Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
396

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Further…if I get rid of Genesis as credible and True I can switch sides in this debate and absolutely destroy Christianity. I can annihilate everything and anything “you Christians” throw at me.

I can make Orion and Makavali and Bodyguard and Planet Cap’n and Ephrem, et al, look like rank amateurs still in diapers falling our of their cribs. [/quote]

I think Genesis is the most important book in the OT…[/quote]

Ok, then here’s another question about Genesis. Genesis means the first (i.e. origins), but does it just refer to the first in related to the lineage of Abraham? We know that when Cain was cast out from where he lived that he went east to marry. Is this evidence that Genesis refers to the “first” but not necessarily “only?” [/quote]

Well there in lies the first paradox in the Bible. Adam and Eve were the first people, but Cain gets kicked out of the house and goes to live with some tribes or something. Where’d they suddenly come from.
I’d say it’s the beginning of God deciding to have a relationship with man kind.

397

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MBH wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
The first thing God created was Jesus in his heavenly position. Colossians 1:15 [/quote]

Ahhhhh…you wanna go Mormon on us, do ya? Sorry, bud, the “firstborn” translation as you are presenting it does not work. You are grossly misinterpreting the passage.

Look at it in the New Living Translation:

15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,
16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can�?�¢??t see�?�¢??
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
and he holds all creation together.

You have to read the verses after vs. 15. Always read scripture in context.

"The question is regarding the interpretation of Colossians 1:15, a very important passage and one that is attacked continuously by cults and various �?�¢??isms.�?�¢?? Colossians 1:15. Now, in reference here to Christ, it says, �?�¢??Who is the image of the invisible God�?�¢??�?�¢??now, here comes the problem part to some people�?�¢??�?�¢??the firstborn of all creation.�?�¢??

Now, some would say that because Christ is called the �?�¢??firstborn of all creation,�?�¢?? that He was the first one created; therefore, He is a created being. Therefore, He is less than God, and the cults love to come to this verse to prove that.

Well, let�?�¢??s look at what it says. First of all, it calls Christ �?�¢??the image of the invisible God.�?�¢?? Notice it doesn�?�¢??t say �?�¢??Christ is in the image of the invisible God;�?�¢?? it says �?�¢??He is the image.�?�¢?? He is the image.

If you want a clear understanding of that, all you have to do is go to Colossians 2:9 and Paul makes it very clear what he means: �?�¢??for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead in a body.�?�¢?? When it says He is the image of God, it means He is God in a body.

The word �?�¢??image�?�¢??�?�¢??�?�¢??eikon�?�¢??�?�¢??means �?�¢??a precise copy or a replica.�?�¢?? Today it would be the equal of a photograph. Jesus is the �?�¢??eikonion�?�¢?? (sp.); He is the perfect portrait of God. He is God made visible in a portrait. He is the manifestation of God.

In verse 19, it says, �?�¢??It pleased the Father that in him should all�?�¢??�?�¢??�?�¢??pleroma�?�¢??�?�¢??�?�¢??all fullness dwell.�?�¢?? What fullness? The fullness of the Godhead (2:9). He is the manifestation in a visible picture, in a physical body, of all that God is.

Now, it also says, �?�¢??He is the firstborn of all creation.�?�¢?? Now, this word �?�¢??prototokos�?�¢?? has been so maligned and so misunderstood. What does it mean that He is the firstborn? People, it has nothing to do with time! It has only to do with position.

It has nothing to do with origin! It has only to do with position. The �?�¢??prototokos�?�¢?? was the �?�¢??primary one.�?�¢?? The primary one. If you would rather translate it that way in your Bible, it is proper.

For example, look at verse 18: �?�¢??He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning�?�¢??�?�¢??now watch�?�¢??�?�¢??the firstborn from the dead.�?�¢?? Now, let me ask you a question. Was Jesus, in time, the first person raised from the dead? No. There were some in the Old Testament. There were some previously in the New Testament that Christ himself raised from the dead.

