theistic evolution - don't try this at home

abcdef · Nov 9, 2017

Moses is generally thought of as the one who had the story written down.

You have to read it as it was understood at that time, not with the modern applications and definitions.

At the time of Moses, and for a long time after that, they believed that there were only 4 elements.

And remember, this writings of Moses were 1000's of years after the creation and the flood.

pckts · Nov 9, 2017

posthuman said:

The evolution discussion goes very similar to the globe discussion. I'm realizing I shouldn't attempt to debate either with the deceived, although the symbolic/figurative liberties taken with scripture are much more severe, it's still deviating from a literal interpretation on the grounds of confirming man's false science and lies so you can have compatible beliefs and not be regarded as an illogical religious zealot by the world.

posthuman · Nov 9, 2017

pckts said:

This simply isn't true.

I spent more than a decade in higher education, studying science, and my experience has been that among astronomers and biologists there are actually a lot more people convinced - by the evidence of observational science - that there is purposeful design in all living things and all creation than there are people who think it's all accidental. There happen to be a few very loud and vocal and agenda - driven atheists who also happen to be very clever and we'll educated people, who dominate public discussion, and there are a whole lot of people both among professing Christians and apart from them who make a whole lot of noise about 'science vs God' but who actually tend to be relatively ignorant with respect to what they think they're talking about.

Pckts, having read a great number of your conspiracy forum posts and seen just how easily fooled you are by lacking knowledge, and how greatly you despise all human learning, I can scarcely believe that you have much to say about scientific education and thinking by means of any sort of experience. What I've seen is that you have a tremendous bias against literally any established facts and little patience for holding your own views up to scrutiny, so if anyone should recuse themselves from serious discussion of the natural universe as far as mankind in his limited capabilities can discern it, it might be you.

pckts · Nov 9, 2017

posthuman said:

These people you refer to believe God's hand guided evolution, and have found meaning in the globe model because of the perfect extremes that would have had to occur for life to form and the earth to have the stability it does.

They do not deny the globe or evolution, or the evidence of either such as the mars missions or the fossils.

What you are referring to and what I was referring to are not the same thing.

pckts said:

They don't deny the false and fabricated evidence, they find meaning in it and form beliefs based off of this. And they aren't mocked or regarded as a religious fanatic for doing so.

pckts · Nov 9, 2017

posthuman said:

Pckts, having read a great number of your conspiracy forum posts and seen just how easily fooled you are by lacking knowledge, and how greatly you despise all human learning, I can scarcely believe that you have much to say about scientific education and thinking by means of any sort of experience. What I've seen is that you have a tremendous bias against literally any established facts and little patience for holding your own views up to scrutiny, so if anyone should recuse themselves from serious discussion of the natural universe as far as mankind in his limited capabilities can discern it, it might be you.

I lack a number of deceptions; I despise lies presented as knowledge.

posthuman · Nov 9, 2017

You get mocked for dismissing all data & evidence contrary to your preconceptions as 'obviously fabricated intentional lies' a lot more than you do for professing Christ. Let's not pretend those are equivalent.

pckts · Nov 9, 2017

posthuman said:

I was indoctrinated like you to believe in the globe and evolution, my current beliefs weren't preconceptions. I don't dismiss the "data and evidence", I come to the realization it is false and then reject is as a lie.

You're doing a great job representing the world right now and speaking on their behalf, that's all you have ever done.

posthuman · Nov 9, 2017

Here's an article I'm linking not because I think what's suggested in it is necessarily true, but because it illustrates what current thought among actual practising scientists is, and how far removed it is from what many of us think it is.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/150417-astrobiologists-discover-fossils-in-meteorite-fragments-confirming-extraterrestrial-life

Alot of you conflate "evolution" with abiogenesis or with any kind of origin theory. That's completely wrong. Evolution as a theory has zero to do with the origin of life. But the interesting thing about origin and what man's inference from scientific observations have led them to understand about it is that it's been very clearly and widely recognised that it is impossible to have formed accidentally on earth. No one with any relevant education believes that.
What people now believe in place of intelligent creation is that somewhere in the vast universe the nearly impossible circumstances by which abiogenesis might have occurred might possibly exist, so they hypothesize that life originated on some dirt ((same word as earth btw)) and transferred here via comet or asteroid.

Well that life would not be animals - it would be plant life. Panspermia, the prevailing idea among non-religious scientists about the origin of life on our planet, necessarily suggests that plant life appeared in the cosmos before animals - albeit algal. Not only this, but some current research dates flowering plants before multicellular animals too.

