Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: [God created man] "Were you there is one of the stupidest arguments there is."
Christians believe that the Bible is true. You claim to be a Christian. You don't believe God's word?
When do you start believing the Bible?
Stupid argument? God was there. Jesus affirmed the Old Testament. Are you calling Jesus stupid, too?
Your mocking of Christians who
believe the Bible was prophesied (Jude 18). See?
Even in your mocking you end up the looser (Ga 6:7).
You only reveal your own unbelief (2 Chr. 36:16) and
scorn (2 Chr. 30:10) when you ridicule those who trust
the word of God (Acts 2:13).
"Do you think that's what lawyers use when there's a crime committed and nobody was there to witness it?"
I'm not a lawyer. I'm a
witness (Psa 15:4).
If you'd like an eye-witness (of the life and ministry of Jesus) call Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to the stand (of creation) call God to the stand.
"Well you weren't there so I guess we can never know what happened..."
You are given a choice to believe or not believe. Not choosing is a choice. You are free to choose what to believe. You are not free to choose the consequences of that choice (Matt. 7:24).
"It's called look at the evidence and piece together what happened."
Great. Do that. That's what scientists do.
The good ones come up with the correct conclusion--that the Bible is true. Every thing God says and does is true. Everything Jesus says and does is true. Everything the Holy Spirit says and does is true.
[Junk D.N.A.] "...another AiG lie."
Wrong again.
...feather problem.
"Due to his evolutionary presupposition, he assumed that non-coding DNA was merely a “genetic fossil” that may have been useful somewhere in our evolutionary past but had been discarded as we evolved into more complex, higher organisms. Since this “junk” DNA was no longer needed, it would not be under selective pressure, and mutations could accumulate without any harm to the organism.
Unfortunately, for many years this notion that non-coding DNA was not functional (“junk”) actually inhibited science. Many scientists didn’t spend their time studying it because of their evolutionary presuppositions that it was worthless DNA. It is rather an ironic situation, since many times creationists are accused of inhibiting science because of their presuppositions (the God-did-it-so-there’s-nothing-more-to-study idea; but in reality, it’s just the opposite—“God did it” so we have every reason to study it!). Creationists for many years have argued that non-coding DNA is not junk (see ‘Junk’ DNA: evolutionary discards or God’s tools? and “Junk” DNA Is Not Junk) because of their presupposition that God intelligently designed all DNA and it does have a purpose (granting that DNA has been negatively affected by the curse and some of its original functions may have been lost)..." Full text: “Junk” DNA—past, present, and future
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "Science reflects what the evidence in the natural world tells us."
That's right. The Bible is not a science book, but where it speaks on science it is accurate:
"We can believe the word of God (1) because of the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Some say: "Of course the Bible is not scientifically accurate because it was was written thousands of years ago." Before you say that, make sure of two things--make certain that you know science and make certain that you know the word of God. The Bible does not always agree with science--and for that I am infinitely glad. If you've been to Paris, you may have visited the Louvre. There are 3 1/2 miles of books on science and almost every one of them is obsolete. Science is changing. What is scientific fact in one era is not in another era.
In 1861 there was an anti-God French academy of science that gave 51 facts that prove the Bible wrong. Today, more than 100 years later, there is not a reputable scientist who believes one of those 51 facts. Aren't you glad the Bible did not agree with that science? Had the Bible agreed with that science the Bible would have been wrong. Give the scientists enough time, perhaps they'll catch up with the Bible.
The Bible teaches about science:
The earth suspended in space (Job 26:7). How did Job know that?
Ancient Egyptians believed that the earth was supported on five pillars. Greeks believed that the earth was held on the back of a giant named Atlas. Ancient Hindus believed the earth stood on the backs of huge elephants. When the elephants shook that created earthquakes. Someone asked, "What are the elephants standing on?" On the back of a huge tortoise. They asked, "Then, what's the turtle on?" The turtle is on the back huge coiled serpent. They asked, "Then, what is the serpent on?" The serpent is swimming in a cosmic sea.
Earth is a sphere. Isa 40:22. How did Isaiah know that?
By observation you would think that the earth is flat. Columbus sailed west. Men said you'd better be careful or you might fall off the edge. It was not until 1492 that time that men conceded that the earth is round.
The stars are without number (human number, uncountable) [Jer 33:22].
Hipparchus counted stars, the noted astronomer of that day. He said there are 1022 stars. That was the science. 250 years later, another Ptolemy checked up on Hipparchus and he laughed. There are 1026. 1300 years later that Galileo created telescope and gave a gasp--millions and billions of stars in the canopy of space. Now, with the Hubble telescope---stars upon stars. Jeremiah said the host of heaven cannot be known. How did Jeremiah know that?
How did they know? All scripture given by inspiration of God (2 Ti 3:16).
Now move into physiology and biology. Blood is in the life. We that that for granted. It was not until 1615 that William Harvey discovered that blood even circulates in the body--the incredible properties of human blood. In relatively recent times when men got sick they would attribute it to blood. The barber pole represented a bandage. They would bleed men in the hopes that they would get well. The father of our country George Washington got sick and they bled him three times. They bled him to death. Lev 17:14, blood--it is the life of all flesh, an incredible scientific statement.
In the Middle Ages there was a Bubonic Plague, called the Black Plague. 1 out of 4 died. They could not figure out what caused it. It was one of the greatest natural disasters in human history. The word of God was the solution. If a man had the plague quarantine him (Lev 13:46).
1840, in hospitals in Vienna 1 out of 5 mothers were dying of infection. They would go in for inspections and they were getting infected. Doctors did not wash their hands. Dr. Semmelweis said from now on, you will wash your hands before you examine. They would go from the morgue to make examinations. 1 out of 84 died. After this policy 11 out of 12 died. Then he said, you will wash between every examination. Doctors said, no we can't do that. Nu 19:14-19, when men die in a tent they shall be unclean 7 days (time for the bacteria to die) every open vessel is unclean, if you touch one slain, or a dead body or bone or one in the grave, they shall be unclean 7 days. They had no idea about a germ. God says don't contaminate. Edited sermon notes Adrienne Rogers: How to Know the Bible is the Word of God..." Full text: How to Know the Bible is the Word of God
"That's all science really is. And no it isn't the domain of evil atheists out to discredit the Bible..."
Do you believe anyone sets out to discredit the Bible?
"The fact that your view of scripture..."
Truth is truth independent from me.
There is one correct view for each passage of scripture--exactly what the author intended it to be. Perhaps you meant to ask which hermeneutic is correct?
See:
"...you do not have a proper understanding of scriptures..."
Your proof?
Take creation, for example. Creation took place in six normal days (Ex 20:11; 31:17).
Do you disagree? Give us your reason--What reason does scripture give you to come to this conclusion?
"The science is very clear, the scriptures may not be so clear as you think they are."
Then science is your god.
"Men study science as god not the God of science." ~ Adrienne Rogers
"The experts in both areas agree with me."
Ad verecundiam. No, they don't.
Say they did
all agree with you. Every person in the world can
believe a lie. It does not change the truth.
Anyway, ad populum.
"One and God make a majority." Frederick Douglass
"I am sorry you are having so much trouble with this. But it is fruitless for you to attack me as the creation itself screams evolution."
That's your daddy screaming (Jn 8:44). God's voice is different (1 Ki 19:12) and He said otherwise (Ps 19:1).
"You should be rebuking your own DNA."
Creationists love DNA. It's a big problem for secular scientists. DNA is like a language. Only an intelligent designer could have created DNA.
See:
"That man evolved from other primates is obvious from the evidence that is in our own DNA..."
No.
"A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect. Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.
The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations...’" Full text: Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more. A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves
"If we did not evolve from these creatures, then God purposefully made it look like we did..."
You're the
scientist. You should be able
to observe that there is more than a
five percent difference in DNA.
Don't blame God that you make a
monkey out of yourself (Ge 1:26,27;
1Co 11:7; Ge 1:26; Jas 3:9;
Ec 7:29).
Response to comment [from other]: "...[T]his reply from you only serves to prove that indeed you are relying on sound bites..."
I referred to my own notes.
"...[R]ather than thinking about what is being said and giving a reasoned response."
Alate_One charges that the response is shallow and that I am "simplistic" (a favorite ad hominem from the left by the way). He may believe that he is the fourth member of the trinity. I do not. Jesus said feed my sheep. He did not say feed my giraffes.
...feather problem.
"I have respect for and trust in a Christian who honestly looks at what the Bible says, and then at the creation itself, and asks how he can merge the two accounts into a coherent whole."
Many people love to be lied to (Eze 13:19). Remember, leftism is a religion. Try to think outside your faith.
"The church is harmed more by the termites on the inside than it is by the woodpeckers on the outside." ~ J. Vernon McGee
Looking at the creation itself (as you say) will show you that God's account is consistent with fossil evidence:
"The Bible says that death came as
the result of man’s sin. Evolution
says that death has always been a
part of nature. Can both be true?
Obviously not.
If the fossil record represents
millions of years of earth history,
there must have been millions of
years of death, struggle, and
disease before man appeared,
contrary to what Genesis teaches.
“Theistic evolution” is an idea that
attempts to merge the Genesis
account and the concept of millions
of years of evolution. Theistic
evolution postulates millions of
years of death before God stepped
into the process, at some point, and
created the Garden of Eden. As
illustrated below, theistic
evolution requires God to call
millions of years of death and
suffering “very good.”
On the other hand, if the fossil
record is the product of a
catastrophic global Flood in which
vast numbers of organisms were
suddenly buried in chemical-rich
water and sediment, the need to
postulate millions of years of
history goes away. God’s account of
a perfect world ruined by sin and
destroyed by a watery judgment
(Genesis 6–9) is consistent with the
fossil evidence in the world.
God’s promise of future restoration,
“the restitution of all things”
(Acts 3:21), would be nonsensical if
evolution really happened. Only an
original creation free from death
makes God’s promise of restoration
logical. A perfect creation cannot
be the promised future restoration
if no perfect creation existed in
the past..." Full text:
Why Does God’s Creation Include
Death & Suffering?
"Your method of operation is to start with what you think the Bible says..."
Start with the fossil record if you prefer. Remember, leftism is a religion. Try to think outside your faith. Either way--start. Alate_One's ideas are earthy. They do not originate from God (though he/she claims to be a Christian). James 3:15.
"Knowledge is proud that she knows so much; Wisdom is humble that she knows no more." ~ Cowper
"You are, simply put, a religious bigot."
You forgot: sexist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, and racist.
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "[T]he Bible reflects the "science" of its time."
Give the scientist enough time and they'll come up with what God has been saying all along.
The Bible is not a science book but where it speak about science it is 100% accurate.
See:
How to Be Certain the Bible is the Word of God
"There are plenty of scriptures that are unclear."
You'll need a better teacher (Jn 14:26; 16:13).
"...[F]requently we need to use more than just reading an English translation of scripture to understand what the author meant. Since the author lived thousands of years before us, in a completely different part of the world with totally different assumptions about the world."
Use more than an English translation to study the word of God then. Neither English, nor Hebrew, nor Greek will help you until you know the author. First, surrender to God's will (Jn 7:17), then He will make himself known to you (Jn 14:21).
An example of word studies:
"The word "ax" can be something to
cut something down or if I "ax" you
a question; today it means I have an
inquiry.
The word "love" in the Bible is
translated in a variety of ways:
Men did love the darkness rather
than the light (Jn 3:19).
Love not the world, neither the
things that are in the world (1 Jn
2:15).
The word "agape" can mean God's love
or sexual love (Song of Solomon).
Meaning comes from the author's
mind, then to our mind. That is
where communication happens..."
How to Interpret the Bible Darrell
Ferguson
See:
[Creation in six normal days (Ex 20:11; 31:17)] "As I said before you can't just rely on an English translation of scripture, read it with your western viewpoint and assume that's the correct."
You disagree? Please give us the hermeneutic that you use. Whether east, west, north or south--what reason does scripture give you to come to a different conclusion.
See:
"If there's a conflict between God's creation and His word, maybe we haven't understood His word properly."
There's no problem in creation (Ps 19:1). Science is your God.
"You believe God (revelation) or you believe man (speculation)." J. Vernon McGee
"Men study science as god not the God of science." ~ Adrienne Rogers
"Knowledge is proud that she knows so much; Wisdom is humble that she knows no more." ~ Cowper
"You and AiG are not God...[O]ooh wow we went from 2% to 5% difference I guess that means evolution is a lie!"
It means you weren't quite the
fourth member of the trinity that
you thought you were.
Scientists err. God does not.
Unfortunately, your faith is
misplaced. But, it's not too
late to check your bias.
Same facts. Different conclusions.
See:
"Do you have an explanation as to why there is so much similarity between humans and chimps?"
Do you have an explanation as to why chimps cannot acquire language? Man was created after the likeness of God (Ge 1:26; Jas 3:9). Animals were not. Man was made with a soul and spirit. He is able to communicate with his creator. Some men make a monkeys out of themselves.
"When it comes to language, there are basic differences in the ways chimpanzees and children communicate using words. The differences highlight the nature of the barriers between such things as babies and baboons. It takes several years of intensive training to enable chimpanzees to learn to make use of between 100-200 word signals but by three years of age a child has acquired a “vocabulary of some 1,000 words”.5 At five years of age this figure has about doubled. In contrast to that the chimp “Sarah has a vocabulary of about 130 terms, that she uses with a reliability of between 75 and 80 percent.”6 We read something similar about the chimpanzee called Washoe, who by the age of five had learned 132 signs of American sign language. Washoe learned more signs, but compared with a normal five year old child, her progress was dramatically “retarded...”" Full text: Talking monkeys: Smart animals and talking monkeys
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "You are simplistic in your approach to scripture."
Ad hominem. What reason does scripture give to spiritualize Ex 20:11; 31:17?
...feather problem.
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "In the seventh day God rested and was refreshed", do you honestly think God is capable of getting tired?"
Of you? Yes.
"Charles Darwin was not the first to come up with the theory of evolution. Aristotle and others toyed with the idea of evolution. Darwin sought to explain all of life without God..." Full text: Can An Intellectual Believe in God?
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "Darwin was never an atheist, nor did he seek to explain 'life without God'..."
See:
...feather problem.