He is not the first �?�¢??in time�?�¢?? from the dead. He is, however, of all of those who have ever been resurrected, the primary one. Do you see? That�?�¢??s what it means. So when you go back to chapter 1:15, it is not saying the first one created was Christ; he is saying, of all of God�?�¢??s total creation, of all that there is in God�?�¢??s universe, the primary being is Christ.

He is the Son who receives the inheritance rights. His is the place of privilege. His is the honor. He is the Father�?�¢??s heir, the head of God�?�¢??s household.

Now, this also ties in with another scripture in Revelation 3:14: �?�¢??And unto the angel of the church�?�¢??the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,�?�¢??�?�¢??now watch�?�¢??�?�¢??the beginning of the creation of God.�?�¢??

Now here again, the word translated �?�¢??beginning�?�¢?? is not really a word that can always or must always mean �?�¢??beginning.�?�¢?? It is the word �?�¢??arche.�?�¢?? The English here is terribly ambiguous. �?�¢??Arche�?�¢?? means �?�¢??first cause.�?�¢??

It sometimes could be translated �?�¢??the author�?�¢?? or �?�¢??the pioneer�?�¢?? or �?�¢??the generating power.�?�¢?? �?�¢??The first cause�?�¢??�?�¢??read it that way. He is the first cause of the creation of God.

That is not saying He was created by God; that is saying He is the Creator. When Jesus is seen in his incarnation as the Son, He is the primary one of all of God�?�¢??s creation. When He is seen here in Revelation 3:14, He is the cause of creation.

John puts it clearly in John 1, �?�¢??Without him was not anything made that was made.�?�¢?? He is the source of all creation and in his incarnation was the supreme creature God ever made. And that refers, of course, to his physical body."

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-A-6.htm

[/quote]

Regarding Col 1:15 “He is…the firstborn of all creation” is talking about the fact that Jesus was the first person to be born spiritually alive (because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit). Adam was created spiritually alive, but immediately died spiritually when he sinned (and he eventually died physically as a result)…

…Also, see Col 1:18 “He is…the firstborn from the dead.” Who are the dead? Everyone not born again of the Spirit. Because of Adam we are all born spiritually dead and need life. Jesus was the firstborn; I don’t know who the second was, but I know there have been many after him born of the Spirit…
[/quote]

You’re dead wrong but there’s not much sense arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness. You and other JWs have grossly misinterpreted this verse and it is a travesty. To deny the deity of Christ is heresy. You have to piss all over the rest of the Bible to make this perverted point about Christ.

Don’t take this as being uncivil though. Not my intent.[/quote]
Come on Push, explain how those verses are “dead wrong.” If they’re so “dead wrong” you should be able to easily refute them. How did I grossly misinterpret any of the scriptures I used? I didn’t try to explain a clearly stated word like create and show the Greek word used and then try to explain what the clearly stated word really means. I didn’t take a clearly stated verse like Colossians 1:15 and try to explain what it really means. You did that. When one does that then misinterpretation can come into play.

I didn’t just rely on Colossians 1:15 or Revelation 3:14. I used three other scriptures that support and harmonize with the two in Colossians and Revelation that show that Jesus was created and God created everything else through Jesus when Jesus was in his heavenly position.

Who denies the deity of Jesus? We certainly don’t. Diety can mean: god or goddess; divine character or nature.

Let me show you a scripture that clearly shows Jesus’ divine nature or his deity status.
Isaiah 9:6,7 (NIV):
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

Can you see his deity or divine nature Push? He is called Mighty God because he was a powerful spirit being before coming to earth and yet he is still called a prince. I don’t thing God Almighty the Sovereign Lord of the universe would have the title of Prince of Peace applied to him.

Again, if the scriptures I used are “dead wrong” or “grossly misinterpreted” show me other scriptures that clearly show this.