Scientific inquiry has always held exactly one thing dogmatically - and its not godlessness, as many of us appear to assume, because angry, well-meaning but poorly informed people have long told us this in this country - it assumes dogmatically that prevailing understanding among men can be entirely wrong, and therefore science as a body of knowledge about the natural world must be malleable to reflect whatever new evidence becomes available.

It's too bad Christians don't approach the scripture the same way - all too often we, being ignorant but thinking we're not, go to the Bible with a preformed opinion of what it is telling us, and then twist the 'data' we get by reading it to fit into the mold we had already prepared for it, instead of letting it inform us. For thousands of years men have been devoting their lives to comprehend it, and have only been scratching the surface, then we come along, and with only a number of months or brief years of looking at isolated bits of it we pretend we're experts and ready to teach.

pckts · Nov 9, 2017

posthuman said:

Here's an article I'm linking not because I think what's suggested in it is necessarily true, but because it illustrates what current thought among actual practising scientists is, and how far removed it is from what many of us think it is.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...te-fragments-confirming-extraterrestrial-life

Alot of you conflate "evolution" with abiogenesis or with any kind of origin theory. That's completely wrong. Evolution as a theory has zero to do with the origin of life. But the interesting thing about origin and what man's inference from scientific observations have led them to understand about it is that it's been very clearly and widely recognised that it is impossible to have formed accidentally on earth. No one with any relevant education believes that.
What people now believe in place of intelligent creation is that somewhere in the vast universe the nearly impossible circumstances by which abiogenesis might have occurred might possibly exist, so they hypothesize that life originated on some dirt ((same word as earth btw)) and transferred here via comet or asteroid.

Well that life would not be animals - it would be plant life. Panspermia, the prevailing idea among non-religious scientists about the origin of life on our planet, necessarily suggests that plant life appeared in the cosmos before animals - albeit algal. Not only this, but some current research dates flowering plants before multicellular animals too.

Scientific inquiry has always held exactly one thing dogmatically - and its not godlessness, as many of us appear to assume, because angry, well-meaning but poorly informed people have long told us this in this country - it assumes dogmatically that prevailing understanding among men can be entirely wrong, and therefore science as a body of knowledge about the natural world must be malleable to reflect whatever new evidence becomes available.

It's too bad Christians don't approach the scripture the same way - all too often we, being ignorant but thinking we're not, go to the Bible with a preformed opinion of what it is telling us, and then twist the 'data' we get by reading it to fit into the mold we had already prepared for it, instead of letting it inform us. For thousands of years men have been devoting their lives to comprehend it, and have only been scratching the surface, then we come along, and with only a number of months or brief years of looking at isolated bits of it we pretend we're experts and ready to teach.

What do you think the animals were going to eat if algae and multi cellular plants weren't here first?

Christians do approach the scripture without preconceived notions, it's those with the worldly scientific beliefs that go to The Bible with preformed opinions and twist the scripture (and some Christians do it too, the ones here promoting evolution).

Ironic you accuse the Christian population of doing this, when it's your "science" group that does it. I'm not saying you aren't a Christian, but more accurately it's people with preformed scientific opinions not derived from The Bible that describe those who do this.

KelbyofGod · Nov 10, 2017

posthuman said:

Posthuman,

Well-said!

A former pastor of mine once said it this way..."People read the bible in one of two ways...either to confirm what they believe...or to conform what they believe." That statement has stuck with me ever since. (for myself, not to judge others)

Thanks,
Kelby

JaumeJ · Nov 10, 2017

theistic evolution! Wow! Attempting to fit our Maker within Darwinian thinking.

Have you not seen or read?????

God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

God bless all in Jesus Christ, all.

KelbyofGod · Nov 10, 2017

#5

Innerfire89 said:

Although it is clearly stated that Sin is ONE cause of death..show me where the bible states that it is the ONLY cause of death.

And if sin is the only reason for death...and JESUS died for everyone's sins...AND Jesus died FOR US...then why are you still saying that we have to die because of sin??

KelbyofGod · Nov 10, 2017

Innerfire89 said:

I started praying about this topic and others that science was raising to find out if there was any truth to it. What God showed me was surprising to me.

For one, as hinted towards in my earlier post, sin is NOT the only reason for death. Death is something God built into the system INDEPENDENT of sin. For example... Jesus said John_12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. <--That seed doesn't die because of sin... it dies to fulfill it's purpose of life. That method of reproduction was established by God prior to Adam's sin. Death (as a reality in life) started pre-sin.

