Millions of years ago ! ?

[Percepi]

First, I hope we’ve at least established that evolution is a theory. Correct?

Yes, science is a theory. However, I don't think you quite understand what a theory is.

In science, a theory does not refer to a hunch or an educated guess. Instead, a theory refers to an explanation of proven phenomena.

I highly recommend you watch the following video. It goes over the basics of what evolution is, and more importantly, what it is not. You might find it interesting, even if it ultimately doesn't convince you either which way.

[video=youtube;XdddbYILel0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0[/video]

I have no problem with people who reject evolution based solely on the fact that it contradicts the Bible. What bothers me is when people misrepresent evolution to validate their beliefs.

 

[ivanc0]

You go home to find your window smashed in and numerous possessions missing. You call the police and they ask you, "Did you see what happened?" You respond, "No, but the window is smashed in and a bunch of my stuff is missing. My front door was even open when I returned home." The police laugh at you, "Well, how do you know there was a robbery if you didn't observe it?" Then, they hang up on you.

If you want to argue that there's evidence of a robbery, then you must forfeit your claim that evolution can only be proven by being directly observed. This is because evidence can be used to make inferences.

Correct, this is how the atomic theory was discovered, electricity, computers, etc, no one have seen this things "working" but there were all inferences to observed phenomena, today is obvious all this work and can be observed , but this was not the case when those things were discovered.So the argument to have to "see and observe to be true is false" and who have observed Adam and Eve?

 

[Percepi]

they were like the early Galileos of the day - some it seems even warned Columbus not to venture too far or he would fall off the earth

Who? And what makes you think these people were "the scientists" of the day?

btw see www.Galileowaswrong.com

These people are not scientists.

 

[wincam]

Correct, this is how the atomic theory was discovered, electricity, computers, etc, no one have seen this things "working" but there were all inferences to observed phenomena, today is obvious all this work and can be observed , but this was not the case when those things were discovered.So the argument to have to "see and observe to be true is false" and who have observed Adam and Eve?

exactly so - so Evolution is a belief system a sort of religiously believed system - wincam

 

[wincam]

exactly so - so Evolution is a belief system a sort of religiously believed system - btw no one is disputing true science but what is being refuted is pseudo/phony non science posing as science and giving science a bad reputation - wincam

 

[weakness]

Biblical creationists have always argued for around 6,000 years. It's evolutionists who keep changing the time-frame.

The Bible records roughly 3,700 years of history (Genesis to some of Revelation. This doesn't include the 400 years of silence between the OT and NT). Roughly 2,000 years have passed since Christ came to earth. We're still living some of the book of Acts and much of Revelation is still to come. That's 6,000 years of history there. Finally, God's Word tells us that mankind existed from the beginning of creation. Therefore, long-ages (billions, millions of years) aren't a side issue. If they were true, we would have death and suffering long before the Fall of Man and that would make God a liar. And God can't lie, for He is Truth incarnate.

As for the biblical genealogies, they would have little value if they weren't complete records of the heads of families.[/QUOTE "Death and suffering before the fall of Man" Rom.1 The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of he who subjected the same in hope. It in was God's plan that depravity and sin over came the creation, but with hope that the creature itself will be redeemed and glorified. Do you think that grass died before the fall of man? Did the animals that ate things bring death to them? When a tree fell over and died was that death a result of sin? Jesus willingly died because of love and obedience.When a tree dies it rots and is reconstituted to its essential elements and gives life to another organism. I can see God in this, one of many examples. I don't see how there could not be death before Adam. This also " declares God's glory" It utters speech,Its voice heard in every language.

 

[SoulWeaver]

Jokes on you, evolution never claimed we evolved from modern ape.

Modern or not, it's an ape.
Just respect that people do not necessarily believe what you believe, nor are they interested.
Everybody has been taught evolution in school. I was agnostic while in school so that's as unbiased as it gets. Sorry I was never convinced into the soup thing and that something came out of nothing, that life emerged out of something dead and that all this complexity we see developed by accident (and from scratch). To each their own.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Why did you dis yourself?

Regardless, if you don't care to learn about evolution - don't comment about evolution. If I make a comment about the Bible and someone tells me I'm wrong, I'm interested in learning how I'm wrong so I may correct myself in the future.

I acknowledged that I didn't care about evolution or the "science" behind it. Instead of reading about rubbish I will rather study my Bible.

FYI I am commenting on a Christian website while being a Christian. What is your religion again?

 

[SoulWeaver]

P.S. and yeah, none of the 3 has been observably confirmed. These things go against the law of physics and all possible laws of nature. Then you want people to think it credible! There's no way how: something out of nothing, life out of death and intelligent design on accident - all 3 classify as a MIRACLE. That kind of stuff simply doesnt happen even given billions of years... of course unless you believe in God...

 

[wincam]

Biblical creationists have always argued for around 6,000 years. It's evolutionists who keep changing the time-frame.

The Bible records roughly 3,700 years of history (Genesis to some of Revelation. This doesn't include the 400 years of silence between the OT and NT). Roughly 2,000 years have passed since Christ came to earth. We're still living some of the book of Acts and much of Revelation is still to come. That's 6,000 years of history there. Finally, God's Word tells us that mankind existed from the beginning of creation. Therefore, long-ages (billions, millions of years) aren't a side issue. If they were true, we would have death and suffering long before the Fall of Man and that would make God a liar. And God can't lie, for He is Truth incarnate.

As for the biblical genealogies, they would have little value if they weren't complete records of the heads of families.[/QUOTE "Death and suffering before the fall of Man" Rom.1 The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of he who subjected the same in hope. It in was God's plan that depravity and sin over came the creation, but with hope that the creature itself will be redeemed and glorified. Do you think that grass died before the fall of man? Did the animals that ate things bring death to them? When a tree fell over and died was that death a result of sin? Jesus willingly died because of love and obedience.When a tree dies it rots and is reconstituted to its essential elements and gives life to another organism. I can see God in this, one of many examples. I don't see how there could not be death before Adam. This also " declares God's glory" It utters speech,Its voice heard in every language.

no death or suffering before the fall does not compute with God - see Wisdom 1:12- 15 and 2:23-24 - btw this can only be found in Catholic bibles - wincam

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

no death or suffering before the fall does not compute with God - see Wisdom 1:12- 15 and 2:23-24 - btw this can only be found in Catholic bibles - wincam

And that is why I will not read it

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

P.S. and yeah, none of the 3 has been observably confirmed. These things go against the law of physics and all possible laws of nature. Then you want people to think it credible! There's no way how: something out of nothing, life out of death and intelligent design on accident - all 3 classify as a MIRACLE. That kind of stuff simply doesnt happen even given billions of years... of course unless you believe in God...

Amen SoulWeaver. Only God could create something from nothing

 

[wincam]

Who? And what makes you think these people were "the scientists" of the day?



These people are not scientists.

nor was the creator of science and all scientists - wincam

 

[SoulWeaver]

mir•a•cle (mĭrˈə-kəl)►

• n.
  An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

Evolution is unexplicable by the laws of nature because it believes something came out of nothing that life emerged out of dead matter and that intelligent design happened on accident and of scratch at that. So atheists I suggest rethink your beliefs - you're actually beliving a miracle, while not believing in God (which is even harder to believe). Amazing faith yet wasted...

 

[oldhermit]

You Right, we think in different ways and we envision God in different way too, I am grateful for you effort in trying to transmit your message, please note I have no desire to just contradict for contradicting, I am seriously trying to understand your possition and frame of thinking to understand your explanation.
After much thinking I have realized that maybe for people like you the actual God is the scripture itself. as the scripture has to be explained no matter what, that is why there is so convoluted and abstracts way to explain simple things, because if two simple things contradict each other then the matter will need a really complicated theory to explain it.

So how you explain that God rule how to sell your daughter as a slave (in practical terms I believe is a sex slave/maid), in times where is not needed, because they are in the desert, and eating food from heaven, and they will be nomads for another 40 years.

Thank, lots for your answers,

If you want to learn to understand this then you are going to have to learn to focus on one thing at a time. I teach the book of Exodus so I will be happy to explain about the slavery issues of the Israelite culture but but it is important that you first understand what scripture reveals about the nature of God then you will better understand the Law of Moses. We can discuss the peripheral issues such as selling one's daughter as a slave later. You do not learn calculus by beginning to study calculus. To learn calculus one must first learn what a number is.

 

[Percepi]

exactly so - so Evolution is a belief system a sort of religiously believed system - btw no one is disputing true science but what is being refuted is pseudo/phony non science posing as science and giving science a bad reputation - wincam

That's not what was said or inferred at all. You're misrepresenting what was said to confirm your own bias.

I acknowledged that I didn't care about evolution or the "science" behind it. Instead of reading about rubbish I will rather study my Bible.

I appreciate the honesty, but if you don't care to understand what evolution actually is, then don't makes claims about evolution as if you do know. Or at the very least, be willing to correct your views about evolution if you're corrected.

If I say, "Nowhere does the Bible claim x" and someone corrects me, then I'm going to look into the statement I said and the evidence presented and correct myself accordingly. It would be dishonest to say, "Nowhere does the Bible claim x", then turn around and say, "I don't care to study the Bible - it's rubbish.", then continue arguing that the "Bible never claimed x". This is precisely what you're doing, and it's wrong.

