• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution My ToE

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I know. He has used it before. He doesn't even change it to cover that fact.
Most creationists have a very limited repertoire. That is one reason that I get a bit excited when I see a new one. I am always hoping for something new instead of the same old PRATT's. In debating with creationists one sometimes has to learn something new to refute them. That was why I was so pleased with debating with the deniers of AGW on Topix. They treated the Stefan Boltzmann Law as a god and did not realize that it refuted their claims when one understood it. That took a bit of reading and studying on my part. What I really liked about it was that I developed a better explanation of the Greenhouse Effect than was commonly given (it was too oversimplified) and then found people that actually understand the material using the same explanation years later on YouTube. Nice confirmation that I got something right.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Yeah, Milton Berle; what about him? Huh, huh, huh?

Lol. You know who I meant.

(Berle was quite a funny guy!)
To be clear, I am not equating anti-intellectual actions or positions with stupidity. Some surely are, but that is not true of all who succomb. It is also a fact that it is not exclusively a paradigm held by creationists alone. It is any dogmatic position that disregards or comforts rational inquiry and the facts arising from that inquiry. Here, however, we are isolating our discussion to the impact that modern creationist views have on that inquiry.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
There work lead people to understand that not everything in the Bible has to be viewed as immutable fact.

Everything in Scripture is factual, but sometimes it requires a symbolic understanding.

For example, here’s an understanding you may not have come across: Revelation 21:1, which says....”And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more.”

This isn’t literal. Both plant and animal life need the oceans for survival! No doubt the planet itself, in ways we don’t fully understand yet.

So what does this mean? If you read the description found @ Isaiah 57:20, you’ll grasp what Revelation 21:1 is talking about, which makes a lot more sense!

The Bible always “makes sense”, when it’s interpreted correctly....just like the evidence discovered by genuine science, reaching sound conclusions.

Like the scientific understanding of energy, that it can neither be created nor destroyed...it only can change in form. (If energy can’t be created ex nihilo, then that means, what? It’s always existed, in some form.)
Well, this perfectly describes Jehovah God’s eternal existence... He is not made of matter; rather, He is the supreme intelligence, in a form of pure energy. The Source of all matter’s origin. The Big Bang, for one. Genesis 1:1.

You identify as Christian Methodist. I’d sure like to know your view of God, and the origin of physical life.
 

dad

Undefeated
Correct. God never said anything. .
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? . 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Most creationists have a very limited repertoire. That is one reason that I get a bit excited when I see a new one. I am always hoping for something new instead of the same old PRATT's. In debating with creationists one sometimes has to learn something new to refute them. That was why I was so pleased with debating with the deniers of AGW on Topix. They treated the Stefan Boltzmann Law as a god and did not realize that it refuted their claims when one understood it. That took a bit of reading and studying on my part. What I really liked about it was that I developed a better explanation of the Greenhouse Effect than was commonly given (it was too oversimplified) and then found people that actually understand the material using the same explanation years later on YouTube. Nice confirmation that I got something right.
I am looking for that too. Nothing like a challenge to encourage the breaking of new ground or of digging deeper in existing fields. I very much appreciate discussions with @Hockeycowboy, despite his bouts of repetition, he does bring arguments and claims that are new to me. I had to learn more about frozen mammoths and ship design than I would have on my own. One of his recent posts included a link to a scientific paper I recommend reading to those interested in common descent.
 

dad

Undefeated
You stated that Noah landed the ark on Pangea which would be the age of dinosaurs
.

Not necessarily. It is possible and even likely that most dinos were extinct by the time the flood came. But even if there were dinos at the time the ark was being built, unless they were created kinds, they would not really be a kind that was asked to come on the ark.
So, when the ark landed would no longer be the time of the dinos! The time of the dinos would have ended about at least a year before this.

Most modern mammals would not be there.
False! Just because man and most animals could not leave remains in that former nature does not mean they were not here.
So from what you have said Noah should have let the dinosaurs on the ark or did he not listen to god.
God was the One that called the kinds to the ark. I assume He called the original kinds that were created, rather than highly evolved/adapted creatures.
So now you are saying that dinosaurs evolved from birds? Seriously?
Hey, who knows?!

You also are saying the dinosaurs were there but did not get an invitation for the ark cruise ship? Why not?
In the former nature, evolution happened lightning fast compared to today. So in the 1600 years before the flood, a lot of evolving went on. If dinosaurs were creatures that had evolved from created kinds of creatures in that time, they would probably not get the invite to the ark.
Simple.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? . 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Oh come on! I'm pretty confident our omnipotent God knew exactly what was going to happen to the apple in the garden with a naked woman prancing about!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? . 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

That is from one of the the mythical parts of the Bible.. You just confirmed my claim. I will gladly help you to understand how we know that that part of the Bible is mythical.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
To be clear, I am not equating anti-intellectual actions or positions with stupidity. Some surely are, but that is not true of all who succomb. It is also a fact that it is not exclusively a paradigm held by creationists alone. It is any dogmatic position that disregards or comforts rational inquiry and the facts arising from that inquiry. Here, however, we are isolating our discussion to the impact that modern creationist views have on that inquiry.
First of all, facts don’t arise from inquiry. It’s the facts that lead to inquiry.
And, many times, faulty interpretations.

You said you never remember me posting that I agree that “evolution occurs”. Well, ok. But I do...it’s obvious. Otherwise, we’d have only one breed of Dogs, one of Cats, one of Horses, etc. (These limited mutations within the genome were Divinely arranged for, and purposed, for our benefit, btw. You have any reasoned guesses as to why?)

Do you remember that I’m not a YEC, either?
 

dad

Undefeated
So where did jesus get his y chromosome from? And paul may have been mentally ill with hallucinations and hearing voices.
Paul was of sound mind and quite learned and brilliant. Jesus is the Son of God, so He got His body from God and Mary.
 

dad

Undefeated
I'd like to see real evidence from the first cell on and outward. (Can't say on and upward, someone might object.) OK, I'll take evidence of and about the second cell onward and outward. Not just the first cell. :) Or imaginations about it.
 

dad

Undefeated
I'd like to see real evidence from the first cell on and outward. (Can't say on and upward, someone might object.) OK, I'll take evidence of and about the second cell onward and outward. Not just the first cell. :) Or imaginations about it.
No such thing, they made it up whole of cloth.
 
Top