Humble_Servant
Inactive
yes
Creation -v- Evolution: For The Young People
- Thread starter Brother_Mike_V
- Start date
You stated you believe in evolution. You state that you are wanting to build faith in God. Then honour God as the creator not the evolver. The reason I am posting this now it to expose your falsity in just one little major item. You said that you have just been called an atheist. It is reasonable to understand that you are referring to my posted words "But I will not continue a discussion with an atheist mind set regardless of what hat it wants to wear. I'm done with you."
An atheist is an atheist. A theist is a theist. wear what hat you want...but if you argue like an atheist, then you are displaying an atheist mind set. Don't overlook the 'mind set' part of what I posted. That from my experience is typical of the way atheists 'debate'. They take a few words and overlook the true meaning of what is said and then chant the same mantra that you are using "you don't understand" "you missed my point." " You haven't proved a thing " " I showed you why you are wrong" "I provided plenty of links that prove I am right and you are wrong" these are not direct quotes of you of course. This is: "What reasoning do you have to look at the bible literally? Especially when it is a poem?" Your post#244. After having pointed out your error, you post "No I'm not being dishonest at all. I should have said "what reasoning do you have to look at Genesis 1 literally" not "...the bible literally..." your post #249 Then why didn't you? we are not talking typo here, we are talking deliberately constructed argument. You are being dishonest when you post things which are not correct and only change them if you are caught out. Those two posts of yours were 5h26. apart, with another post from you to KingJ in between.. Here is another classic "I already supported my assertion that your view is wrong: Genesis 1 is poetry, and creationism is a modern invention not believed by anyone until after the enlightenment.. The material supplied by you proved you wrong and as has already been pointed out was from people who were not recognized as being divinely inspired any way.
So you argue that you are right without waiting for anyone to admit that you are? How is that right?
So you argue from your unproved platform that others are wrong? How is that right?
Called an atheist?...no just identified as arguing like one.
I figured it out sir,
Humble_Servant
Inactive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_association
I say that you haven't provided your reasoning because you haven't
I say that I have already provided reasoning and evidence for my view because I have.
I say that I made arguments about why you are wrong because I have.
...not because I have an atheist mindset.
Call me whatever you want, however you want. If you aren't going to actually talk to me about the points I bring up, and let me talk with you about reasons you bring up, then I don't see a point in going on.
I say that you haven't provided your reasoning because you haven't
I say that I have already provided reasoning and evidence for my view because I have.
I say that I made arguments about why you are wrong because I have.
...not because I have an atheist mindset.
Call me whatever you want, however you want. If you aren't going to actually talk to me about the points I bring up, and let me talk with you about reasons you bring up, then I don't see a point in going on.
The bunny wunny (and all the awesome emoticons you use) . I can't believe I didn't figure it out sooner
HS, you actually do need to think deeper about my question. It is what killed evolution for me. It simply requires logical thought and belief in scripture.
From wikipedia: ''The earliest documented members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis which evolved 2.3 million years ago; the earliest species for which their is positive evidence of use of stone tools. The brains were about the same size as a chimpanzee.'' and ''The earliest of our known species, homo sapiens roamed Africa around 195 000 years ago''.
God's plan of salvation is for all of ''mankind''. Now use some lateral thought. God decided to choose His chosen race (the Jews) after 2.299 million years after the Homo gene or around 193 000 years after the first homo sapien? It took that long before God could find an Abraham (1813bc)? It took that long before the sins of the world upset God that He brought the flood? It took that long before God had ''His word'' as a guide for humans to live by? At what stage in the 2.3 million years did the genus homo become accountable? Surely we would not be accountable for rejecting God if we were still cave-men. Mankind needs a Saviour because we are highly intelligent and hence accountable for our actions. Intelligence = construction (beyond stone age). Intelligence = mankind able to upset God. Intelligence = God needing to interact with us.
Mankind started off intelligent. Mankind is intelligent. The theory of mankind evolving their intelligence does simply not agree with scripture. Jesus died for all mankind as all mankind is accountable (intelligent).
Heb 2:7 You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and did set him over the works of your hands.
Note it does not say, mankind evolved to the point just beneath the angels. Does that position sound like a 2.2 million old homo labilis or 195000 year old stone age homo sapien?
The other issue that nails evolution for a Christian is the fact that we have a spirit. How does that evolve exactly? Do you believe you are an eternal spiritual being in a temporary vessel?
Humble_Servant
Inactive
KingJ
Thanks so much for commenting with such a thoughtful post! You made me analyze my own beliefs, and when an argument causes someone else to analyze their own set of beliefs, that is a good argument.
There are a couple of things I would like to bring up, and see what you think:
First of all, I admit that I cannot answer any of your questions directly. I just don't know. I don't think anyone knows. I don't think that means that my other points are wrong. Do I know the exact moment of accountability? Nope... I do believe that at some point we did become accountable though. Why do I need to know exactly when?
Your other questions: "it took that long?..." yes, it did I guess... Why is it so hard to believe? What if literal creation was asked those same questions, why did it take so long for God to give us His word? Why not do it instantly? Isn't any reasoning you come up with to defend literal creationism just as useful to defend my view?
side note on the use of tools... lots of species use tools. I'm just saying, it's definitely a breakthrough for our species, but not exactly a strict indicator of complete sentience.
I think questions of determining accountability is really hard, regardless of one's view of the beginning. For example: you use intelligence as the determining factor to be held accountable, which totally makes sense. But, what does that mean for our wide spectrum of levels of intelligence? Are smarter people more accountable than dumber people? If two men live the exact same life but have different IQ's, does one go to heaven and the other to hell because the higher IQ was held to a higher standard? If that is not the case, that both are judged by the same measure of accountability, isn't it wildly unfair for the dumber people? Why make it easy for some by making them super-smart, and at the same time make other peoples' chances much slimmer by not making them as smart?
I do my best to know as much as I can, but I recognize that all of us as humans have limitations.
No one can answer the question of accountability fully, because in doing so we are trying to put a human metric on a God-sized decision.
Your question on human spirit: If we assume that God is the creator, and that He uses evolution as a tool to create, I don't see why a spirit can't be evolved. Actually if you study human mention of souls and spirits, you'll see a gradual incline in its prevalence, meaning, and function in human life. The earliest mention of a soul being "just a whisper", to now, where our spiritual lives are the most central aspect to who we are as a species. That is my personal opinion, but I want to make clear that it is just an opinion, not based on any scripture directly, or any specific work of science, just hypothesizing. I don't think there is one solid resource out there to give a concrete answer to this question. "I don't know" doesn't mean "I'm wrong".
HisManySongs
Passed on, February 28, 2022
I am constantly amazed at how shocked and surprised scientists are at the level of intelligence exhibited by 'ancient' people.
If you assume we came from apes, then, yes it would be surprising.
If, on the other hand, God created mankind, then it should not be a shock that man was intelligent from the git go.
If you assume we came from apes, then, yes it would be surprising.
If, on the other hand, God created mankind, then it should not be a shock that man was intelligent from the git go.
Quite frankly-I think we've lost more than we've gained (in my opinion).
Great point!
I wanted to address this just to point something out: God was present with Adam at the creation-it was a face-to-face interaction. As with Noah before and after the flood. As it was with Moses-and he gave Moses the Law to unveil sin to those who abandoned God.
Consider this-the very first human talked to God directly-was created by God directly and most likely extremely intelligent from the get go-talking, naming animals, working the earth, etc... Adam KNEW the will of God-and chose to disobey.
Humble_Servant
Inactive
I'm letting everyone know that I can't be involved in the discussion anymore. Thanks for the chat. Take care!
I just saw a news article that claims new images confirm the 'Big Bang theory'. It seems to me that the only light or other radiations that we are ever going to detect are those traveling toward us, never away from us. It seems to me that light from any ancient 'Big Bang' will be traveling away from us, not toward us. In such a case, we will never detect it. Any 'background' microwave radiation that we detect must be re-radiated. We should therefore expect to easily detect this re-radiation from out own planet...or the Moon at the very least. I'm not hearing about this, and since such radiation would be ever so much stronger here in our own backyard, it would be correspondingly easier to study. The lack of evidence for any such re-radiation ought to give evolutionists pause to rethink things over.
Ooooo Calv, I wonder what will happen when I scan your bar-code with my droid. Nice avatar!
You got it
