist WAS Human......but he WASN'T valuing Human life over other life-forms when he was advocating the mass murder of 90% of Humanity!!!!"
The definition of the Subjective case (courtesy of grammar.about.com) is the case of a pronoun when it is the subject of a clause, a subject complement, or an appositive to a subject or a subject complement. The subjective (or nominative) forms of English pronouns are I, you, he, she, it, we, they, who and whoever.
... go figure!!!:):D:eek:
... anyway, could we have a little less of the word games ... and the word counting ... and some (any) evidence for Darwinism ... please!!!!!!!:):D:eek:0 -
Science explains what is happening around us the whole time. So does religion, but science is better because it comes up with more understandable excuses when it is wrong.0
-
... the one exception is Evolutionist Science ... which goes into denial and threatens to sack anybody who points out how it's wrong!!!!:):D
Really?
So you agree with cosmology, geology and archeology say about the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe
Or is all that "Evolutionist Science" as well :rolleyes:0 -
Really?
So you agree with cosmology, geology and archeology say about the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe
Or is all that "Evolutionist Science" as well :rolleyes:
... and could we have a little less of the word games ... and the word counting ... and some (any) evidence for Darwinism ... please!!!!!!!:):D:eek0 -
Creationsm is a joke !!0
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Originally Posted by J C
... could we have a little less of the word games ...
Ciaran500
Surely even you can't miss the massive amount of irony in this sentence.
Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 ¶ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
... so could we have a little less of the word games ... and some (any) evidence for Darwinism ... please!!!!!!!0 -
... and here is one of the reasons why there is no evidence for Darwinism...
... and here the great Dr David Berlinski disproves Darwinism in less than 5 minutes ... Dr Berlinski is a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University, and a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
... so when he says that Darwinism has no evidence ... and the Darwinists are unable to provide any evidence ... I guess there isn't any evidence for Darwinism!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE&feature=related0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »It is relevant if we are discussing the Bible and Creation or how to reconcile the Bible record with history.
Firstly - Time is relative. Time before the appearance of Adam and Eve could be any length.
Secondly - depending on how you do your calculation man in the form of H. Sapiens sapiens has been on earth for at least 10,000 years with some estimates of 50,000 years.
Thirdly - we have no idea how long Adam and Eve were in Eden before that fateful meeting with Satan.
Fourthly- much of evolutionary theory is informed by present behaviour. On that basis technological development and the development of civilization would suggest that either man sat on his hands for a long long time or a new species appeared in the very late Pleistocene early Holocene.
So either man in his present form appear no more than 10 or 12k years ago or something happened that changed human behaviour quite suddenly and dramatically.
The Genesis accounts indicates that man went from living off the fruits of the land to having to work the soil. How long man was living off fruits we do not know so it is entirely possible that Adam and Eve were in Eden for tens of thousands of years and it was only when they were kicked out that their normal aging and their reproductive processes began. In the meantime the rest of H. Sapiens was happily living outside of Eden oblivious to the fate of Adam and Eve.
Genesis 5:5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
No, the dating problem cannot be solved that way. If one is to hold to the Bible record, the dates attributed to Sumeria, etc. are mistaken. None of it comes with a date stamp, all of it requires suppositions and extrapolation.
We all have the same physical evidence, but our suppositions (and, consequently,our conclusions) differ.
_________________________________________________________________
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%203:23-38&version=NKJV0 -
Practically all of modern physics, modern geology and modern archeology has discredited a literal account of Genesis.
I was recently shown this in the Onion by Robin which brilliantly satirizes how unsustainable the YEC position is.
Sumerians look on in confusion as god creates world
We have written history from Arabia, Egypt and China that makes no mention of God suddenly appearing and making the world since the world already exists.
Forget Darwin, people knew long before Darwin that literal Genesis was not what happened.
The heathen histories are in conflict with themselves and with the Hebrew history. Why is the Hebrew history the one in error?
_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.0 -
The problem for any long period in Eden is the Biblical chronology:
Genesis 5:5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
No, the dating problem cannot be solved that way. If one is to hold to the Bible record, the dates attributed to Sumeria, etc. are mistaken. None of it comes with a date stamp, all of it requires suppositions and extrapolation.
We all have the same physical evidence, but our suppositions (and, consequently,our conclusions) differ.
_________________________________________________________________
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%203:23-38&version=NKJV
This only answers my third supposition and I accept that. My first supposition - time is relative so time from creation to Adam and Eve is unknown is not answered.
If we take "Beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8)
then 6000 years need to be added to the age of the Earth before Adam which allows for the Sumer civilization.0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »This only answers my third supposition and I accept that. My first supposition - time is relative so time from creation to Adam and Eve is unknown is not answered.
