|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:51 pm
Lethkhar dragongirl42391 Goldenlici You did not really explain what Descartes had to do with the milk jug thing; you just said he was relevant. Don't be nasty. I'm not trying to say you don't know what you are talking about, I'm just saying that Descartes actually uses the idea that you need to have faith in objects to prove that God exists. He says the only way you can believe an object truly exists and is not just your imagination is by believing that "something" created that jug. He never specifically mentions the catholic "God" just that there has to be something more. Yes, he was hired by the Catholic church, but what you didn't mention was that the Catholic Church hated his work because they thought it was actually anti-Catholic. But, Descartes did it in such a subtle way that the church published it anyway because Descartes had publicized that he was making a treaties and people were expecting it. Lethkar I'm excluding the last part of the essay because what it essentially says is,"What I've been writing holds true for everything except for God because...uh...He's perfect! Yeah! He's perfect and therefore by definition must exist!" Not exactly. He says that "something" perfect must exist because we have the idea of perfection. If there was nothing that was perfect, we would never feel imperfect, and he recognized that people feel imperfect all the time. For example, if you had a clock with only the hour hand, you would say the clock was incomplete, but you would not know that unless you knew what a "perfect" and completed clock looked like. To tie this all in with the initial topic here, I don't believe at all that God used evolution because I don't believe He used more than seven days. God is perfect. That is one of the defining features of God. *(Lethkar I am arguing this in a BIblical sense because this is a question of interpreting the bible not believing in the bible. This person is asking about God using evolution and therefore I will argue solely the idea of "how" God created the universe, not "if" He did. That is a different topic.)* I have had a person ask me this question before because I think it is easier to cooperate with evolution rather than take a leap of faith and fight for the Bible. God is perfect, yes? The Bible is God's word, in any language. God doesn't make conceptual faults, semantics of numbers aside. There may be a word that changes the meaning slightly, such as the use of the word love for all three of the hebrew meanings of love, because of the limitations of human speech to describe all the wonders of God. But, changing from creation to evolution is not something that can be argued. 1st: The bible doesn't just say the universe was created in seven days. It goes on to say what happened on each day, twice in fact. 2nd: The account of things each happening on a certain day doesn't always coincide with evolutionary accounts. God created vegetation on the 4th day but didn't create the sun until the next day. And, the Bible said God created birds and fish at the same time, whereas evolution says that land animals came in between the birds and the fish. But, land animals were not created until the next day. 3rd: The Jews believe the earth was created and 7 days and they would have passed this down through oral traditions as well as the Bible, in the original Hebrew. I don't think it was a Hebrew studying Jew who created the idea of "yom" being proof for evolution in the Bible. So, sorry, but it's one way or the other. Thank you for answering my question. You make some very good, very convincing points. At first I thought that evolution and the bible might go together, because then evolution would actually make sense. Evolution, either way though, I didn't think it ever seemed very plausible to me. I want to know how we evolved a conscience. Or the eye. I'd like them to talk to statitcians. xd But I hate arguing with evolutionists. So stubborn. Anyway thanks for that. Evolutionists are "stubborn" because they won't bend reality to fit your own quota. The eye began with a form of fish that could sense light. A form of "conscience" can be found in all animals. I could explain the various theories if you want, though it would take some time that I don't really have. Either way, evolution is a helluvalot more plausible than,"The earth is 6000 years old and humans, despite them sharing so much DNA with chimpanzees that they can actually have blood transfusions with them! Deal with it!" That is merely your opinion. Like I said I'm not gonna get into it, we have 15,000 other threads on evolution anyway. But as far as me personally being stubborn, 1) you don't know me, 2) I, for a long time, was very open to the theory of evolution. And then I started researching it for my own and realized it had enough holes to be a good sized piece of rather nice tasting swiss cheese. Point the finger somewhere else, please.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:15 pm
dragongirl42391 Lethkhar dragongirl42391 Goldenlici You did not really explain what Descartes had to do with the milk jug thing; you just said he was relevant. Don't be nasty. I'm not trying to say you don't know what you are talking about, I'm just saying that Descartes actually uses the idea that you need to have faith in objects to prove that God exists. He says the only way you can believe an object truly exists and is not just your imagination is by believing that "something" created that jug. He never specifically mentions the catholic "God" just that there has to be something more. Yes, he was hired by the Catholic church, but what you didn't mention was that the Catholic Church hated his work because they thought it was actually anti-Catholic. But, Descartes did it in such a subtle way that the church published it anyway because Descartes had publicized that he was making a treaties and people were expecting it. Lethkar I'm excluding the last part of the essay because what it essentially says is,"What I've been writing holds true for everything except for God because...uh...He's perfect! Yeah! He's perfect and therefore by definition must exist!" Not exactly. He says that "something" perfect must exist because we have the idea of perfection. If there was nothing that was perfect, we would never feel imperfect, and he recognized that people feel imperfect all the time. For example, if you had a clock with only the hour hand, you would say the clock was incomplete, but you would not know that unless you knew what a "perfect" and completed clock looked like. To tie this all in with the initial topic here, I don't believe at all that God used evolution because I don't believe He used more than seven days. God is perfect. That is one of the defining features of God. *(Lethkar I am arguing this in a BIblical sense because this is a question of interpreting the bible not believing in the bible. This person is asking about God using evolution and therefore I will argue solely the idea of "how" God created the universe, not "if" He did. That is a different topic.)* I have had a person ask me this question before because I think it is easier to cooperate with evolution rather than take a leap of faith and fight for the Bible. God is perfect, yes? The Bible is God's word, in any language. God doesn't make conceptual faults, semantics of numbers aside. There may be a word that changes the meaning slightly, such as the use of the word love for all three of the hebrew meanings of love, because of the limitations of human speech to describe all the wonders of God. But, changing from creation to evolution is not something that can be argued. 1st: The bible doesn't just say the universe was created in seven days. It goes on to say what happened on each day, twice in fact. 2nd: The account of things each happening on a certain day doesn't always coincide with evolutionary accounts. God created vegetation on the 4th day but didn't create the sun until the next day. And, the Bible said God created birds and fish at the same time, whereas evolution says that land animals came in between the birds and the fish. But, land animals were not created until the next day. 3rd: The Jews believe the earth was created and 7 days and they would have passed this down through oral traditions as well as the Bible, in the original Hebrew. I don't think it was a Hebrew studying Jew who created the idea of "yom" being proof for evolution in the Bible. So, sorry, but it's one way or the other. Thank you for answering my question. You make some very good, very convincing points. At first I thought that evolution and the bible might go together, because then evolution would actually make sense. Evolution, either way though, I didn't think it ever seemed very plausible to me. I want to know how we evolved a conscience. Or the eye. I'd like them to talk to statitcians. xd But I hate arguing with evolutionists. So stubborn. Anyway thanks for that. Evolutionists are "stubborn" because they won't bend reality to fit your own quota. The eye began with a form of fish that could sense light. A form of "conscience" can be found in all animals. I could explain the various theories if you want, though it would take some time that I don't really have. Either way, evolution is a helluvalot more plausible than,"The earth is 6000 years old and humans are completely unique, despite them sharing so much DNA with chimpanzees that they can actually have blood transfusions with them! Deal with it!" That is merely your opinion. Like I said I'm not gonna get into it, we have 15,000 other threads on evolution anyway. But as far as me personally being stubborn, 1) you don't know me, 2) I, for a long time, was very open to the theory of evolution. And then I started researching it for my own and realized it had enough holes to be a good sized piece of rather nice tasting swiss cheese. Point the finger somewhere else, please. Who ever said you were stubborn? confused I'm pretty sure I didn't. Mayhaps there is a bit of irony here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:30 pm
Goldenlici In saying that evolution is easier to understand than creationism, you are taking the same approach to christianity that you accuse christians of taking towards evolution. You believe evolution, so that makes it easier for you to see how it works. You see the facts you want to see and stop there. As a christian, I have been taught evolution in school many times, but I have chosen, because of my background, to research the claims of evolution. Christians are not given the choice about hearing the facts about evolution, but nobody ever forced you to look at the facts for creationism. That does not mean that evolution is more plausible just because only facts about evolution are openly taught in schools and that does not mean that facts about creationism do not exist. Christians have to read biology books on evolution and Darwins theories of evolution. How many books have you read that give support for creationism? Dozens. Logical support? None, really. Quote: Have you read The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, an atheist journalist, First of all: Strobel is not an atheist. I actually made a deal to read this one. I couldn't stop laughing at it. Almost all of his interviews were with either philosophers or theologians. The only actual scientist he interviewed was Michael Behe, whose one major study on evolution was mathematically fallable. And then there was that astronomer... Quote: or any other works on creation? There are many Christian scientists that have researched creation and made great discoveries for