Show me how a scripture like 1 Corinthians 11:3(NIV) is “grossly misinterpreted.”
"3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

Explain how that scripture can be “grossly misinterpreted.” I’m sure you’ll try to say something like “the Greek word for head actually means the same so the man is the same as the women and Christ is the same as God and God is the same as Christ. Or this isn’t talking about authority it’s actually talking about who is taller in height.” I’m just joking.

Push I can take you up and down the Hebrew and Christian-Greek scriptures and show you literally dozens of scriptures that cleary and specifically distinguish between God and Jesus and clearly state their who’s authority is greater. You can not do that.

Oh yeah, I forgot there is no point arguing with one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Is it because we rely too heavily on the Bible to base our believes on? Hmmmm, I wonder.

399

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No one on this earth can distort Scripture like a Jehovah’s Witness. It’s sad.[/quote]
Come on Push. Tell me how any of the scriptures I used are twisted or distorted.

How can we twist or distort a scripture like 1 Corinthians 15:24-28:
"24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."

God and Jesus are clearly distinguished and the Son will hand of the Kingdom to who? His God and Father. And then do what? Subject himself to God.

Do you want to know what’s sad Push? What’s sad is how people will believe a teaching that has to be inferred upon through several different scriptures instead of opening their eyes to a scripture like the one I mentioned above or any of he others I mentioned. Now that is truly sad.

400

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Further…if I get rid of Genesis as credible and True I can switch sides in this debate and absolutely destroy Christianity. I can annihilate everything and anything “you Christians” throw at me.

I can make Orion and Makavali and Bodyguard and Planet Cap’n and Ephrem, et al, look like rank amateurs still in diapers falling our of their cribs. [/quote]

I think Genesis is the most important book in the OT…[/quote]

Ok, then here’s another question about Genesis. Genesis means the first (i.e. origins), but does it just refer to the first in related to the lineage of Abraham? We know that when Cain was cast out from where he lived that he went east to marry. Is this evidence that Genesis refers to the “first” but not necessarily “only?” [/quote]

Well there in lies the first paradox in the Bible. Adam and Eve were the first people, but Cain gets kicked out of the house and goes to live with some tribes or something. Where’d they suddenly come from.
I’d say it’s the beginning of God deciding to have a relationship with man kind.
[/quote]

C’mon, Pat, this is the oldest non-issue about Genesis there is. Scripture says Adam had many sons and daughters. Hebrew tradition says 53.

Cain and Abel were apparently mature when the murder took place. Cain literally could’ve had hundreds or even thousands of relatives - sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, etc. by the time he was banished.

Sheesh, people. Think.[/quote]

Oooo, gross, incest!

There still folks coming out of the wood work that were not apparently of Adam’s loin.

401

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I can’t have an open minded discussion on this and so I am going to discount and then misrepresent everything you just said.

There fixed it for ya buddy

[/quote]

I’m pretty sure that I never said that the Bible wasn’t credible. I’m pretty sure that I actually said there were some powerful lessons to be had from it. But you choosing to just rewrite what I said into a dismissive snippet essentially verifies my entire point that people like yourself that cling to the idea that it has to be “all or nothing” otherwise the Bible is horseshit are in my opinion missing the real point of those parables and more likely talk a good game but don’t actually LIVE that way.

402

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

…we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on…[/quote]

Beaten to death? It’s barely been scratched.

My personal opinion is if you want to talk about the Bible and Christianity at all and you don’t have Genesis figured out it’s all a moot point. Genesis is the foundation. If you don’t know your foundation, your roots, you’re gonna be floppin’ around all over the place on the other stuff.

With that in mind the proposal: “Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?” My answer is yes.[/quote]
I too would answer yes. Second Peter 3:3-13 mentions the flood account and compares it to when God is going to act and remove the wicked. Jesus mentions the flood account at Matthew 24:37-39 and compares how people took no note of the signs in the days and years leading up to the flood event with how people will take no note of the signs during the days and years of Jesus’ presence leading up to armegeddon.