Ge 1:26 ¶ Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
29 ¶ And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
30 "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.
31 ¶ Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.StealthRolex wrote: »If we take "Beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8)
then 6000 years need to be added to the age of the Earth before Adam which allows for the Sumer civilization.
In other words God is Transcendent ... and exists outside His Creation (including time).
This particular passage (which refers to God Himself) cannot be used to justify a non-literal interpretation of Genesis (in so far as it relates to events on Earth) ... and therefore within time!!!
For example, the genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5 is based on actual literal years:-
Ge 5:1 ¶ This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.
3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6 ¶ Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh.
7 After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters.
8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.
9 Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Cainan.
10 After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and daughters.
11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.
12 Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel.
13 After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons and daughters.
14 So all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.
15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared.
16 After he begot Jared, Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years, and had sons and daughters.
17 So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died.
18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch.
19 After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters.
20 So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.
21 ¶ Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah.
22 After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters.
23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
24 And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
25 ¶ Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech.
26 After he begot Lamech, Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had sons and daughters.
27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.
28 ¶ Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son.
29 And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed."
30 After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters.
31 So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »This only answers my third supposition and I accept that. My first supposition - time is relative so time from creation to Adam and Eve is unknown is not answered.
If we take "Beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8)
then 6000 years need to be added to the age of the Earth before Adam which allows for the Sumer civilization.
Some brethren have produced the Gap theory - that a great time comes between God's actions in Genesis 1:1 and the beginning of the 6 Day creation. OK, it does a lot less harm to the Scripture than the other ways to avoid a recent creation of the universe - but it still leaves the present biosphere coming into existence c.6000 years ago.
It may accommodate geology, (though it also has to deny a global flood), but it still is in a war with evolution. What has been gained by doing so? The consensus science folk are still ridiculing you and all you have accomplished is muddying the Biblical waters.
_________________________________________________________________
Genesis 7:23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »This only answers my third supposition and I accept that. My first supposition - time is relative so time from creation to Adam and Eve is unknown is not answered.
You don't need to do this ... because Darwinian Evolution is invalid...
... if you won't taken my word for it as a Saved Christian and Creation Scientist ... have a look at what a Secular Jew (and a leading Mathematician and Molecular Biologist) has to say about Darwinism:-
0 -
Advertisement
-
... you are trying to accommodate an invalid Evolution (and its billions of years requirement) into the truth of recent Creation ... as confirmed by Genesis.
You don't need to do this ... because Darwinian Evolution is invalid...
... if you won't taken my word as a Saved Christian and Creation Scientist for it ... have a look at what a Secular Jew (and a leading Mathematician and Molecular Biologist) has to say about Darwinism:-
If you are going to tell me what I am trying to do you will not gain anything.
Nor do you need to present any repetitive links.
Answer me this - what does Darwinism or Evolution say about the start of life on Earth?0 -
They would be truly exceptional days, 500 years of night, followed by 500 years of sunlight. Could the plants and animals have survived such a transition?
Some brethren have produced the Gap theory - that a great time comes between God's actions in Genesis 1:1 and the beginning of the 6 Day creation. OK, it does a lot less harm to the Scripture than the other ways to avoid a recent creation of the universe - but it still leaves the present biosphere coming into existence c.6000 years ago.
It may accommodate geology, (though it also has to deny a global flood), but it still is in a war with evolution. What has been gained by doing so? The consensus science folk are still ridiculing you and all you have accomplished is muddying the Biblical waters.
_________________________________________________________________
Genesis 7:23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.
Trying to use the Bible to negate the gift of science is not going to gain anything. The "consensus science" folk, whoever they are, are blind, deaf and dumb and choose science over all else. That is their problem and until they choose to see and hear for themselves they will remain in the dark. There is, always has been and always will be an accommodation between the Bible and science. It is not a case of one being right and one being wrong. It is a case of science will tell us what it can tell us and the Bible will tell us what it tells us.
Accept God as the Creator of the Universe and of Life and all else follows. I'm not sure that the Bible states "Thou shalt not be curious" and if by science more come to recognise God what harm?
If by symbolic or non-literal interpretation of Genesis one can accept science as knowledge and Bible as Truth what harm?
Alienating people by misrepresenting both the Bible and science is not helpful.0 -
Originally Posted by J C
... you are trying to accommodate an invalid Evolution (and its billions of years requirement) into the truth of recent Creation ... as confirmed by Genesis.
You don't need to do this ... because Darwinian Evolution is invalid...
... if you won't taken my word as a Saved Christian and Creation Scientist for it ... have a look at what a Secular Jew (and a leading Mathematician and Molecular Biologist) has to say about Darwinism:-
StealthRolex
If you are going to tell me what I am trying to do you will not gain anything.
Nor do you need to present any repetitive links.
... and apart from it having serious Theological issues there is no need for a Gap Theory ... because the scientific evidence doesn't lead to Darwinism ...StealthRolex wrote: »Answer me this - what does Darwinism or Evolution say about the start of life on Earth?0 -
... it says nothing about so-called abiognesis ...
Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. Nor does it tell us how often abiogenesis happened.but Darwinism also fails to provide a plausible non-intelligently directed mechanism to account for the mega-bit CSI found in living organisms.
That's just rubbish using makey-up terminology. The argument that you cannot program a computer to produce anything close to emulating evolution as described is a much better argument. As is the lack of a coherent account in the transitional fossil record.0 -
... it is a different link ... and I reserve the right to critically assess what you are clearly trying to do with the Gap Theory ... the Gap Theory tries to to accommodate an invalid Evolution (and its billions of years requirement) into the truth of recent Creation ... as confirmed by Genesis.
... and apart from it having serious Theological issues there is no need for a Gap Theory ... because the scientific evidence doesn't lead to Darwinism ...
Nor does Genesis starting in the Early Holocene which is also plausible. It allows for certain elements of evolution to work, thought I disagree with much of what is taught to day as evolution as bad science, up until an extinction event and then for a re-boot to occur as described in Genesis. This is not "Gap Theory".
I prefer the God is all powerful theory which allows for the creation of an earth that displays certain artefacts that are there to both question our faith to provide clues to God.0 -
Originally Posted by StealthRolex
Answer me this - what does Darwinism or Evolution say about the start of life on Earth?
Originally Posted by J C
... Darwinian Evolution says nothing about so-called abiognesis ...
StealthRolex
Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. Nor does it tell us how often abiogenesis happened.Originally Posted by J C... but Darwinism also fails to provide a plausible non-intelligently directed mechanism to account for the mega-bit CSI found in living organisms.
Originally Posted by StealthRolex
That's just rubbish using makey-up terminology.
The fact that the Darwinists and the Atheists don't use the terminology of Biochemical Specified Complexity doesn't invalidate it!!!!Originally Posted by StealthRolex
The argument that you cannot program a computer to produce anything close to emulating evolution as described is a much better argument. As is the lack of a coherent account in the transitional fossil record.
It is accessible to the appliance of mathematics ... and the maths is saying that it cannot arise without an ultimate input of (inordinate) intelligence AKA God.0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »Nor does Genesis starting in the Early Holocene which is also plausible. It allows for certain elements of evolution to work, thought I disagree with much of what is taught to day as evolution as bad science, up until an extinction event and then for a re-boot to occur as described in Genesis. This is not "Gap Theory".
...could you provide Chapter and Verse please?StealthRolex wrote: »I prefer the God is all powerful theory which allows for the creation of an earth that displays certain artefacts that are there to both question our faith to provide clues to God.
... and what are the artefacts, which you say "are there to both question our faith to provide clues to God"??0 -
[QUOTE=J C;66149134
... this is cutting-edge scientifically valid terminolgy ... used by both ID and Creation Scientists.
The fact that the Darwinists and the Atheists don't use the terminology of Biochemical Specified Complexity doesn't invalidate it!!!!
[/QUOTE]
The origin invalidates it. William Albert "Bill" Dembski.0 -
... if it's not a Gap Theory then what is the scale of the evolution that you are proposing ... and when/where are you saying it is described in the Bible?
...could you provide Chapter and Verse please?
Genesis. In Book one man is created on the sixth day however in Book Two Adam is created after the seventh day, if you take it literally. Therein lies an incongruity from which there lies a huge gap.... God is all powerful allright ... but He also doesn't lie ... and the Genesis account indicates a Young Earth and a Direct Creation ... and therefore no evolution from Pondkind to Mankind.
Pondkind to mankind is not supported by evolution or Darwinism either. It is conjecture.... and what are the artefacts, which you say "are there to both question our faith to provide clues to God"??
Cosmological, geological, paleontological records. In fact almost all, if not all of science one way or another leads to God. Only the blind cannot see this.0 -
Advertisement
-
StealthRolex wrote: »The origin (of CSI) invalidates it. William Albert "Bill" Dembski.
It is equally obvious to anybody who examines the objective information content of living organisms
Ironically, the biblical verses in your own signature also confirms the existence of CSI ... and it states that anybody who denies that God exists is without excuse precisely because of the fact that His Creation is so specified and complex that it couldn't come about any other way, other than by an act of Direct Creation
StealthRolex wrote: »Romans 1 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement