gnasher16 30,063 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Thank you Frazdog Personally I would drop this line of conversation mate. As a Christian, I know this to be wrong. I had a major issue with the 'age of the universe' thing when I was a kid. One word...dinosaurs. Many millions of years old, but impossible by Bible timescales. So I started researching. In the original text Genesis is written in, there are 2 anomalies in translation. Firstly the numbering. e.g. first day, second day, third day, etc. This is all correct as a sequence, however these are not specific days. When a number was placed before (if might be after, I get this mixed up) the period of time, is meant "The first" and was not referring to a specific, e.g. 1st August. So all the 'First day, second day, etc' is simply pointing out the sequence of a series of events, and not actual 'dates of occurrence'. The second issue is the awful translation we have. The word DAY is 100% wrong. The original text would be better translated as "Period of Time" or "Age" meaning up to 300million years, as we currently know years to be. Being a Christian from a Christian family I was taught to question what other Christians say, get context from the Bible, then research the original scripture as best as I can. Without correct facts any argument, no matter how you want to believe it, is going to fall, or make you seem stupid. If people take you for a fool, it says a lot about Christians in general. To say the Bible shows the world is 6000 years old is simply a severe over faith in other Christians and a significant lack of personal research. But do not worry. We have all been there and done that. The same is true with evolution. Evolution is not evil or wrong. The only element of Evolution that Christians should have a problem with is in application to humans. " The only element of Evolution that Christians should have a problem with is in application to humans " What do you mean with that line RemyBolt ? I can be a bit slow sometimes so for what i found a very good and interesting post it would be a shame not to understand all of it ....if you wouldnt mind like ? Link to post Share on other sites
RemyBolt 420 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Happy to elaborate. The first half of this is Biblical, then I'll go into the realm of science. Biblically "Each species was created according to it's own kind." The only species that was not 'created' is Mankind. Mankind was made in God's image by God. Meaning not necessarily in physical form, e.g. hands and feet, 2 eyes, etc. Don't forget that God is a tri-union, Body-Spirit-Soul. Same as how people are body, spirit, and soul. It is for this reason that we are a direct manifestation, constructed specifically, not developed from 'another kind' so to speak. So Biblically, evolution does not apply to people. This is the basis of why Christians broadstroke evolution as being WRONG/EVIL. It's because the principle of evolution is projected on all species relating humans to monkeys, which would be scripturally incorrect. So instead of removing a single element of evolution, they swipe the whole thing out. Even though evolution would work with "Each species being created according to it's own kind." Scientifically speaking, we now have a major dilemma. The theory of evolution has been accepted, and the majority of animal lines have been simple enough to trace. However, the human line is a major anomaly where the evidence is weak. Yes we share 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. We also share 50% of our DNA with bananas. This simply means there are a limited number of DNA sequences available. However, the stedfast evidence for evolution in human beings is...hugely lacking. In 100-200 years time science could well turn around and say "It looks like evolution was right for all species, except humans." Which would fit perfectly with the Bible. However, at the moment, the lack of evidence for human evolution DOES NOT constitute evidence for Creation. We are not going to believe the "If not A then it must be B" attitude, because that's hugely flawed. It simply shows our lack of data and understanding. For fun on why we're not choosing to follow the If not A then it must be B attitude: A = If a person is wearing a dress they are a woman. B = If a person is NOT wearing a dress they are not a woman. See how floored this style of thinking is? Just because the lack of information shows that Evolution may not apply to people, it does not mean that Creation is correct either. However, it does lend credence to the POSSIBILITY that creation is correct. Edited September 10, 2014 by RemyBolt 6 Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Excellent post Remy. I like the" if not A then B" analogy. I also like the way you put your view across without that view assuming everyone else is wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
RemyBolt 420 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Excellent post Remy. I like the" if not A then B" analogy. I also like the way you put your view across without that view assuming everyone else is wrong. The true irony is that both Science and Faith should actually work together, each one helping the other. Many of the leading scientists in the UK are Christian and say they are amazed the ignorance of Christians. Think about the Higgs Boson particle, the God-Particle. The idea of which was to prove the existence or non-existance of a God. Why is it the people doing the research are not separating one from the other? Blind faith in God is good for a Christian. But an inversion of the A-B get's falsely applied, if A then not B. If God, then not Science. That's ridiculous. If not science, then how does your car work? How are you reading this? How does your hoover work? How do your lights work? How does your understanding of the rain/water-cycle work? SCIENCE!!! If A then not B = You are going to eat a main course (A) then clearly not = you are going to have a drink. Actually, I'd like both at the same time. A sit down main course with a nice glass of water. Check that out A + B. If you are a Christian you should not be ignorant of the amazing scientific breakthroughs. Educate yourself, learn, read scripture, understand context, take an interest in science (you'll be amazed how much the Bible works with science. Don't forget science is simply learning the rules God put in place, if you believe in God), continually develop your understanding of the world both physically and spiritually. If your whole faith is based on not understanding a theory, how are you going to speak to someone on an intellectual level? Sorry, just a bit of a rant there. As an educated Christian I get very 'high horse' about these things. Stepping off that horse for a bit now. Edited September 10, 2014 by RemyBolt 4 Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,063 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Thankyou for explaining it RemyBolt..........another few reads and i,ll get it but from what i can get my head round so far makes for interesting reading certainly worth thinking about 1 Link to post Share on other sites
RemyBolt 420 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Thankyou for explaining it RemyBolt..........another few reads and i,ll get it but from what i can get my head round so far makes for interesting reading certainly worth thinking about Thank you. If you have any evidence against, please feel free to PM me. I think blind faith is good. Blind ignorance is not. Meaning "To believe without evidence" is good. But to believe AGAINST evidence is not. Link to post Share on other sites
Truther 1,579 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 the earth was never a molten mass,molten core yes but not mass. polonium halos has proved this theory wrong. CREATION LOVES SCIENCE FACT Scraping the bottom there mate, but anything for a distraction eh lol. Link to post Share on other sites
Deputy Dog 28 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Where's the FM? Been flat out on this for days. Interestinga posts RB. But Playin young earth creationist advocate here. How did you conclude that dinosaurs were millions of years old? It's only the evolutionists that believe that dinosaurs are millions of years old and would say the bible cant be trusted either. How do you trust one thing they say and not other?? Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 remy i would have to disagree with you mate,but you love the lord happy days. i would like to state that kj bible clearly says THE first day THE second day THE third day,not millions of years in between,thats heressey. an god said let there be light,an there was light, an god saw the light,that it was good,an god divided the light from the darkness an god called the light day,an the darkness he called night. an the EVENING an the MORNING were the FIRST day. i dont know how you cant see that remy but its pretty clear the evening an morning were the first day. lets define evoloution again very slippy term,thats how they slide it in with science,when evoloution has helped nothing in advancements of technology or science. cosmic evoloution the origin of time space an matter,from nothing to big bang chemical evoloution all elements evolved from hydrogen stellar evoloution stars an planets formed from gas clouds organic evoloution non living matter evolved to living matter macro evoloution animals an plants change from one type to another micro evoloution variations within the kind now that is what evoloution is all about,fact. the top five are faith have never ever been seen despite what people on thread are saying. the last one is micro evo this is how they slip it in with the rest of the non scientifial fairytale. evoloution is defined above an i wouldnt say micro evo is evolution its a variation in the kind to adapt to its surroundings. sure i thought eviloution took millions of years of time,so you can take micro out of that fairytale,cause its happened. evoliution is about macro evo;some kind evolving into another like a cat to a dog,thats what their main focus is yet there not one bit of evidence.animals produce after there kind an thats what we see everywhere. thats there main focus proving we came from a boiling brotth of complex chemicals,that washed out of rocks an suddenly came alive,an found a mate to reproduce an gradually over time lots of it,thats the king of evo,time,evolved to humans. long ago an far away thats there stance. yet science has proved undoubtley this is impossible. so take out micro its nothing to do with evoloution its science we see today animals an plants producing after their kind. mutations an natural selection has nothing to do with with evoloution either,mutations is a jumble of existing informati. on resulting in loss or hinderance for the animal or insect. thats not evoloution thats a loss not a gain. natural selection doesnt create anything it selects with whats available an thats it nothing else. oh i ment to say they dont talk about top four much cause its impossible scientifically. i ask anyone to show me any of top five or a helpful mutation. keep up the good work gnasher Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 theres a sinister plot behind evoloution,if you dig you will find. Link to post Share on other sites
Deputy Dog 28 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Got impatient waiting for answer. Found this, looks compelling, smart fella, had to listen few times then got it. Edited September 10, 2014 by Deputy Dog Link to post Share on other sites
Deputy Dog 28 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Fook me I've been turned upside down in 1 week. These Christian folk are not the kind of stupid folk I once thought. Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 aww he just a christian nut who beleives the bible,mad or what lol Link to post Share on other sites
shepp 2,285 Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) Fook me I've been turned upside down in 1 week. These Christian folk are not the kind of stupid folk I once thought. I believe your posts are contrived, using the "oh I used to believe that but this has changed my belief" routine. That link above was the usual deluded crap that is NOT based on science in any way. The myth about micro and macro evolution being different is just a lie and a tool used by the creationists. The only difference between the two in reality is time scale. The bloke shows himself to be a fool from the outset. Edited September 11, 2014 by shepp Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 spawn, tadpole, frog egg, chicken egg, caterpillar .pupa. butterfly sperm, egg .cell . baby so one thing to evolve into another is not possible !!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts