Something people are failing to see is that creation and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible that both exist. The only thing opossing my believe that both are entirely possible is the people who take literal translations of the Bible - if these people knew at least a little Greek (as I do) and read an origional translation Greek Bible you would realize that it says God created the universe in 7 epochs not 7 days.
Etymology: Medieval Latin epocha, from Greek epoche cessation, fixed point, from epechein to pause, hold back, from epi- + echein to hold — more at scheme
1 a: an event or a time marked by an event that begins a new period or development
b: a memorable event or date
2 a: an extended period of time usually characterized by a distinctive development or by a memorable series of events
b: a division of geologic time less than a period and greater than an age
3: an instant of time or a date selected as a point of reference (as in astronomy)
Oranje wrote:
Something people are failing to see is that creation and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible that both exist. The only thing opossing my believe that both are entirely possible is the people who take literal translations of the Bible - if these people knew at least a little Greek (as I do) and read an origional translation Greek Bible you would realize that it says God created the universe in 7 epochs not 7 days.
Creation doesnt fit any evidence we have.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters.
I am going to address something that may or not have been covered before as it seems that there are a lot of misconceptions on creation and the timing of it, especially from the Bible’s perpective...like I keep on saying, there is no way you can get accurate info like that outside of reading books, and actually visiting places and through GOOD study....anyways consider this..as a Christian I believe that God created the earth in good order (job 38:4-7; Isaiah 45:18). In Genesis ch 1 verse 2, the word “but” and “became” indicate that something happened to cause God’s creation to become “waste” and “void”...This cataclysmic event was God’s judgment on the pre-adamic universe following Satan’s rebellion. This judgment was executed on Satan, on the angels and the pre-adamic creatures living on earth who joined Satan in his rebellion, and on the earth and on the heavens...The water we see in verse 2 signifies death. As a result of the God’s judgment, on the pre-adamic universe, the entire earth was filled with deep water...so in short Verse 1 is a recored of God’s original creation...but from then on in, the reference is on God’s restoration to the damaged universe , plus His further creation, in 6 days.....
Using the bible to prove the bible... come on now, I thought you knew better then that...
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
now now... before you start patting yourself on the back just consider when a Christian’s interpretation of a passage (based on the social/literary context) solves one of your favorite contradictions, or it is only their personal interpretation, and can be dismissed as such. But your interpretation (based on a “plain” reading of the text) to arrive at the contradiction in the first place is entirely objective, and is obviously THE correct interpretation...he.
hehhe......you atheist continually resorts to the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty) when dealing with creation..... Thats to say, you appeal here to science as an authority which cannot be challenged...... unfortunately, this appeal is plagued by its own problems......need I remind you that science makes no claims about God one way or another, so it is not the scientists who are for the most part claiming God does not exist on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence, but atheist such as yourself asserting it.......Second, science for all its great accomplishments for all we know is still in the infant stage, there is much about nature it simply does not know, even on this planet........ so for you atheist to conclude that a discipline, which has limitations here and now, somehow can conclude that something beyond its immediate ability to study is the final word, is logically speaking, a fallacy......Science itself is somewhat bias as well. It suffers from nearsightedness; what it cannot observe directly or indirectly, it ignores. Things like memory may have a basis in biology, but is it safe to conclude that only biology is at work here..............? No one has ever seen an emotion, or a memory; yet they exist. So it is not far-fetched to conclude that there is more to nature than what we observe in our own limited corner of it....In my opinion science has only touched the tip of the scientific iceberg..... as such, science cannot be used to dismiss the idea that a God may exist.
If one cannot truly understand a grain of sand, then one cannot understand the beach......ne.
Watchman wrote:
now now... before you start patting yourself on the back just consider when a Christian’s interpretation of a passage (based on the social/literary context) solves one of your favorite contradictions, or it is only their personal interpretation, and can be dismissed as such. But your interpretation (based on a “plain” reading of the text) to arrive at the contradiction in the first place is entirely objective, and is obviously THE correct interpretation...he.
hehhe......you atheist continually resorts to the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to modesty) when dealing with creation..... Thats to say, you appeal here to science as an authority which cannot be challenged...... unfortunately, this appeal is plagued by its own problems......need I remind you that science makes no claims about God one way or another, so it is not the scientists who are for the most part claiming God does not exist on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence, but atheist such as yourself asserting it.......Second, science for all its great accomplishments for all we know is still in the infant stage, there is much about nature it simply does not know, even on this planet........ so for you atheist to conclude that a discipline, which has limitations here and now, somehow can conclude that something beyond its immediate ability to study is the final word, is logically speaking, a fallacy......Science itself is somewhat bias as well. It suffers from nearsightedness; what it cannot observe directly or indirectly, it ignores. Things like memory may have a basis in biology, but is it safe to conclude that only biology is at work here..............? No one has ever seen an emotion, or a memory; yet they exist. So it is not far-fetched to conclude that there is more to nature than what we observe in our own limited corner of it....In my opinion science has only touched the tip of the scientific iceberg..... as such, science cannot be used to dismiss the idea that a God may exist.
If one cannot truly understand a grain of sand, then one cannot understand the beach......ne.
You forget we don’t have to see it to have evidence. There are other means of knowing something is there. We can’t see black holes...just what it’s effects are.
tut, tut.....and here I thought science was based on empirical data, lab results and such....and to think you dont like me telling you, you might be going to a place that you don’t think exists...hell.
anyways, do you know Petitio principii fallacy;?... it goes something like this: there is no God because we find no evidence of God in nature. But is this true? No.... We presently do not know enough about nature to make such a conclusion, eventually, the possibility that there is a God could be proven. You atheist has no evidence that the universe is eternal or accidental...from your post, you assume that scientific speculation somehow equals scientific fact. Obviously there is a great gap between speculation and fact to the rational mind......ne.
Funny thing you pointing out that fallacy, and then going on to using the argument from ignorance which would be, “you can’t prove god doesn’t exist so god does exist”. Science does not advocate the supernatural such as god or creationism because it has absolutely not bases in the science method. There was never any scientific evidence that led to a conclusion that there was a god or designer, never has and never will be.
BTW, we have some pretty convincing and non-refutable evidence to prove the universe is will continue to expand (no scientist ever claimed the universe was eternal), and our evidence of the universe being “accidental” is only by laws of nature and does not advocate the supernatural. You however, have no evidence to suggest the universe was designed. If you don’t believe me you can speak to Stephen Hawking, because he is much more credible in the field of cosmetology than a priest.
ramunematt wrote:
Funny thing you pointing out that fallacy, and then going on to using the argument from ignorance which would be, “you can’t prove god doesn’t exist so god does exist”. Science does not advocate the supernatural such as god or creationism because it has absolutely not bases in the science method. There was never any scientific evidence that led to a conclusion that there was a god or designer, never has and never will be.
BTW, we have some pretty convincing and non-refutable evidence to prove the universe is will continue to expand (no scientist ever claimed the universe was eternal), and our evidence of the universe being “accidental” is only by laws of nature and does not advocate the supernatural. You however, have no evidence to suggest the universe was designed. If you don’t believe me you can speak to Stephen Hawking, because he is much more credible in the field of cosmetology than a priest.
you know between “cosmic” evolution and “chemical” evolution there is a chicken and the egg problem, you need chemical to make up the stars but you need stars to make up the chemical (by means of fusion, although you cant fuse past iron)...so there is a problem. As an evolutionist it seems that your stuck with the embarrassing assumption that all chemicals evolved the same throughout the entire universe.... And since the universe is pretty big, you expect me to believe that all the chemicals evolved the same throughout the entire universe?..... you expect me to believe that uranium evolved from hydrogen?..
Watchman, your primary argument here seems to be “As long as there is mystery, there could be a god”
Well, if it is, you are certainly correct. There could be a god out there until we learn absolutely everything there is to know in this universe, and then possibly the other universes (if there are any).
The thing is though... this is still not proof, evidence, or even convincing argument towards the existence of a creator. It is merely an argument to make someone admit that, in the realm of possibilities (at it’s fullest mind you) it is possible for things that we do not know to exist... to exist.
Now, I don’t like to kick a dead invisible unicorn, but people should also recognize that they could exist. Same with the possibility that everything that we know is all just someone else’s elaborate dream. Or that our galaxies and universe are simply just molecules and atoms that make up the building blocks of some other gargantuan Being or object, and that we have billions of tiny universes within ourselves.
All of these possibilities and many many more should be thoroughly explored as well I think. So long as there is mystery, who knows what’s out there?
Khorib wrote:
Watchman, your primary argument here seems to be “As long as there is mystery, there could be a god”
Well, if it is, you are certainly correct. There could be a god out there until we learn absolutely everything there is to know in this universe, and then possibly the other universes (if there are any).
The thing is though... this is still not proof, evidence, or even convincing argument towards the existence of a creator. It is merely an argument to make someone admit that, in the realm of possibilities (at it’s fullest mind you) it is possible for things that we do not know to exist... to exist.
Now, I don’t like to kick a dead invisible unicorn, but people should also recognize that they could exist. Same with the possibility that everything that we know is all just someone else’s elaborate dream. Or that our galaxies and universe are simply just molecules and atoms that make up the building blocks of some other gargantuan Being or object, and that we have billions of tiny universes within ourselves.
All of these possibilities and many many more should be thoroughly explored as well I think. So long as there is mystery, who knows what’s out there?
naa, there is no primary argument here..not really..i just go back and forth and delving into the whole schematic of the thing only to realize that are too many holes in a bucket that’s supposed to be rust proof..... I mean, for those of you who support evolution as a theory (NOT A FACT) can you name a single new species that has arisen within (historical time)..if not and as such, your theory falls to the ground..... No species in that time, has passed into another. No species has been divided into two or more. No lower species has advanced into a higher. History gives no scrap of evidence in support of evolution...Many varieties and individuals under the skill of man have been developed and improved, but not a single new species in historic time......
Watchman... where did you learn evolution? Because there is no evolution in cosmetology or chemistry, and you seem to be in the delusion that all the evidence that supports evolution (transitional fossils) simply does not exist. Did you ever think of learning about facts from evolution fr5om places other than AIG?
»
Religion
» Creation vs. Evolution Debate topic