Second Peter 2:5,6 mentions the flood event and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and how those two events sets the pattern for the future destruction of ungodly men.
So if those event weren’t true then Jesus and other Bible writers are lying and this would compromise the whole Christian faith. [/quote]

Good point. We do know that Jesus often spoke in parable though. How can we be sure that he was not simply mentioning the flood account, which he took as a story with a moral, to make a point? [/quote]
You’re right Jesus did speak using parables to help his listeners discern what he was saying but we can’t confirm any where in the Bible that his parables were true story. So they were most likely made up just to help his listeners understand the point he was making.

On the other hand, outside of Genesis Noah is mention at 1 Chronicles 1:4, Isaiah 54:9, Ezekial 14:20, Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 3:36, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:5. Noah is also listed at Luke 3:36 in the line of descendants that Jesus came from.

So according to the Bible Noah was a real person and if you understand what Jesus’ presence means then you’ll understand that during the days of his presence most people won’t pay attention to the signs and they will end up like the people in Noahs day that took no note until it was too late.[/quote]

Ok, so we have established that Noah was mentioned in the Bible as a real person in several passages and even given a lineage. Therefore, the Bible did not mean for the story of Noah to just merely teach a lesson but that he was an actual person. Now, how do we prove the reliability of that lineage? What if it was fabricated?[/quote]
That’s where 1 Timothy 3:16 and 17 comes in, which states (NWT):
“16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”

Notice that verse 16 say ALL scripture is inspired. So if you have faith in the Bible and that God inspired everything in the Bible then you should believe everything in the Bible even the parts that’s you don’t understand or can’t explain.

If you don’t have faith in the Bible or God then there is nothing that anyone could say to you prove that Noah and the Ark is true. Unless that find on a mountain in Turkey turns out to be the actual Ark.[/quote]

But to provide proof for the non believer we cannot simply quote the Bible. We need to do better. So how else can we go about proving the accuracy of the Bible?[/quote]

You are correct. Quoting the Bible to a non-believer is useless. However, before we even get to the Bible we would have to establish that God exists. If you can get them to agree that it’s a least a possibility, then you can discuss scripture.
[/quote]

Right, and how do we prove the existence of God? Remember, non believers need proof. We must always be ready to provide them with something.

403

[quote]pat wrote:
You are correct. Quoting the Bible to a non-believer is useless. However, before we even get to the Bible we would have to establish that God exists. If you can get them to agree that it’s a least a possibility, then you can discuss scripture.
[/quote]

Indeed. Telling me the bible says that the bible is true doesn’t make the bible credible.

The following sentence is true. You owe me five dollars. The preceding sentence was true.

See? Tautology doesn’t make for good argument. Of course the bible says the bible is true. Every other religious text that contradicts the bible says that it’s true as well.

You would need to get a non believer to agree that a higher power may exist, and that your interpretation of this higher power is the correct one.

404

And quoting scientifically impossible “history” only makes you less credible. As well as logical backflips like “Maybe God created the universe in an impossible way to show His power and refute arguments against Him!” (really? the fact that your story is impossible makes it MORE valid? seriously?)

405

[quote]pat wrote:

Not that your required, but I think careful study would reveal that a lot of what you have been told isn’t true about the church. Given what you said, you really don’t know much about it. I don’t mean this in a bad way, but we have been vilified unjustly through out history.

Besides people only focus on the bad stuff, there has been a hell of a lot of good come out of it too. We’re far from perfect, but we aren’t as bad as we’ve been made out to be by the media and such.

Contrary to popular belief, most priests don’t molest children, we don’t worship marry or the saints, the actual dogma of the church is very small and has changed little in 20 centuries, and the pope doesn’t claim to be any closer to God than anybody else. Just at his service.

