A question of interpretation

[Follower of Christ]

''Well, it will be hard to answer your question if you can't define kinds in any usable sense of the word. I notice you defined micro-evolution, but you did not define macro-evolution. You stated that evolution is not micro evolution or speciation. Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild. How is this different than macro-evolution. What barrier will stop several species changes from becomeing marco-evolution? Is there evidence that such a barrier exists? Can you point me to the studies?''


FOC:

Again, nice attempt.

I am not the one trying to prove theory here, the burden of proof is on you to prove that my rabbits can produce a non-rabbit.





As long as they continue to make baby rabbits , they remain the rabbit ''kind''

Not having a webster definition of kind is irrelevant.
Atheists pull this one all the time.
A horse is a horse, a rabbit is a rabbit, and i am not chimps fourth cousin.




So basically you accept mainstream science until it conflicts with your religion beliefs.


FOC:
Another favorite of the atheists, are you SURE you're not an atheist?

I believe science right up to the point that it starts teaching theory as fact.


AND by the same token, I guess you believe YOUR bible right up to the point where is disagrees with your REAL god SCIENCE



My belief in God does not hinge on a literal interpretation of Genesis so it is no problem for my faith to accept mainstream science and the evidence it provides to support evolution and an old earth.


No, and I am sure the more ''science'' presents the more of a liar YOUR God
will become.

 

[notto]

Evolution does not state that a rabbit produces anything but a rabbit in a single generation. Evolution is based on the fact that if reproducing populations of organisms are separated that over time, the populations will diverge and not be able to produce. If the separated populations end up in different environments, over time, these small changes will produce novel features in each of them. There is demonstratably no inhibitor to this type of change.

You are presenting a strawman of what evolutionary theory actually states. Have fun with it but don't try to discuss evolution and its limitations with it. It will only make you look foolish and demonstrate that you do not understand mainstream evolutionary theory and what it actually discusses.

Also, please don't question my faith. By asking if I am an atheist, I believe you may be violating rules of the board and indeed, are only flaming to avoid the points presented to you.

Do you have any studies to back up your assertation that there is a limit to change that can happen over time due to mutation and natural selection on separated populations? If you aren't trying to prove a theory, then are you admitting that Creation Science is not indeed a scientific theory? I would agree.

We believe in the same God. To say otherwise is again, simply an ad hom flame.

 

[jayebrownlee]

FOC:
Another favorite of the atheists, are you SURE you're not an atheist?

I believe science right up to the point that it starts teaching theory as fact.

It is up to the mdoerators of this board to determine if people here are Christian or otherwise. Please do not question people's religions or faith as you may offend.

Thank you

Jay
Moderator

 

[Follower of Christ]

"Evolution is based on the fact ..."



FOC:
That is a blatant lie.
And it is exactly the type of comment I expect from evolutionists.





"If you aren't trying to prove a theory, then are you admitting that Creation Science is not indeed a scientific theory? I would agree."



FOC:

I am not trying to PROVE anything. I stand on faith that my God did what His word proclaims

You on the other hand are trying to prove the unprovable since you dont have a few million years to test your theory.

YOU are the one with the burden of proof.
I have seen NONE

Feel free to, at any time, present your evidence for evolution.
I would be more than happy to deal with your points one at a time.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I don't much care for science or the theory of evolution. Weather I make myself look foolish here or not I don't much care because all I want to know is weather there's prof of something or not. If evolution is true or if anything is true I want to see the evidence that it is true. To me this means prof. I must admitt I get lost in these word games associated with scientific theories and hypothesises. I just want to know one thing and that's weather missing links have been found. For me the only way I could ever believe in the theory of evolution is if this evidence is brought forward. From what I understand no evidence exists yet.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I love science.

I was watching a show about the Crab nebula a week or so ago.
The things they can see out there with the Hubble is amazing.

I always enjoy seing when they find new things. Its very exciting.

The thing is that when I see these things it always easy to fit them right into a young earth created in 6 literal days.

I use the very same ''evidence'' the evolutionsists use.
And I dont have to use hypothesis to firgure it all out.
It all fits together very nicely in light of Gods account of it.

It only gets confusing when one tries to combine unproven ''theories''
that force one to RE-interpret their Bible.

I will do this for no man.

 

[Follower of Christ]

For anyone interested, check out AIG's website.....


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2452.asp


click on the "Q&A tab'' at the top of the page

 

[wblastyn]

From what I understand no evidence exists yet.

Where have you been for the last 150 years now?

Here's evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[wblastyn]

It only gets confusing when one tries to combine unproven ''theories''
that force one to RE-interpret their Bible.

Gravity and atoms are also a theory, do you reject those too because they're "just theories".

Scripture has been re-interpreted al the time, remember how everyone thought the world was flat, the solar system revolves around the earth, all had scripture to back this up and were forced to "re-interpret" scripture (it's not really re-interpreting if the author originally intended for something to be non-lieral) when science proved them wrong.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I believe I said ''unproven'' theories

 

[Follower of Christ]

"answers in genesis is pseudoscience"


FOC:

Anything that disagrees with evolutionists views is called pseudoscience


Drop the titles and deal with the issues or dont bother responding






"Where have you been for the last 150 years now?"


FOC:

Studying my bible and observing the issues. And you??

 

[Ezra]

15th March 2003 at 02:22 PM wblastyn said this in Post #6
Evolution on the other hand has nothing to do with salvation, it does not deny God's role as Creator.

This is one of the most fallacious statements that can be made about evolution. 

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION: Actually it has everything to do with salvation, since the very basis of salvation is FAITH in the Person and the finished work of Christ on the Cross, which is recorded in the Gospels of the same Holy Bible that records creation, and which evolution rejects as being true. So if a person was either overtly or covetly caused to lose faith in the reliability and accuracy of the written Word of God, they would also disbelieve the Gospel, and that would have everything to do with their salvation and their eternal destiny in Heaven or Hell.

EVOLTION DOES NOT DENY GOD'S ROLE AS CREATOR: Not only does evolution absolutely deny God's role as Creator, it actually calls God a liar.  God says He created all living organisms separately and distinctly, and made man in His own image and likeness. Evolution says: That's a lie.  All living creatures evolved from one common ancestor and that man evolved from primates somewhere in southern Africa (which is a long way from the Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel and Euphrates rivers (Gen.2:10-14) which were tributaries of the river flowing out of the Garden of Eden.

So how did you come up with such a fallacious statement?

 

[notto]

Ezra,

I don't doubt the accuracy of the written word of God or the Gospel. It comes down to an understanding of how we are to interpret the bible. Denying God as a creator is atheism. Theistic evolution explains how God created and does not deny that God did the creation. Understanding Genesis in a non-literal way does not call God a liar or cause loss of faith of the reliability or accuracy of it or cause the rejection of the lessons in it.

Non-literal does not equal lie or non-true.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I guess where I am coming from is a belief that there is absolute truth.

believing that, I ask myself ''why would God distort the facts of creation?''
''what would be the purpose in saying 'days', if billions of years were meant?''

Were Moses and the prophets incapable of understanding Billions of years?
There seems no logical sense in God saying days for no aparent reason.
And then for Him to go out of His way to descibe and define the days in His description makes it even more of an issue.

But then I think that maybe this was His plan to begin with.
MAYBE HE is doing as He has done in the past (see the story of Joseph up until Moses ), and setting up a grand scenario in which He will set up punishment for unbelief.

So He says days.
He already knows that in the end He will allow man to have ''knowledge'' that will cause them to question this.

He has already made, from the beginning, the ultimate plan that will not only delude the unbeliever, but also cause the falling away (both in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2) in the end times.

If one thinks its not just like God to do this, I would have you look to where the very first prophecy of the Christ is, Genesis 3:15, right from the start.

And anyone thinking God wouldnt allow us to be decieved, I ask you to study 2 Chronicles and Romans to start.

"And a spirit came out and stood before Jehovah and said, I will tempt him. And Jehovah said, With what? And he said, I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And Jehovah said, You shall tempt him, and you are able. Go out and do so. And now behold, Jehovah has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets, and Jehovah has spoken evil against you. " (2 Chronicles 18:20-22 MKJV)

Granted this is for a specific reason, but look at what it is in the previous verses.


I cant prove anything.
I just hope my thoughts are wrong and I am not watching my beloved brethren falling for the lie.