Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Since God told Adam and eve they could eat of anything in the garden except the tree of life, one assumes they ate.

Why? You realize this is silly, right?

Of course it's silly. That's why I'm trying to clarify what YWC is saying; I find it hard to believe he really meant nothing died before sin entered the world, but in his previous post he stated, "God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth". That sounds to me as though he WAS saying nothing ever died. It would make a lot more sense if what he meant was nothing died of old age, which is why I brought that possibility up.

Sorry I was right to begin with I always believed that adam and eve were vegetarians . Sorry I trusted the KJV. I went to my Hebrew translation and indeed there was no death until after the fall of adam.

Genesis chapter one.

28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. " כח. וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱ־לֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱ־לֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:
29. And God said, "Behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food. כט. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ־לֹהִים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה:
30. And to all the beasts of the earth and to all the fowl of the heavens, and to everything that moves upon the earth, in which there is a living spirit, every green herb to eat," and it was so. ל. וּלְכָל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה אֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה וַיְהִי כֵן:
31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.

Man was not given the right to eat animals until the covenant he made with Noah and his sons.

Genesis chapter 9

1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. א. וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ וְאֶת בָּנָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ:
2. And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the fowl of the heaven; upon everything that creeps upon the ground and upon all the fish of the sea, [for] they have been given into your hand. ב. וּמוֹרַאֲכֶם וְחִתְּכֶם יִהְיֶה עַל כָּל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וְעַל כָּל עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה וּבְכָל דְּגֵי הַיָּם בְּיֶדְכֶם נִתָּנוּ:
3. Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything. ג. כָּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל:
4. But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat. ד. אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ:
5. But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man. ה. וְאַךְ אֶת דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ מִיַּד כָּל חַיָּה אֶדְרְשֶׁנּוּ וּמִיַּד הָאָדָם מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו אֶדְרֹשׁ אֶת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם:
6. Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man. ו. שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱ־לֹהִים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם:
7. And you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm upon the earth

 

[Youwerecreated]

And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.

My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.

Oh ok, that's your definition of common ancestors, a vague line like that. A line like that goes along with evolution than and I just go with science when i say our common ancestors are the species we evolved from.


It's stupid to say science implies a story about eating fruit from a forbidden tree with a Satan-possessed snake in it.

Ok but you don't know what we supposedly evolved from

 

[JakeStarkey]

Never said I was did I ?

I am giving my opinions from over 40 years of studying the scripture and yes the theory of macroevolution does contradict the word of God.

For one God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth.

God said adam was the first man tracing the chronology of the bible we come up with 6,000 years.

God said he created man in his image not whatever was before the ape,not the appearance of an ape,but the appearance of God.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.

So you are a Literalist. Yes, you are only giving your opinions on what you believe God said in the Bible. That's fine. You are not qualified to decide how macroevolution and God's creation intersect. Why? You confuse your faith understanding with empirical inquiry and scientific theory. That's fine, but what you believe is for you only, no one else.

No I am not a literalist,the bible is full of things that should not be taken literally but you would only understand that with a thourough study of the scriptures.

Thats kinda like some here trying to argue macroevolution when they can't even explain what it is.

Having forty years in studying the scriptures and having a degree in molecular biology and all the other sciences I have been educated in, allows me to speak on the issue probably more qualified then anyone here in this thread sorry if I come off as arrogant.

A degree in molecular biology no more qualifies you in faith matters than a degree in divinity qualifies you in science matters. Then add to the fact that you are in the vast minority of microbiologists in this area of evolution, I can deduce that, yes, you are arrogant as well as unqualified.

I will now step out of this and leave you to the buffetings of Satan!

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you are a card carrying member of the scientific community? Because if you aren't, then your dismissal of the information provided by him applies to yourself as well.

The issue is philosophical in terms of proof systems, koshergirl, which he is deliberately misrepresenting, so, yes, it was a fair correction, and one you don't understand. I get that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And we will be the most recent common ancestors of people 2000 years from now.

My point is, science absolutely does support it, and it's stupid to say "science doesn't include the Adam story" because it implies that it has been disproven. It hasn't, and genetecists and biologists are the first to say so.

Oh ok, that's your definition of common ancestors, a vague line like that. A line like that goes along with evolution than and I just go with science when i say our common ancestors are the species we evolved from.


It's stupid to say science implies a story about eating fruit from a forbidden tree with a Satan-possessed snake in it.