KelbyofGod · Nov 10, 2017

KelbyofGod said:

Actually, I should have said something along the lines of "the seed dies so it can change from one level of purpose to the next". similar to how God wants us to go from glory to glory...one glory to the next... one level to the next. That's what happened to Enoch and Elijah... they didn't leave this world through what we call death (what the bible calls sleeping). 1Co_15:51 "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,"

In fact, a good portion of the end of 1 Corinthians 15 is on this topic... 1Co 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 1Co 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

The church is just deceived on this matter because we've been so afraid of the topic of death that we don't seek GOD to know the truth of the matter. And thus we suffer (Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge") and are in bondage because of that same fear. Heb 2:15 "And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."

trofimus · Nov 10, 2017

heartofdavid said:

If you believe profoundly that the evolution theory is against Christianity, Bible, God etc, you will not accept any evidence or proof, naturally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

trofimus · Nov 10, 2017

KelbyofGod said:

Trofimus,
If I remember correctly we disagree on some important belief/experience items, but I have to say I'm impressed with the way you have discussed this thread, especially that you seem to avoid attacks on a person's intelligence, worthiness, upbringing, etc.

1. I read the entire thread (excepting some of Enow's because of length and multi-points as mentioned)...and I still didn't see a clarification of what others think "kinds" really mean. So I'm assuming they are meaning "species" until someone clarifies it to mean something else. (ROOM: I"m asking your input on this.)

2. I also am open to the idea of science and God's word not being mutually exclusive. *Kelby pauses for the collective gasp* Although some might say "Religion without any science would be much better"...my question to them would be "Do you also think that science without any religion would be better?" when I'm sure some people who call themselves scientists would say that it would. Mutual exclusivity requires both statements.

3. Has anyone not noticed that at least some of the processes God established in Genesis are still going on today and are established in what we call Science? For example... God said he created the animals and brought them to Adam(man) and that man named them and whatever man names them, that is the name thereof. Pay attention to science and you'll notice that is still happening. When man finds a new species of anything, one of the first things he does is give it a name. <--this agrees with both scientific process AND biblical process.

4. The bible says in Luke_16:8 that the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. Sometimes we who think of ourselves as children of light ought to get off our high horses and realize that sometimes the world can teach us a thing or two instead of us always thinking we're right just because we THINK we understand what the bible means. From what I understand, there was quite a RELIGIOUS debate over whether the earth was flat or round (or that the earth circled the sun instead of the other way around) when those ideas came out through Science. The biblical statement about people "speaking evil of that which they do not understand" is NOT limited to non-Christians.

Thank you for your kindness.

I believe that even though science can go wrong in this or that area, there is no huge conspiracy like "lets lie about everything to get rid of God" in the scientific community.

If there is a huge amount of evidence from nature, that the universe is old and that life evolved (and there is), we should not be afraid of the truth.

God is not made any "smaller" when we do not take everything in the Bible literally or when we do not know what something can mean (tree, fruit, talking serpent, dust etc).
And this is what the early church taught too, its not something "modern" because of the evolution theory.

KelbyofGod · Nov 10, 2017

trofimus said:

Agreed on both points although I'm fairly certain there are some within the scientific community who really are willing to lie to try to get rid of God.

And although people within the church community often scorn any questioning OF the church community, my observation (being myself a member of the church community) is that:

1. it is easier to make people afraid of something than it is to teach them... hence lazy/ignorant church leaders will take the easy road of declaring loudly that "The whole topic of such and such is of the DEVIL!!!" rather than teaching people how to discern the parts that are true from the parts that are false. (spoiler alert...it may take prayer and fasting as well as reading)

2. Some church leaders actually don't want their people to have the skills to find truth for themselves. Jesus said "if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch" Blind leaders still get paid (in money or the reverence of their followers) as long as their people don't learn to get ahold of God/truth for themselves. Seeing leaders not only encourage you to seek God for yourself, they also encourage you to take what they themselves teach directly to God (and ask what parts were truth / error)...so both leader and follower can see more clearly and neither fall into the ditch at the hands of man.

prove-all · Nov 10, 2017

trofimus said:

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over
to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Lets take one example, Ernest Haeckels fraud in the mid-1800s.
This fraud was known and published as early as 1894

Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are presently in at least 10 major biology textbooks
published from 1998 through 2000. In each case, they are used to demonstrate the
supposed similarity of early embryos in different animals and man, and the authors
claim this is evidence of common ancestry and Darwin’s evolution hypothesis.

These authors simply perpetuate Haeckel’s fraud in an effort to promote
what they call the “theory” of evolution.

"Even Darwin used the Haeckel lie. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species,"

Or the faked pictures of "the peppered moths"This is supposed to prove the
theory of “natural selection.” But fraud and lies permeate this deception as well.