There’s a lot to bitch about, but we prefer to keep it in the family.
I am not trying to make you Catholic or anything, not my goal. Just want you to understand we’re not weird and we don’t burn goats and we’re not pharasidic in our dogma…Actually we’re probably looser than most as we believe non-Christians can and will be saved. [/quote]

I’ll consider that point Pat but I have to ask where you think that a more careful study could be conducted as if the things I have read and studied from a historical standpoint are instantly wrong.

I believe your take on the Pope but I do not think others do based off of conversations I have had. Stuff like this kind of makes me iffy about it “When the Church, by her Magisterium, proposes something to be believed as being revealed by God in Jesus Christ, a Catholic is obliged to adhere to the definition with the obedience of faith”
I mean I get that you need a leader or guide to help steer the ship but especially in the historical context I think that this power was used to satisfy personal and political desires.

Don’t get me wrong Pat I do acknowledge that many members of this faith have done exceptionally good things for those in need. I kind of view it like the Coca-Cola corporation. There are many schools and programs that would not have happened and been supported had it not been for Coke, but at what expense? As a machine or political/societal entity I think there had been a lot of abuse of power and I will still argue that historically there is a lot of grounds for this view. I’m not even going there on the sex abuse thing as that is too wrong to pin on a faith as the driver of that behavior. Those people would have been molesters if they were grade school teachers but it doesn’t say much about the power for the word they are preaching themselves.

406

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Little to no evidence in macro-evolution… If you don’t want to believe it because it contradicts your religion then fine, but there is an abundance of scientific evidence for macro-evolution. When I was in church, most arguments against it were straw-man arguments. They would take one example of bad science and use it to say that all the scientific evidence for macro-evolution was false. There are so many, it’s ridiculous so I’ll give you the first google website I found when I typed in ‘macroevolution evidence’.

[/quote]

Ok, then let’s start there. We see flaws in the evolutionary chain. We find little or no evidence in a common ancestor. We also see during the Cambrian explosion that changes occur too rapidly to support the evolutionary thought of slow changes over time. So this is a step in the right direction. Now, how do we go about proving what we believe is true?[/quote]

I’ve heard this one before, so let me tell my side. There is evidence of multicellular life in the pre-cambrian era so to say multi-cellular just came out of nowhere is incorrect. Also, even in the many different phyla and body forms that diversified in the cambrian, there were still key similarities between the seemingly radically different species. Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium? I’ve gotta go out soon, so I’ll give the abbreviated version. It suggests that most organisms that produce sexually evolve quickly over a relatively shorter time generally as a result of competition or environmental change, than remain fairly constant for a longer amount of time. In the case of the Cambrian era, there were huge environmental changes occurring (greatly increased atmospheric oxygen levels) that would spur on relatively fast evolution especially considering the magnitude of the changes.

407

[quote]BBriere wrote:

Ok, then let’s start there. We see flaws in the evolutionary chain. We find little or no evidence in a common ancestor. We also see during the Cambrian explosion that changes occur too rapidly to support the evolutionary thought of slow changes over time. So this is a step in the right direction. Now, how do we go about proving what we believe is true?[/quote]

It is nowadays quite commonly accepted among biologists that evolution is a fast process. A proof for this is seen in the domestication of dogs. Wolves that scavenged the waste our ancestors created, were more daring than the wilder wolves, that ran away at the mere sight of a human. This 10 min. snippet is about an russian experiment with foxes.
If you consider evolution to be a self-evident fact, as I do, this is a strong indication for fast evolution. But even if you don’t believe in it, this short film is interesting nevertheless, if you like dogs and it makes you think about us, too.

408

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Little to no evidence in macro-evolution… If you don’t want to believe it because it contradicts your religion then fine, but there is an abundance of scientific evidence for macro-evolution.

When I was in church, most arguments against it were straw-man arguments. They would take one example of bad science and use it to say that all the scientific evidence for macro-evolution was false. There are so many, it’s ridiculous so I’ll give you the first google website I found when I typed in ‘macroevolution evidence’.