creationism, just as evolutionists are discovering things for evolution. You accused me and many others of being ignorant about evolution, but I have yet to hear you debate any of the scientific claims of creation. We are always the ones having to explain scientific evolutionary facts, but you have yet to explain any of the scientific creationist facts. That's because there are none. You have never had to "explain scientific evolutionary facts" to me. I have a fairly good grip on evolution. I have had to explain them to you, however. Quote: We have already debated evolution once, and I held up pretty well. No, you didn't. You thought you did because your arguments had nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with the fact that science is dynamic, which you apparently believed was a fallacy rather than a strength. Quote: If you seriously believe in evolution, then study both sides of the argument. I'm here, aren't I? Give me some facts in support of creation and then disprove evolution. You could make history. Quote: For thousands of years creationists have stuck with a beginning of the universe being at one point in time 6,000 years ago, while evolutionists seem to always be changing the age of the universe every couple of years. Who seems to be bending reality to fit their quota? Actually, it's more like scientists are bending their quota to fit reality. Science strives to find the truth. If it's wrong, it corrects itself to get closer to the truth. It's dynamic, which is one of its biggest strengths. Saying something over and over in spite of evidence doesn't make it any more true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:06 pm
Strobel was an atheist when he started researching evolution. In his book, he also uses direct quote from other scientific references and quotes his sources, so it is hardly just interviews with theologians. I am seriously doubting if you actually read the book with the things you are saying about it. He spends the whole first chapter describing how he was an atheist. Also, his description was so non-christian, that I don't think he was faking just to make a point. His first interview was with a scientist who never said that he believed in creation, just that evolution was based on some false facts. I have given you facts for creation; you just ignored them. If you want to open that argument again, start another topic because this is the last time I am going to say anything on this topic. This topic is solely about God using evolution. Lethkar Saying something over and over in spite of evidence doesn't make it any more true. Saying something different every time to support an idea that you refuse to change does not make it true either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:25 am
Goldenlici Strobel was an atheist when he started researching evolution. In his book, he also uses direct quote from other scientific references and quotes his sources, so it is hardly just interviews with theologians. I am seriously doubting if you actually read the book with the things you are saying about it. He spends the whole first chapter describing how he was an atheist. Also, his description was so non-christian, that I don't think he was faking just to make a point. People who claim that they were atheists before they became professional Christian apologists simply to appeal to emotion are funny. It was pretty clear to me that he was full of s**t. Especially since he was a teaching pastor since the 80's. I could throw thousands of studies and writings in support of evolution, all of which cite their sources and most of which are much more content-based than the limp, empty arguments that permeated The Case For A Creator. Quote: I have given you facts for creation; you just ignored them. If you want to open that argument again, start another topic because this is the last time I am going to say anything on this topic. This topic is solely about God using evolution. I still don't understand what is so crucial about staying on topic. Quote: His first interview was with a scientist who never said that he believed in creation, just that evolution was based on some false facts. His first interview was with Jonathan Wells, a stolid supporter of Intelligent Design who uses pseudoscience and subjectively influenced experiments to "disprove" evolution. He's a punchline of a scientist. Quote: Lethkar Saying something over and over in spite of evidence doesn't make it any more true. Saying something different every time to support an idea that you refuse to change does not make it true either. True. It's a good thing that science is dynamic so it doesn't suffer from that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:27 am
If evolution and creation went hand-in-hand, what about Adam and Eve?... stare Are you telling me that if you went back all those years, you would find two cave people going, "Ugh ugh God love ugh ugh"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:50 pm
