Hawking

[thatguy]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

This is not an uncommon belief. You seem to be stuck in some paradigm that if all Christians don’t think exactly alike then the whole premise of Creation must be wrong.

thats not what i think at all. You need to remember that we got to this point in the discussion because you asked how those who "beleive in sciecne" decide what to beleive in considering the sciece changes and is based on observations made by man. I have simply been pointing out that YOU used science to help you decide which portions of the biblical story you dont beleive to be factual accounts (i.e genesis).

it has nothing to do with what christians agreen on, it has to do with how YOU made YOUR decision that the genesis story is not a factual account

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by thatguy

thats not what i think at all. You need to remember that we got to this point in the discussion because you asked how those who "beleive in sciecne" decide what to beleive in considering the sciece changes and is based on observations made by man. I have simply been pointing out that YOU used science to help you decide which portions of the biblical story you dont beleive to be factual accounts (i.e genesis).

it has nothing to do with what christians agreen on, it has to do with how YOU made YOUR decision that the genesis story is not a factual account

You're mischaracterizing what I’m saying. It’s not that I don’t believe the Creation story as factual; I just don’t believe it literally. It is completely factual that God created everything depicted in Genesis. Whether He did it literally on a daily basis or through a process and he set the process in motion with a specific design in mind, both hold the same truth; God created it. It’s sort of like how you explain to your 3 year old kid how a combustion engine works; do you go into great detail in explaining it or do you use analogies and parables to explain it. Because you say things like explosions instead of combustion or you show a lollypop to represent a piston or a can instead of a cylinder, and your kid goes away envisioning exploding lollypops inside vegetable cans is what makes a car run, does that mean the basic premise of your story wasn’t factual?

To God, we are a bunch of 3 year olds that he wanted to give us small, simple details and let us figure out the rest. But the underlying premise “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is factual. What the events actually looked like is left up to us to figure out.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Silver301

[thatguy]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

You're mischaracterizing what I’m saying. It’s not that I don’t believe the Creation story as factual; I just don’t believe it literally. It is completely factual that God created everything depicted in Genesis. Whether He did it literally on a daily basis or through a process and he set the process in motion with a specific design in mind, both hold the same truth; God created it. It’s sort of like how you explain to your 3 year old kid how a combustion engine works; do you go into great detail in explaining it or do you use analogies and parables to explain it. Because you say things like explosions instead of combustion or you show a lollypop to represent a piston or a can instead of a cylinder, and your kid goes away envisioning exploding lollypops inside vegetable cans is what makes a car run, does that mean the basic premise of your story wasn’t factual?

To God, we are a bunch of 3 year olds that he wanted to give us small, simple details and let us figure out the rest. But the underlying premise “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is factual. What the events actually looked like is left up to us to figure out.

dude, if it didn't happen literally as explained in the bible(in pretty good detail BTW- names, dates, places, bloodlines specific events....), then genesis isn't a factual account of what happened. (3 yr old analogy aside)

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by thatguy

dude, if it didn't happen literally as explained in the bible(in pretty good detail BTW- names, dates, places, bloodlines specific events....), then genesis isn't a factual account of what happened. (3 yr old analogy aside)

Okay... First of all I thought we were talking about the creation story. Do we want to go through the Bible chapter by chapter?

Perhaps you can explain to me exactly how God said he created light. Specifically how did God separate the land from the water? How did God make all those trees and plants and growing stuff? Give me the details please.

Where God went into detail we can pretty much take it literally. Where God didn't we have to interpret how God did it. The creation is not a very specifically explained event. So....

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Okay... First of all I thought we were talking about the creation story. Do we want to go through the Bible chapter by chapter?

Perhaps you can explain to me exactly how God said he created light. Specifically how did God separate the land from the water? How did God make all those trees and plants and growing stuff? Give me the details please.

Where God went into detail we can pretty much take it literally. Where God didn't we have to interpret how God did it. The creation is not a very specifically explained event. So....