According to you and many others since you think the chimp is so closely related to humans by your reasoning our nearest ancestor must be the chimp.

But real scientist know we are to far apart in our DNA comparison for it to happen. So what was between the chimp and human ?

Why is the chimps DNA closer in similarity to an ape then a human ? oops

You see similarity proves nothing,but if you're gonna believe this nonsense you must come up with the nearest ancestor so far the closest ancestor is adam.

Those ignorant goat herders

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you are a Literalist. Yes, you are only giving your opinions on what you believe God said in the Bible. That's fine. You are not qualified to decide how macroevolution and God's creation intersect. Why? You confuse your faith understanding with empirical inquiry and scientific theory. That's fine, but what you believe is for you only, no one else.

No I am not a literalist,the bible is full of things that should not be taken literally but you would only understand that with a thourough study of the scriptures.

Thats kinda like some here trying to argue macroevolution when they can't even explain what it is.

Having forty years in studying the scriptures and having a degree in molecular biology and all the other sciences I have been educated in, allows me to speak on the issue probably more qualified then anyone here in this thread sorry if I come off as arrogant.

A degree in molecular biology no more qualifies you in faith matters than a degree in divinity qualifies you in science matters. Then add to the fact that you are in the vast minority of microbiologists in this area of evolution, I can deduce that, yes, you are arrogant as well as unqualified.

I will now step out of this and leave you to the buffetings of Satan!

I guess you don't take into account the 40+ years studying the bible.

But have it your way, Goodluck to you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And you are a card carrying member of the scientific community? Because if you aren't, then your dismissal of the information provided by him applies to yourself as well.

The issue is philosophical in terms of proof systems, koshergirl, which he is deliberately misrepresenting, so, yes, it was a fair correction, and one you don't understand. I get that.

I believe in both the bible and science,but real science, not so called science built on a vivid imagination.

 

[Montrovant]

Since God told Adam and eve they could eat of anything in the garden except the tree of life, one assumes they ate.

Why? You realize this is silly, right?

Of course it's silly. That's why I'm trying to clarify what YWC is saying; I find it hard to believe he really meant nothing died before sin entered the world, but in his previous post he stated, "God said death did not happen until sin entered the earth". That sounds to me as though he WAS saying nothing ever died. It would make a lot more sense if what he meant was nothing died of old age, which is why I brought that possibility up.

Sorry I was right to begin with I always believed that adam and eve were vegetarians . Sorry I trusted the KJV. I went to my Hebrew translation and indeed there was no death until after the fall of adam.

Genesis chapter one.

28. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. " כח. וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱ־לֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱ־לֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:
29. And God said, "Behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food. כט. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ־לֹהִים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה:
30. And to all the beasts of the earth and to all the fowl of the heavens, and to everything that moves upon the earth, in which there is a living spirit, every green herb to eat," and it was so. ל. וּלְכָל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה אֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה וַיְהִי כֵן:
31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.

Man was not given the right to eat animals until the covenant he made with Noah and his sons.

Genesis chapter 9

1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. א. וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ וְאֶת בָּנָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ:
2. And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the fowl of the heaven; upon everything that creeps upon the ground and upon all the fish of the sea, [for] they have been given into your hand. ב. וּמוֹרַאֲכֶם וְחִתְּכֶם יִהְיֶה עַל כָּל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וְעַל כָּל עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה וּבְכָל דְּגֵי הַיָּם בְּיֶדְכֶם נִתָּנוּ:
3. Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything. ג. כָּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל:
4. But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat. ד. אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ:
5. But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man. ה. וְאַךְ אֶת דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ מִיַּד כָּל חַיָּה אֶדְרְשֶׁנּוּ וּמִיַּד הָאָדָם מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו אֶדְרֹשׁ אֶת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם:
6. Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man. ו. שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱ־לֹהִים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם:
7. And you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm upon the earth

Again, I'm trying to make sure I've got this clear. There was no death of animals/humans before sin? But plant death was fine? Does that mean that there were no predators, only herbivores? Did god create more animals after sin was introduced?

Your responses have been somewhat confusing. Also, I can only assume that there is no need to consider how this ecosystem might have functioned, since it was eden and god could make it work however he wished.

 

[Montrovant]

And you are a card carrying member of the scientific community? Because if you aren't, then your dismissal of the information provided by him applies to yourself as well.

The issue is philosophical in terms of proof systems, koshergirl, which he is deliberately misrepresenting, so, yes, it was a fair correction, and one you don't understand. I get that.

I believe in both the bible and science,but real science, not so called science built on a vivid imagination.

I think it would be more accurate to say you believe in the bible and science that doesn't contradict any of your bible-based beliefs.

 

[koshergrl]

I have yet to see any true science that contradicts my bible based beliefs.

And the #1 genetecist of the world and the #1 mathematician likewise have never seen anything that contradicts their faith.

 

[FurthurBB]

Most traditional, rational Christians believe in the principles of the Origins of Species. Many of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, heretics for the most part, do not.

So failure to accept Charles Darwin is "heresy?"

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA

Is it even possible for you to be more stupid?

Keep huffing paint or whatever it is that keeps your IQ below 12, I just can't buy entertainment of the level your stupidity offers....

No, but why are you so obsessed with the man and what do you want to accept about him? He is dead so, I am hoping you do not want to marry him.

 

[FurthurBB]

So am I. But then, on these topics with the morons who like to pretend they're all scientific and shit...I always do.

Although I am sure ball-n-cup would suffice to amuse you.

 

[FurthurBB]

Creationism is an ideology, a faith path, it is not a science based field, like evolution, gang.

Your silly arguments are why we have a separation of church and state.

The nice thing about this discussions is that is about fun, not reality, for you wiill never, ever win this battle about creationism as anything more than dogma of a small, unimportant sect.

Did you just read my post that compared the evolution's model to the the creationism model ? Look pretty similar to me.

Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.

 

[FurthurBB]

What complete garbage.

You just saying it doesn't make it so, skippy.

Factually baseless and logically fallacious denials are even less effective at making them not so, cupcake.

She's right, no offense but you saying so doesn't make it so. It's scientists saying so that makes it important.

But scientists saying something makes it even less valid to kosher.

Aww, you should not make fun of the poor thing. There is obviously something really wrong with that one.

 

[koshergrl]

Bullshit. Many, many of those who occupy the upper echelons of the scientific world have absolute faith in God and God's creation. So quit pretending only *stupid* people believe in God. It's a stale and untrue logical fallacy.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, I actually read.

Do you know who teh #1 genetecist of the world is? Or the brothers Chudnovski?

Do you know of their beliefs?

 

[FurthurBB]

Do you understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution ?

They are adaptations that you can't and can see, respectively. Other that that, there's no real difference, except as a creationist quibbling point.

Anyone who thinks there is no difference from Micro-adaptations and macro-evolution better hit the books.

Since there is no difference, coming from someone who actually took a science class in my life, you are the one that needs to hit the elementary school books.

 

[FurthurBB]

As do those who claim the earth is older.

This is actually not the case at all. In science you see something and follow the evidence where ever it may lead you to the most likely cause.

No, you follow your assumptions and test your assumptions agains't the evidence. But there is one major problem, there is no evidence for macroevolution.

Where there is plenty of evidence of a global flood if you have been following this thread or the others.

As lost as usual I see.

 

[FurthurBB]

People who can't follow probably would be better served to keep quiet. Though I doubt you have the intelligence to be embarassed by your display of ignorance.

Are you looking in the mirror and typing? I am impressed.

 

[FurthurBB]

So you are a Literalist. Yes, you are only giving your opinions on what you believe God said in the Bible. That's fine. You are not qualified to decide how macroevolution and God's creation intersect. Why? You confuse your faith understanding with empirical inquiry and scientific theory. That's fine, but what you believe is for you only, no one else.

No I am not a literalist,the bible is full of things that should not be taken literally but you would only understand that with a thourough study of the scriptures.

Thats kinda like some here trying to argue macroevolution when they can't even explain what it is.

Having forty years in studying the scriptures and having a degree in molecular biology and all the other sciences I have been educated in, allows me to speak on the issue probably more qualified then anyone here in this thread sorry if I come off as arrogant.

A degree in molecular biology no more qualifies you in faith matters than a degree in divinity qualifies you in science matters. Then add to the fact that you are in the vast minority of microbiologists in this area of evolution, I can deduce that, yes, you are arrogant as well as unqualified.

I will now step out of this and leave you to the buffetings of Satan!

No one with a degree in molecular biology knows less than a middle school student about biology. I just do not believe our education system could be that bad.