Coming back to this, if I may: given that a “real Christian” is one who follows the teachings of Jesus, can you pinpoint where in the Bible Jesus denied evolution? And where he dictated a literal reading of the Old Testament, since that is rather crucial to your claim as well.
You know, there’s rather a coincidence there.
You see, back in '96, I passed scriptural muster to be considered a bona fide prophet by both Jewish and Christian standards (Jewish is harder to come by). So, given that “The God of the Heavens” can be pretty much acknowledged to have come down and spoken to me already, do you think there’s a reason He didn’t tell me any of this at the time?
I’m going to bed, webman, but just so i don’t leave you hanging, here are the relevant passages from Genesis that i was referring to.
Compare:
Notice that in the first story, god made the plants and animals first, and man last. He also made Adam and Eve together. In the second story, he made God firts and then made the plants and animals. We also get the rib story for Eve.
So which is it? Did God make Adam first or last?
Actually the bible says that each living creature was made according to its kind. It didn’t say that one kind made another kind. Then God proceeded to create man in his image with God-like qualities of reason, love, kindness, and so forth. God created each living creature uniquely.
For now, I will say that is just your opinion. You do not know me and I wish you would quite claiming that you know me—YOU do not know me.
About 12 years ago, I actually did timely studying over a year’s time on the topic. After that, I was solidly convinced that there had to be a creator of all this. It takes some faith too I must admit, but creation just makes more logical sense.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Evolutionists are asking me to believe in an absolutely unbelievable miracle that quite simply defies all logic.
Here you go again, guessing at what I have studied. You do not know this.
No one would win the lottery at the odds of 1:10(10,000,000) because there’s simply not enough planets and humans to go around. I sorta believe you do not realize how big that number is. We’re not talking a lottery here.
Go ahead and believe in that impossible miracle. The beginnings of evolution is quite random. So yes, evolution is about random acts somehow coming together. That is the foundation of evolution. What man is doing is not evolution, but deliberate actions and creation, not evolution.
What we have is at first everything came about by accident until humans accidently came upon the scene and proceeded to do things by deliberate action and order. That still doesn’t explain all the accidents preceding mankind. How did the tree come about? How did the one cell organism come about? How did the earth put itself together before the tree and the one celled organism came about? How did the solar system come together and put the earth in the right place, not too close to the sun but not too far away either so as to sustain life?
How did the earth provide the right conditions for all living things? By accident? If it’s not accident, then what made this all happen or should I say who made this happen? It does require intelligence. If not then it’s all by accident hence evolution, but evolution is illogical. It doesn’t take years of study to see the absurdity of the view that all things came about as a result of accidents (aka evolution).
Man I garbled THAT. I should have said, in the second story, God made Adam first, then the plants and animals…
Are you ever going to provide a source for those numbers, [web?
The largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, has no problem with evoluation, and hasn’t for decades. Evolution and natural selection are taught at every Catholic college and university. All that the church requires is the belief that at some point in our evolution, humans were endowed by God with a soul. A theological, not biological, point.
There we go!
First case of totally ignoring a post that does not fit the worldview!
Placing bets on when the second one will turn up. Place your bets now.
P.S. In case you are wondering about Catholics and Genesis, the church holds that scripture is true and inerrant in matters of faith. It does not require a fundamentalist reading of scripture, e.g., that Genesis is a historical account.
Ring Species was mentioned to throw the original thought off track. As for the rest of you being professional debaters, so be it. I’m not really into debating over pointless details. I really believe that the professional debaters simply like to pick things apart and twist it to their liking to prove a point that at the bottom line makes no sense (to me anyway).
You will never convince me that all things came from a one celled organism. If defies logic. Many people like to sound all high and mighty with their pretty words and complicated sounding terms yet cannot explain the basic accidents that become too incredibly impossible to happen. No matter how many eons of time goes by, this all just didn’t happen without intelligent direction.
Just because you say it happened by evolution does not mean it did happen by evolution and with that we are at a stale mate on this issue.
Neither the evolutionist nor the person who believes in creation can prove their point to one another.
We are wasting our time here. I could post a whole book here and logically lay out the issue and one of the evolutionists here will try to make it all wrong or attempt to nullify it by making judgements about me and attempt to make what is illogical to logical when it is not.
In the end all this debating won’t matter. You can debate with the almighty and lose that one. My posting is over for this turn because I don’t want to waste anymore time talking this over. It was not my intention to get into a pointless debate which is where this is headed.
For you: You are right and I’m wrong…
…and for me: You are wrong and I’m right.
Stale mate.
And there we are. That was rather a quick fait accompli, though I do say so I myself.