May 29, 2007 The Fraud of Evolution
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/3665.2.0.0/science/evolution/the-fraud-of-evolution

-
Or have you read about the Multimillion-Dollar Monkey Fraud?
-
Or The mere Improbability of Evolution

Dinosaurs, Evolution and the bible

September 28, 2016 Natural Selection: An Answer to Everything
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/14231.2.0.0/science/natural-selection-an-answer-to-everything

October 2015 The Dodo’s Lesson in Evolution Theory
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/...volution/the-dodos-lesson-in-evolution-theory

March 8, 2012 Triceratops Controversy or Paleo-Hypocrisy?
https://www.thetrumpet.com/9194-triceratops-controversy-or-paleo-hypocrisy

September 2011 What Is the Behemoth?
https://www.thetrumpet.com/8533-what-is-the-behemoth

October 1, 2010 The Dino That Learned to Fly
https://www.thetrumpet.com/7482-the-dino-that-learned-to-fly

June 2, 2009 A Multimillion-Dollar Monkey Fraud
https://www.thetrumpet.com/6223-a-multimillion-dollar-monkey-fraud

February 2009 Dinosaurs and the Bible
https://www.thetrumpet.com/5800-dinosaurs-and-the-bible

March 2002 The Improbability of Evolution
https://www.thetrumpet.com/595-the-improbability-of-evolution

Man did not evolve from monkeys, the age of the universe is another subject.
They took God out of the classrooms, and replaced him with the Evolution story.

trofimus · Nov 10, 2017

prove-all said:

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over
to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Lets take one example, Ernest Haeckels fraud in the mid-1800s.
This fraud was known and published as early as 1894

Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are presently in at least 10 major biology textbooks
published from 1998 through 2000. In each case, they are used to demonstrate the
supposed similarity of early embryos in different animals and man, and the authors
claim this is evidence of common ancestry and Darwin’s evolution hypothesis.

These authors simply perpetuate Haeckel’s fraud in an effort to promote
what they call the “theory” of evolution.

"Even Darwin used the Haeckel lie. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species,"

Or the faked pictures of "the peppered moths"This is supposed to prove the
theory of “natural selection.” But fraud and lies permeate this deception as well.

May 29, 2007 The Fraud of Evolution
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/3665.2.0.0/science/evolution/the-fraud-of-evolution

-
Or have you read about the Multimillion-Dollar Monkey Fraud?
-
Or The mere Improbability of Evolution

Dinosaurs, Evolution and the bible

September 28, 2016 Natural Selection: An Answer to Everything
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/14231.2.0.0/science/natural-selection-an-answer-to-everything

October 2015 The Dodo’s Lesson in Evolution Theory
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/...volution/the-dodos-lesson-in-evolution-theory

March 8, 2012 Triceratops Controversy or Paleo-Hypocrisy?
https://www.thetrumpet.com/9194-triceratops-controversy-or-paleo-hypocrisy

September 2011 What Is the Behemoth?
https://www.thetrumpet.com/8533-what-is-the-behemoth

October 1, 2010 The Dino That Learned to Fly
https://www.thetrumpet.com/7482-the-dino-that-learned-to-fly

June 2, 2009 A Multimillion-Dollar Monkey Fraud
https://www.thetrumpet.com/6223-a-multimillion-dollar-monkey-fraud

February 2009 Dinosaurs and the Bible
https://www.thetrumpet.com/5800-dinosaurs-and-the-bible

March 2002 The Improbability of Evolution
https://www.thetrumpet.com/595-the-improbability-of-evolution

Man did not evolve from monkeys, the age of the universe is another subject.
They took God out of the classrooms, and replaced him with the Evolution story.

If we would count how many frauds so called Christians made (like false healings, false miracles, false teachings, false prophecies), secular scientists would look like doves and Christianity like the pack of wolves.

prove-all · Nov 10, 2017

trofimus said:

The first horseman (on the white horse) represents religious deception while
the second horseman (on the red horse) represents war (Revelation 6:1-4).

The first horse, a white one, while being the least understood, is perhaps the most important
because it produces the most insidious destruction: universal religious deception.

The first and most deadly horseman is religious deception! The word conquer means
“to come off with the victory” that the largest organized religious “cult”on Earth today
waged the bloodiest battles ever, in the name of God.

This horseman has wreaked havoc on mankind with religious wars throughout history.

The deceived followers of the man on the white horse “go forth conquering and to conquer”
based on their erroneous belief that the white horseman is Jesus Christ. In fact, he is Satan
disguising himself as Christ (2?Corinthians 11:14). This leads directly into, and overlaps with,
the second horseman of the apocalypse: war!

theistic evolution - don't try this at home

Senior Member

pckts

Guest

Senior Member

pckts

Guest

pckts

Guest

Senior Member

pckts

Guest

Senior Member

pckts

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member