Hi PsyOps. I think we have pretty much agreed that God is capable of doing things that we cannot comprehend with our mortal intellect. We can, however, through faith and spiritual discernment comprehend that God is capable of doing things that may seem supernatural to us but are definitely within the characteristic nature of a Divine Supreme Creator. As far as how God created light when the earth was without form and darkness was upon the deep, He, being God, could just as easily speak it into existence by His Spoken Word. He is an awesome God! Creation was implemented at His command:

Genesis, Ch.1:
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I believe the other conflict that you had is the time it takes for normal human birth (9 months) and that definitely would contradict the 24-hour period of creation of man. However, reading the Genesis account, both Adam and Even were already hand-formed in an adult stage by God - that was the beginning of God's Creation. From that point, Adam and Eve, as earthly humans, were told that, as part of the disobedience the two had done, the woman would have some problems having children:

...I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; (Genesis 3:16)

thus begins the 9-month period of human childbirth.

Genesis, Chapter 4:
1: And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2: And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Starman3000m

Hi PsyOps. I think we have pretty much agreed that God is capable of doing things that we cannot comprehend with our mortal intellect. We can, however, through faith and spiritual discernment comprehend that God is capable of doing things that may seem supernatural to us but are definitely within the characteristic nature of a Divine Supreme Creator. As far as how God created light when the earth was without form and darkness was upon the deep, He, being God, could just as easily speak it into existence by His Spoken Word. He is an awesome God! Creation was implemented at His command:

Genesis, Ch.1:
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I believe the other conflict that you had is the time it takes for normal human birth (9 months) and that definitely would contradict the 24-hour period of creation of man. However, reading the Genesis account, both Adam and Even were already hand-formed in an adult stage by God - that was the beginning of God's Creation. From that point, Adam and Eve, as earthly humans, were told that, as part of the disobedience the two had done, the woman would have some problems having children:

...I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; (Genesis 3:16)

thus begins the 9-month period of human childbirth.

Genesis, Chapter 4:
1: And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2: And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

He, being God, did speak it into existence. But was there a process – a set of physical rules – that He used? As I’ve stated before I find it hard to believe God would create these laws of physics – that we know exists – and not put them into play during His creation. As to how these came into existence I will agree that He willed them into existence. There is just no feasible explanation in science for our existence and the existence of our universe.

As for Adam and Eve, I view this as a parable for explaining the dawning of man. It’s certainly true that we are made up of the same basic building blocks of the earth thus substantiates what is written that God molded Adam from the dust of the earth. The part that you can’t escape is that science has shown that man (homo sapien) did not just pop up on this earth without predecessors. Could God have created man literally as explained in Genesis? Absolutely! But evidence shows otherwise; evidence shows that there was a process that led to man’s existence. This, by no means, discounts the existence of God. It only shows that I interpret the meaning of the creation story differently than you.

I completely understand that this is considered blasphemy to a lot of Christians that adhere to a strict literal interpretation. We still believe in the same God. The central focus should be on who this God is and what His plans are for us. All this talk about evolution and such is a distraction. It doesn’t really matter how God did it; God just did it. We are here as a result of this God and He has a plan for our salvation. We are not just here as a result of random chemical events; it was a planned, calculated, purposeful move by God. I want to learn as much about it as I can, but I also accept that what I know or believe is inconsequential to larger truth: there is a God (Yahweh) and He loves His creation and desires for me to be saved in the end. We’ll know the whole truth then.

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

... there is a God (Yahweh) and He loves His creation and desires for me to be saved in the end. We’ll know the whole truth then.

Agreed!

Some thoughts:

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Colossians, Chapter 1:
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him 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:

[This_person]

Originally Posted by wxtornado

Yes, I know the difference. Macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented. So has microevolution. It's a non-issue.

I would love to see the documented, peer reviewed, repeatable test that has demonstrated a lower order of being, say a sponge (like it is believed, theorized, and asserted was among the first animals in the chain of evolution) evolve into a higher order being - say, a frog, or an insect.

Adjustments that make breeding between the evolved beings cease seems to be true (though the specifics still have not been repeatable), but never on the order of which I seek (a new genus), which shows it is not even close to being proven, or even further from a "non-issue" than you state.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by This_person

say a sponge (like it is believed, theorized, and asserted was among the first animals in the chain of evolution) evolve into a higher order being - say, a frog, or an insect.

Aha! Now I know why you've picked sponges as the core of your obsession.

Sponges have evolved in a way foreign to that of other animals. They probably arose from flagellated protozoans, although it is not certain which group. The choanocytes of sponges resemble the choanoflagellate protozoans. Choanoflagellate protozoan colonies, however, do not develop by way of embryological stages as do the sponges.

You picked the unexplainable freak of the animal kingdom and use it as the focal point of your argument.





Nice one.