Millions of years ago ! ?

[valiant]

Evolution has been proved 100%,

Not only has Evolution not been proved 100%, it CANNOT be ever. If it occurs it is too slow for man to observe it. Adaptation takes place, yes. but whether that is part of an evolutionary process (or a devolutionary process) is simply guesswork. It is a hypothesis based on deduction from fossil discoveries which in terms of the hypothesis are few and far between with huge unfilled gaps. Indeed the hypothesis itself has constantly to be adapted. And it maintains itself by ignoring or writing off contrary evidence.

I am not a six day creationist. But I do see many of the fallacies in the Evolutionary argument. It should be presented as one of a number of hypotheses. LOL the Evolutionists are as dogmatic as the Creationists.

and in my view is the way God created the life in this planet,

you are of course entitles to that option as your opinion, and as long as you see it as God guided that's Ok by me, but please don't make exaggerated claims

here evolution fails is when explains the creation of a cell, a cell is a system with hundreds or thousands of parts and to be formed by accident is in reality impossible, so God created cells and allow them to grow and populate the earth.

a pretty big blow to the evolutionary hypothesis.

I am going against the old testament? Unfortunately yes. I do not believe in old testament as a literal story of creation. the old Testament is a mix of legends and history of people in the Israel area.

.... keep your virtual stones in your pockets... Please.

It is a 'literal' story of creation but it shows WHOM and not HOW. Or don't you think that God created everything?

 

[just-me]

Gen 1,2 & 3, is not the only Scripture dealing with creation and to ignore the other Scripture dealing with it will lead "one" to a wrong final belief on it...period!

"One" can't cherry pick the Scriptures on creation (or any other Scriptural subject) that "one" happens to like and ignore the others on that subject!

"One" needs to rightly divide the Word of Truth. 2Tim 2v15

Simples...

One can say (concerning Genesis 1:1) that at the beginning of creation God was, and He created heaven and earth.

"For by him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:And he (Jesus Christ) is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who (Jesus Christ) is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:16-18

 

[Tintin]

not only that but it was the so called scientists of the day that believed that the earth was flat and not a geo spheroid - what the early Christians believed was that the earth was created perfect that is flat and smooth and level with no obstacles like high mountains or deep chasms etc - since simple cannot evolve into complex but via entropy complex can devolve to simple it is more likely humans devolved to apes - wincam

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The early Christians believed in an original, perfect creation, as did the Jews. But they never believed the rest of what you mentioned. Never.

 

[Tintin]

Weakness, my goodness! You have an extremely unorthodox way of reading the Bible. That's not what Romans 1 is even discussing. Also, grass being eaten by animals can't be considered death and suffering. The Bible mentions 'everything that has the breath of life'. That doesn't even include insects. So animals could have eaten both grass and insects and even plants before the Fall and it still wouldn't be considered death. If you disagree, take it up with God and Adam. I didn't write the first few chapters of Genesis!

 

[ivanc0]

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.

ok please go ahead, and continue with the nature of God.
Thanks.

 

[oldhermit]

ok please go ahead, and continue with the nature of God.
Thanks.

Very well, but understand I am going to treat you as I would any other student. Before I go on I want you to give some deeper consideration to the things I have already given you. For example: From post #25, I would like for you to explain to me the picture scripture gives us of the nature of God and why this is important to our understanding of how man was created in the image and likeness of God. I am not at this point interested in whether or not you agree with it. I only want to know that you understand it.

 

[wincam]

Weakness, my goodness! You have an extremely unorthodox way of reading the Bible. That's not what Romans 1 is even discussing. Also, grass being eaten by animals can't be considered death and suffering. The Bible mentions 'everything that has the breath of life'. That doesn't even include insects. So animals could have eaten both grass and insects and even plants before the Fall and it still wouldn't be considered death. If you disagree, take it up with God and Adam. I didn't write the first few chapters of Genesis!

exactly right - if the leaves, or fruit or veg is eaten the tree or bush or plant itself is not eaten or dies - in fact if not eaten it is shed - wincam

 

[Makahiya2028]

big rip theory, oscillation theory, six day theory, gap theory,

big bang evolution theory, creation evolution theory

 

[wincam]

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The early Christians believed in an original, perfect creation, as did the Jews. But they never believed the rest of what you mentioned. Never.

to them it was probably obviously so but along came pseudo/phony evolution scientists and mixed it all up - so how about you do you think 'origins' evolution is possible - wincam

 

[oldhermit]

to them it was probably obviously so but along came pseudo/phony evolution scientists and mixed it all up - so how about you do you think 'origins' evolution is possible - wincam

No based on creation principles established in Gen one.

 

[atwhatcost]

Are you really sure you want to get into this?

I'm just now reading the whole thread. I've just read this. I am assuming it continues on and on from here with the person you asked never willing to listen. But nosiness makes me want to ask you...

Were you all that sure you wanted to get into it? (Now that you have 20/20 hindsight.) lol

 

[oldhermit]

I'm just now reading the whole thread. I've just read this. I am assuming it continues on and on from here with the person you asked never willing to listen. But nosiness makes me want to ask you...

Were you all that sure you wanted to get into it? (Now that you have 20/20 hindsight.) lol

LOL. This is not my first time teaching this material to someone who has never in their life considered these things. I know where I am going with this. He doesn't.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

LOL. This is not my first time teaching this material to someone who has never in their life considered these things. I know where I am going with this. He doesn't.

That is what experience do

 

[atwhatcost]

Congratulations! You've found an old illustration that scientists used to indoctrinate into children's textbooks, until they figure out where they got it wrong. They dropped it from the textbooks about two decades after the dropped the Piltdown man. (Hubby is 9 years older than I am. He remembers Piltdown Man in textbooks. I remember the chicken and the human. We both remember when textbooks ditched those "facts." lol)

You really need to keep up. I only had about three gray hairs when this one was dropped. Now I'm somewhere between brunette and gray. lol

And, by all means. Continue. You'll have some reason to deny this too, since it's either your way or no way. So easy to do once you chose to invent a god in your own image.

 

[wincam]

exactly right - if the leaves, or fruit or veg is eaten the tree or bush or plant itself is not eaten or dies - in fact if not eaten it is shed - wincam

btw this shows imho intelligent design by an intelligent designer including intelligent design in that which eats it abd digests its and evacutes it without even breathing - wincam

 

[atwhatcost]

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.

Not true. In the olden days, when I first came to the Lord, (1972), I was taught it was 10,000 years. About 20 years ago it went down to 7,000. Now it's 6,000. If I live long enough, I suspect I'll see it go down to 4,000. (I see the logic in that, if I play the numbers right in the Bible. Matter of fact, that's how my numbers worked, when I did that, but I didn't use a calculator and I really need a calculator and to recheck the numbers several times even then. Scary thought. I was a bookkeeper. lol)

I am a Creationist. I am because I gave up on others telling me what to believe, looking at both sides of the argument from as much bias as they can hand me, and then look for the plot holes of both. I can play this game with some of the better players. I am, by nature, a game player, but my goal is to win, and this is a War Games scenario. The only win is not to play the game. More importantly, God has taught me not to trust what he never said. (It may be truth, but it's up to me if I want to figure out it is truth.)

Add to that the assumption the genealogies matter the way you think they do. The Bible is a book about God -- not a history book, not a philosophy book, not a law book. God's book. It "merely" includes everything about him he wanted us to know. Even there, that's for his purposes -- his glory.

If it was God's purpose to teach us all the genealogy, we'd know all of Adam and Eve's kids and who Cain did marry. Since it's not, we're free to speculate, but always good to know when it is speculation.

Darwin's plot hole? "Let us assume." (He had others, but that was the biggest. The one both sides still hang to like it is gospel.)

 

[atwhatcost]

AtWhatCost, please check out these links for more information concerning the Genesis genealogies:

Genealogy gaps - creation.com

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/new-answers-book-2/gaps-in-the-genesis-genealogies/

War Games scenario. The only way to win the game is not to play. God won. He created the universe. He made it work out exactly like he wanted all along. I don't really need to play with genealogy to figure that out.

And, yes, I have played with it enough to get the gist. X number of people on the earth at any given moment. If there was chance involved it would have been impossible (and way past improbable, which scientists declare is 10^17), for Jesus to come at the right time and place by just the right genealogy to fulfill God's plan. He shows roughly how much he did to work out the plan he already finished before his first, "Let there be."

 

[atwhatcost]

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.

​Agreed. A theory is supposed to be something proven through many scientists' efforts. It stopped being a theory when scientists, instead of reevaluating the original theory and seeing what's wrong with it, went with bandaging it to keep it going. The parrot is dead. It died ages ago. It has been disproven, but many scientists (not all, but the ones who yell the loudest) can't see that from the layer upon layer of bandages used to conceal the object to be examined.

This is something I know, even if I never bought "Goddoneit." I do see their evidence and can show them where what they say completely changes elsewhere.

 

[atwhatcost]

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.

Actually, according to the evolutionary theory, it wasn't an ape any more than we are apes. It was its own species.

 

[atwhatcost]

LOL. This is not my first time teaching this material to someone who has never in their life considered these things. I know where I am going with this. He doesn't.

​I can tell that. I'm just hoping you're thinking bigger than the one who isn't listening. That was why I tend to regret starting such things. I'm myopic. lol