[/quote]

Ok, then let’s start there. We see flaws in the evolutionary chain. We find little or no evidence in a common ancestor. We also see during the Cambrian explosion that changes occur too rapidly to support the evolutionary thought of slow changes over time. So this is a step in the right direction. Now, how do we go about proving what we believe is true?[/quote]

I’ve heard this one before, so let me tell my side. There is evidence of multicellular life in the pre-cambrian era so to say multi-cellular just came out of nowhere is incorrect. Also, even in the many different phyla and body forms that diversified in the cambrian, there were still key similarities between the seemingly radically different species.

Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium? I’ve gotta go out soon, so I’ll give the abbreviated version. It suggests that most organisms that produce sexually evolve quickly over a relatively shorter time generally as a result of competition or environmental change, than remain fairly constant for a longer amount of time.

In the case of the Cambrian era, there were huge environmental changes occurring (greatly increased atmospheric oxygen levels) that would spur on relatively fast evolution especially considering the magnitude of the changes.[/quote]

So if evolution can take place over a short period of time then maybe we have to rethink how old the Earth is. Suppose what scientists once thought took millions of years to happen really only took a fraction of the time. The same could be true for geology, astronomy, etc.

There isn’t a definite correlation, but if calculations in one field of science were off significantly then it’s a possibility that they were off elsewhere. Now to say the Earth is only 10,000 years old, I’m not sure. Even as a Biblical literalist, nowhere in the Bible does it actually mention when the Earth was created.

409

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Little to no evidence in macro-evolution… If you don’t want to believe it because it contradicts your religion then fine, but there is an abundance of scientific evidence for macro-evolution.

When I was in church, most arguments against it were straw-man arguments. They would take one example of bad science and use it to say that all the scientific evidence for macro-evolution was false. There are so many, it’s ridiculous so I’ll give you the first google website I found when I typed in ‘macroevolution evidence’.

[/quote]

Ok, then let’s start there. We see flaws in the evolutionary chain. We find little or no evidence in a common ancestor. We also see during the Cambrian explosion that changes occur too rapidly to support the evolutionary thought of slow changes over time. So this is a step in the right direction. Now, how do we go about proving what we believe is true?[/quote]

I’ve heard this one before, so let me tell my side. There is evidence of multicellular life in the pre-cambrian era so to say multi-cellular just came out of nowhere is incorrect. Also, even in the many different phyla and body forms that diversified in the cambrian, there were still key similarities between the seemingly radically different species.

Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium? I’ve gotta go out soon, so I’ll give the abbreviated version. It suggests that most organisms that produce sexually evolve quickly over a relatively shorter time generally as a result of competition or environmental change, than remain fairly constant for a longer amount of time.

In the case of the Cambrian era, there were huge environmental changes occurring (greatly increased atmospheric oxygen levels) that would spur on relatively fast evolution especially considering the magnitude of the changes.[/quote]

So if evolution can take place over a short period of time then maybe we have to rethink how old the Earth is. Suppose what scientists once thought took millions of years to happen really only took a fraction of the time. The same could be true for geology, astronomy, etc.

There isn’t a definite correlation, but if calculations in one field of science were off significantly then it’s a possibility that they were off elsewhere. Now to say the Earth is only 10,000 years old, I’m not sure. Even as a Biblical literalist, nowhere in the Bible does it actually mention when the Earth was created.[/quote]

 I'm having a little trouble figuring out what your main point is so I'll do my best here to address your post.  Adaptations and speciation can occur over relatively short periods of time due to various changes (competition and environmental changes for example), followed by long periods of relatively little change.

No where in my post did I suggests that life existed and evolved to modern species in a shorter amount of time than previously predicted (oldest fossil found at about 3400mya, oldest indirect evidence at about 3500mya).

And yes, sometimes discoveries in one scientific field affect others. New discoveries, ideas, and theories are being discovered, modified, added to, and discounted constantly in science. When I see a strong scientific alternative to evolution I myself will reconsider, but the more I study the theory the harder it becomes to disregard it.