At least webman here has had the honesty to admit his position early on, thus saving us time.
If it helps any, webman, I have no problems with you believing whatever you want to believe about evolution and its verity or lack therof. All I ask is that you don’t expect us to believe that you can prove creationism with a scientific or mathematical argument. A theological or philosophical one might hold more water, but there would be people here who would probably dispute those as well.
----You will never convince me that all things came from a one celled organism. If defies logic.----
Can you explain how it is illogical? While I can understand how one can feel that it is improbable, I admit that I am not aware of the specifics of the argument that it is illogical.
—Neither the evolutionist nor the person who believes in creation can prove their point to one another.—
That’s true, because abiogenesis is unlikely to have left behind much physical evidence to consider. However, abiogeneticists can at least explain, and make plausible, their speculations. Can creationists do the same in a programatic way? Or are they left with the empty"it just happened" non-explanation?
—I could post a whole book here and logically lay out the issue and one of the evolutionists here will try to make it all wrong or attempt to nullify it by making judgements about me and attempt to make what is illogical to logical when it is not—
Well, this is what people feel to case no matter what the issue no matter what side they dogmatically take. The proof is in the pudding, and if you aren’t willing to stick around for the pudding, then whatever. Go home if you want and leave the debate to others.
—For now, I will say that is just your opinion. You do not know me and I wish you would quite claiming that you know me—YOU do not know me.—
Your charge is false: the comments you reference were not attempts to characterize you, but rather the arguments you presented, which were indeed deficient in exactly the ways referenced.
I could, but will I? If I feel like … takes some going back over my past readings in past articles that I do not have in front of me. After all you should already know what I’m talking about since you claim to be professional debaters.
I’m surprised that you evolutionists don’t already know about those figures already. You should not need me to prove them which tells me that some of you are not as knowledgeable as you let on or you’d already know about it. There are holes also in your own knowledge of evolution. If you really knew what you were talking about, you’d know the facts and figures of what I speak of already. After all, some of you are supposedly superior to me in the knowledge of evolution.
According to you it is.
I simply do not wish to waste days upon days to this debate. I do not have that kind of energy to put into such and unfruitful argument. As I said, Neither of us can prove the other one wrong, because I simply do not have that kind of time to sit and chatter about. If I had known the people I would be in discussion with, I would not have entered into this conversation to begin with. I now know how they operate.
That I will likely do. This is not something I wish to talk about for days and weeks on end. There’s money to be made and bills to pay unless someone here wants to pay me $30-40/hour to debate for the next week, LOL :D.
Every once in a while I get a curious urge to get into these discussions and shortly afterwards I remember why I usually stay away from them. Wonder when I’ll need another reminder … hopefully not soon.
webman, a little friendly advice, if you don’t mind.
Pretend this forum is a foreign stronghold; hazards lurk around every corner. And the SOP dictates “no prisoners”. I strongly urge caution.
Also, be aware that no debate is ever resolved, not here. No matter how much time is spent debating the meaning of the word “is”, for example, you can only anticipate ever more engagements.
That being said, best of luck. You’ll need it.
webman might be getting his probability arguments from here. (Acrobat file…)
OK since I cannot edit… swap this:
>>> Your charge is false:
for this…
>>> which were indeed deficient in exactly the ways referenced.
Wrong reference made.
Regarding the acrobat file, I have not seen that particular writing.
As for me needing luck … I respectfully say I do not need it because I don’t believe in it, but thanks for the warning just the same.
I don’t feel defeated in my faith or knowledge. I simply do not have the time to put into this as some of the others here do. Perhaps they can argue with the creator when the time comes—probably they will wish they had not started that sort of argument.
Evidently these other so-called professional debaters have debated these issues hundreds or even thousands of times and they get some enjoyment when they beat down someone else. It makes them feel victorious and strong. To me it’s foolish to debate for a long time with no appreciable results.
I could work up some great counter-arguments but it’s too time consuming and it’s evident that these debaters have given much more time to these issues in the forums than I have. I could do the same thing and may even beat them at their own game, but why?? For what gain would there be? Nothing really.
We are already at a stale-mate before the game has gotten very far along. This I have enough insight on.
As I said, I was curious to get involved for the moment and the moment is past now.
webman; It seems that very little of your argument is based on anything more than personal incredulity. Furthermore it is difficult to debate a point with you because you seem to be all over the place, but at the same time never saying very much of substance.
May I suggest that you start a thread of your own in GD, with the title ‘Evolution is false because…’ and present one and only one argument (pick any one you like) - stipulate firmly that the debate is to remain strictly on the topic in question and perhaps ask that respondents pose no more than one question per post. I hope you feel able to do this and I look forward to taking part.