Lethkhar dragongirl42391 Lethkhar dragongirl42391 Goldenlici You did not really explain what Descartes had to do with the milk jug thing; you just said he was relevant. Don't be nasty. I'm not trying to say you don't know what you are talking about, I'm just saying that Descartes actually uses the idea that you need to have faith in objects to prove that God exists. He says the only way you can believe an object truly exists and is not just your imagination is by believing that "something" created that jug. He never specifically mentions the catholic "God" just that there has to be something more. Yes, he was hired by the Catholic church, but what you didn't mention was that the Catholic Church hated his work because they thought it was actually anti-Catholic. But, Descartes did it in such a subtle way that the church published it anyway because Descartes had publicized that he was making a treaties and people were expecting it. Lethkar I'm excluding the last part of the essay because what it essentially says is,"What I've been writing holds true for everything except for God because...uh...He's perfect! Yeah! He's perfect and therefore by definition must exist!" Not exactly. He says that "something" perfect must exist because we have the idea of perfection. If there was nothing that was perfect, we would never feel imperfect, and he recognized that people feel imperfect all the time. For example, if you had a clock with only the hour hand, you would say the clock was incomplete, but you would not know that unless you knew what a "perfect" and completed clock looked like. To tie this all in with the initial topic here, I don't believe at all that God used evolution because I don't believe He used more than seven days. God is perfect. That is one of the defining features of God. *(Lethkar I am arguing this in a BIblical sense because this is a question of interpreting the bible not believing in the bible. This person is asking about God using evolution and therefore I will argue solely the idea of "how" God created the universe, not "if" He did. That is a different topic.)* I have had a person ask me this question before because I think it is easier to cooperate with evolution rather than take a leap of faith and fight for the Bible. God is perfect, yes? The Bible is God's word, in any language. God doesn't make conceptual faults, semantics of numbers aside. There may be a word that changes the meaning slightly, such as the use of the word love for all three of the hebrew meanings of love, because of the limitations of human speech to describe all the wonders of God. But, changing from creation to evolution is not something that can be argued. 1st: The bible doesn't just say the universe was created in seven days. It goes on to say what happened on each day, twice in fact. 2nd: The account of things each happening on a certain day doesn't always coincide with evolutionary accounts. God created vegetation on the 4th day but didn't create the sun until the next day. And, the Bible said God created birds and fish at the same time, whereas evolution says that land animals came in between the birds and the fish. But, land animals were not created until the next day. 3rd: The Jews believe the earth was created and 7 days and they would have passed this down through oral traditions as well as the Bible, in the original Hebrew. I don't think it was a Hebrew studying Jew who created the idea of "yom" being proof for evolution in the Bible. So, sorry, but it's one way or the other. Thank you for answering my question. You make some very good, very convincing points. At first I thought that evolution and the bible might go together, because then evolution would actually make sense. Evolution, either way though, I didn't think it ever seemed very plausible to me. I want to know how we evolved a conscience. Or the eye. I'd like them to talk to statitcians. xd But I hate arguing with evolutionists. So stubborn. Anyway thanks for that. Evolutionists are "stubborn" because they won't bend reality to fit your own quota. The eye began with a form of fish that could sense light. A form of "conscience" can be found in all animals. I could explain the various theories if you want, though it would take some time that I don't really have. Either way, evolution is a helluvalot more plausible than,"The earth is 6000 years old and humans are completely unique, despite them sharing so much DNA with chimpanzees that they can actually have blood transfusions with them! Deal with it!" That is merely your opinion. Like I said I'm not gonna get into it, we have 15,000 other threads on evolution anyway. But as far as me personally being stubborn, 1) you don't know me, 2) I, for a long time, was very open to the theory of evolution. And then I started researching it for my own and realized it had enough holes to be a good sized piece of rather nice tasting swiss cheese. Point the finger somewhere else, please. Who ever said you were stubborn? confused I'm pretty sure I didn't. Mayhaps there is a bit of irony here? Not really.You were pretty much implying the whole stubborn thing, by making us sound ridiculous. Yeah, I study rhetorical techniques and strategies, don't make me write an essay on it though. It was implied. Anywaaaaaaaay, does anyone else hve any input on my original question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:00 pm
Sakura_Chan133 If evolution and creation went hand-in-hand, what about Adam and Eve?... stare Are you telling me that if you went back all those years, you would find two cave people going, "Ugh ugh God love ugh ugh"? No, not exactly. I honestly don't know how God made the world exactly (The Bible merely says that God did it.) but if He were to use evolution I imagine the first two humans that were produced by evolution would be called Adam and Eve. Of course, with evolution it is extremely difficult to pinpoint when one species becomes another, or more likely, should be classified as something different than its predecessors. I not sure exaclty how God made tho wrld, other than he made it 7 days( or eons or whatever) and that He did it. I often think it is not important as to HOW God did it but the fact that God actually did it. *giggle* I see what you are saying with the cave man thing though. It made me laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:04 pm