414

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

Ok, then let’s start there. We see flaws in the evolutionary chain. We find little or no evidence in a common ancestor. We also see during the Cambrian explosion that changes occur too rapidly to support the evolutionary thought of slow changes over time. So this is a step in the right direction. Now, how do we go about proving what we believe is true?[/quote]

It is nowadays quite commonly accepted among biologists that evolution is a fast process. A proof for this is seen in the domestication of dogs. Wolves that scavenged the waste our ancestors created, were more daring than the wilder wolves, that ran away at the mere sight of a human. This 10 min. snippet is about an russian experiment with foxes.
If you consider evolution to be a self-evident fact, as I do, this is a strong indication for fast evolution. But even if you don’t believe in it, this short film is interesting nevertheless, if you like dogs and it makes you think about us, too.

[/quote]

Are you even remotely implying that creationists don’t believe adaptation occurs? Microevolution?

Dogs beget dogs. Simple. In fact one type of dog can, with enough time beget all different types of dogs. That is something that can be experimented within the hallowed scientific method. It works.

What doesn’t work, and I’ll be a little facetious here and stray slightly outside of conventional evolutionary thinking in order to make a point, is dogs don’t beget giraffes…or anything between dogs and giraffes. It’s ALWAYS dogs. Always has been. Always will be.

A dog has always been in the dog family whether he be a wolf, fox, chihuahua or St. Bernard. You will never be able to breed the dog out of the dog. You will never get any type of dog whatsoever to successfully breed with any type of aardvark. You never have nor ever will see a dogvark.[/quote]

Kirk Cameron ftw?

415

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

Ok, then let’s start there. We see flaws in the evolutionary chain. We find little or no evidence in a common ancestor. We also see during the Cambrian explosion that changes occur too rapidly to support the evolutionary thought of slow changes over time. So this is a step in the right direction. Now, how do we go about proving what we believe is true?[/quote]

It is nowadays quite commonly accepted among biologists that evolution is a fast process. A proof for this is seen in the domestication of dogs. Wolves that scavenged the waste our ancestors created, were more daring than the wilder wolves, that ran away at the mere sight of a human. This 10 min. snippet is about an russian experiment with foxes.

If you consider evolution to be a self-evident fact, as I do, this is a strong indication for fast evolution. But even if you don’t believe in it, this short film is interesting nevertheless, if you like dogs and it makes you think about us, too.

[/quote]

Are you even remotely implying that creationists don’t believe adaptation occurs? Microevolution?

Dogs beget dogs. Simple. In fact one type of dog can, with enough time beget all different types of dogs. That is something that can be experimented within the hallowed scientific method. It works.

What doesn’t work, and I’ll be a little facetious here and stray slightly outside of conventional evolutionary thinking in order to make a point, is dogs don’t beget giraffes…or anything between dogs and giraffes. It’s ALWAYS dogs. Always has been. Always will be.

A dog has always been in the dog family whether he be a wolf, fox, chihuahua or St. Bernard. You will never be able to breed the dog out of the dog. You will never get any type of dog whatsoever to successfully breed with any type of aardvark. You never have nor ever will see a dogvark.[/quote]

No to the first question, that’s why I added that the film could be interesting even if you don’t believe in evolution.

And no, a dog does not beget dogvarks, but a zebra and a donkey get offspring, a wolf and a dog does, even a lion and a tiger can have offspring. I have red that some genetists claim that even a human and a chimpanzee could have offspring. So far luckily unproven.

So, if you put aside your beliefs for a while, you can see, definitely you can see, that the case for evolution is quite convincing. It is all logically arranged - biology, genetics, geology and even physics, they are intertwined.
Did you watch the film? It was interesting, wasn’t it, even if you don’t believe in macroevolution.

E: that’s why it’s called macroevolution, the timescales are too big for us to see, we can only imagine them, and the long series of changes contained in them, that lead to a situation where two lines from the same ancestor can’t have offspring anymore.