Modern or not, it's an ape.

Well, yes, you're right. But there's still a fundamental difference between modern ape and ancient ape.

Just respect that people do not necessarily believe what you believe, nor are they interested.

If they aren't interested in evolution, they shouldn't talk about evolution.

Everybody has been taught evolution in school. I was agnostic while in school so that's as unbiased as it gets.

As I mentioned before, being an atheist or an agnostic doesn't necessarily make you more scientifically literate. Most people, theist and atheist, have a very poor understanding of science - including evolution.

Sorry I was never convinced into the soup thing and that something came out of nothing

This refers to abiogenesis, not evolution. Furthermore, nobody argued that life came from nothing.

that life emerged out of something dead

Who claims it did? But again, this refers to abiogenesis.

and that all this complexity we see developed by accident (and from scratch).

An accident implies a plan gone awry. There was no plan, so evolution wasn't an accident or success - it just happened through natural means. Or, if you're a theist who accepts evolution, you might argue that evolution occurred according to God's plans. Either way, evolution wasn't an accident.

Calling a natural event an accident is like saying a lake accidentally froze when temperatures dropped.

P.S. and yeah, none of the 3 has been observably confirmed. These things go against the law of physics and all possible laws of nature. Then you want people to think it credible! There's no way how: something out of nothing, life out of death and intelligent design on accident - all 3 classify as a MIRACLE. That kind of stuff simply doesnt happen even given billions of years... of course unless you believe in God...

Since you were wrong on all 3 accounts, I guess we don't have to worry about these complications.

 

[oldhermit]

​ I think Jesus does represent God as a physical being, In all points tempted as we were.And we can see in Jesus responses to life as God would respond to physical life.

That was not the function of the incarnation. Jesus in the flesh did not represent the FORM of God. As God, Jesus had to undergo a metamorphic transition to assume human form. This is Philippians 2.

 

[Percepi]

Evolution is unexplicable by the laws of nature because it believes something came out of nothing

You may have studied evolution in school, but it's clear you don't understand evolution. I don't know if you were given bad information about evolution in class, if you didn't listen or understand the subject, or if you simply forgot about everything they taught you.

Evolution does NOT propose we came from nothing. In fact, not even abiogenesis makes such a proposition.

that life emerged out of dead matter

Something can only be dead if it were once living. What you're referring to is non-living matter. Regardless, it is something that's hard to fathom and we still don't know how life came to be at this time. Abiogenesis is a very young science and there's much to learn. But this doesn't mean God must have poofed us into existence out of nowhere - it simply means we don't have a definite answer yet.

Regardless as to how we came to be, whether god created life or whether life came to be through natural means, evolution is a fact.

and that intelligent design happened on accident

Our bodies are not perfect. They work well through means of natural selection.

So atheists I suggest rethink your beliefs - you're actually beliving a miracle, while not believing in God (which is even harder to believe). Amazing faith yet wasted..

I suggest you study evolution, because you clearly don't understand what evolution is. Furthermore, what is a miracle anyway? How would you define whether something that happens is a miracle as opposed to natural? Is a miracle something that's super duper highly unlikely? Or is a miracle something that's literally impossible, in which case how can something be impossible if it happens? You haven't given much thought about what a miracle is, have you?

 

[oldhermit]

Biblical creationists have always argued for around 6,000 years. It's evolutionists who keep changing the time-frame.

The Bible records roughly 3,700 years of history (Genesis to some of Revelation. This doesn't include the 400 years of silence between the OT and NT). Roughly 2,000 years have passed since Christ came to earth. We're still living some of the book of Acts and much of Revelation is still to come. That's 6,000 years of history there. Finally, God's Word tells us that mankind existed from the beginning of creation. Therefore, long-ages (billions, millions of years) aren't a side issue. If they were true, we would have death and suffering long before the Fall of Man and that would make God a liar. And God can't lie, for He is Truth incarnate.

As for the biblical genealogies, they would have little value if they weren't complete records of the heads of families.[/QUOTE "Death and suffering before the fall of Man" Rom.1 The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of he who subjected the same in hope. It in was God's plan that depravity and sin over came the creation, but with hope that the creature itself will be redeemed and glorified. Do you think that grass died before the fall of man? Did the animals that ate things bring death to them? When a tree fell over and died was that death a result of sin? Jesus willingly died because of love and obedience.When a tree dies it rots and is reconstituted to its essential elements and gives life to another organism. I can see God in this, one of many examples. I don't see how there could not be death before Adam. This also " declares God's glory" It utters speech,Its voice heard in every language.

This does not come from Romans 1.

 

[Percepi]

nor was the creator of science and all scientists - wincam

Keep talking, eventually you'll say something that makes sense.