dragongirl42391 Lethkhar dragongirl42391 Lethkhar dragongirl42391 Thank you for answering my question. You make some very good, very convincing points. At first I thought that evolution and the bible might go together, because then evolution would actually make sense. Evolution, either way though, I didn't think it ever seemed very plausible to me. I want to know how we evolved a conscience. Or the eye. I'd like them to talk to statitcians. xd But I hate arguing with evolutionists. So stubborn. Anyway thanks for that. Evolutionists are "stubborn" because they won't bend reality to fit your own quota. The eye began with a form of fish that could sense light. A form of "conscience" can be found in all animals. I could explain the various theories if you want, though it would take some time that I don't really have. Either way, evolution is a helluvalot more plausible than,"The earth is 6000 years old and humans are completely unique, despite them sharing so much DNA with chimpanzees that they can actually have blood transfusions with them! Deal with it!" That is merely your opinion. Like I said I'm not gonna get into it, we have 15,000 other threads on evolution anyway. But as far as me personally being stubborn, 1) you don't know me, 2) I, for a long time, was very open to the theory of evolution. And then I started researching it for my own and realized it had enough holes to be a good sized piece of rather nice tasting swiss cheese. Point the finger somewhere else, please. Who ever said you were stubborn? confused I'm pretty sure I didn't. Mayhaps there is a bit of irony here? Not really.You were pretty much implying the whole stubborn thing, by making us sound ridiculous. Yeah, I study rhetorical techniques and strategies, don't make me write an essay on it though. It was implied. I'm sorry you feel that way. I quite honestly did not mean to accuse you of being stubborn (Hence why I didn't do so). I apologize for whatever implications I apparently made. Quote: Anywaaaaaaaay, does anyone else hve any input on my original question? And what was that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:45 pm
Lethkhar dragongirl42391 Lethkhar dragongirl42391 Lethkhar Evolutionists are "stubborn" because they won't bend reality to fit your own quota. The eye began with a form of fish that could sense light. A form of "conscience" can be found in all animals. I could explain the various theories if you want, though it would take some time that I don't really have. Either way, evolution is a helluvalot more plausible than,"The earth is 6000 years old and humans are completely unique, despite them sharing so much DNA with chimpanzees that they can actually have blood transfusions with them! Deal with it!" That is merely your opinion. Like I said I'm not gonna get into it, we have 15,000 other threads on evolution anyway. But as far as me personally being stubborn, 1) you don't know me, 2) I, for a long time, was very open to the theory of evolution. And then I started researching it for my own and realized it had enough holes to be a good sized piece of rather nice tasting swiss cheese. Point the finger somewhere else, please. Who ever said you were stubborn? confused I'm pretty sure I didn't. Mayhaps there is a bit of irony here? Not really.You were pretty much implying the whole stubborn thing, by making us sound ridiculous. Yeah, I study rhetorical techniques and strategies, don't make me write an essay on it though. It was implied. I'm sorry you feel that way. I quite honestly did not mean to accuse you of being stubborn (Hence why I didn't do so). I apologize for whatever implications I apparently made. Quote: Anywaaaaaaaay, does anyone else hve any input on my original question? And what was that? Yeah, I'm sorry for being a little over-sensitive, I guess that day I was touchy for various unnamed reasons. My origianl question was the whole yome thing, but I think the conversation is useless rescuing now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:33 pm
I'm beginning to wonder why we keep doing this. . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:51 pm
GuardianAngel44 I'm beginning to wonder why we keep doing this. . . Doing what now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:48 pm
I'm not trained in Hebrew (yet) but I've heard speakers who pointed out that the word yom is used over 100 times in Genesis alone and EVERY time it means DAY, NOT eon.
They did say that it is a possible interpretation, but you have to take unprecedented liberties in the interpretation of the text.
Also, how are you to interpret the generations between Adam and Jesus Christ if Adam lived millions of years before?
(Keep in mind that theistic evolution still requires eons of time and Darwinism in general requires that organisms compete for survival)
If the first death came in Adam's day, then the organisms would have overrun the earth and starved to death (unless they were dying before Adam's day)
And, if not, sin was not a result of man's actions and the verse that says (my paraphrase)
"as sin came into the world through one man(adam), so the world is redeemed through one man(Jesus)"
Besides, Darwinism itself has no scientific value and I really don't see why anyone would want to connect the truth of Christianity with such a weakly supported theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:18 pm
dragongirl42391 I not sure exaclty how God made tho wrld, other than he made it 7 days( or eons or whatever) and that He did it. I often think it is not important as to HOW God did it but the fact that God actually did it.
Just a quick thought: why do people get so hung up on the geneologies? The thing is, the Bible is a very very old book. We are missing pieces of it, not to mention it's be editted about six thousand times. Also, it's pretty widely accepted that the geneologies if Jesus are pretty much in there to connect him back to David- that's pretty much it. I think try to go back from Jesus all the way to Adam is silly. To think they got it all right seems pretty naive.
Also, the two geneologies conflict with one another.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
