Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by bearer_of_truth, Sep 9, 2016.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
thank you for illuminating my view , Your comment are appreciated
What do you mean by proselyting I am not avoiding the burden if clarifying , is just that you guy take thing out of context and then pounce on it.
How snobbish of you by writing your last sentence "If you will not be persuaded by science, you might want to reconsider posting on a science forum, and find a Christian religious forum instead"
You have a University degree , so do I , Do you want to show your superiority ?
What did you study for four years , that I should be impressed ?
A creation was finished in chapter 2:3 the subsequent part could be a metaphor.
There is no evidence that this is so.
There are unsupported claims that "stuff happens" - but that isn't, in any way, "stressing" science.
By the way, thanks for posting the links you said you had.
You aren't clarifying you're making claims.
It's not "snobbish" at all.
Your attitude here is similar to attending an opera and trying to organise a game of basketball in the middle of the performance: if you aren't going to operate as a scientist and instead persist on inserting (unsupported) religious claims then you are, quite simply, in the wrong pace.
And what stops all of it being a metaphor?
I am not suggesting that my opinions are superior to yours. I am suggesting that if you will not be persuaded by science, it is foolish to post on a science board. (Just as if you do not believe that cars are a valid mode of transportation, it would be foolish to post on an automotive enthusiast's forum.)
You mean the "university" degrees? That was a lot more than four years; it was almost all electrical engineering.
Do you mean the four years I studied the Bible? That was mandatory at my high school.
Absolutely. Or both could be metaphors - and most likely are.
Interesting :]You aren't clarifying you're making claims. Can you and Rpenner not see that Gen. 1 -2:3 is talking in evolution and science is verifying it . There is a change from vegetation then next step millions years to fish and birds then some other period or era to mammals and the final come man. and the job is finished
Check it out.
I have been thinking the same thing as billvon. You seemed to take offense at a mis-perceived besmirchment. It was no insult and your questions seem oju-of-line. I too thought it odd that you would essentially dismiss the merits of science here - in the science forum.
Clarification of bolded text please. Define "there is a change from".
Perhaps it is my recollection of Genesis, but I recall that there was no "change" of any sort. He created plants and then he created fish and birds. i.e. each one from scratch.
Are you asserting that God made animals from plants? Not from clay?
This smells a lot like a fallacy of equivocation: "the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)
So I have a degree in chemistry beyond 4 years.
In my secondary religion was not necessary .
check my answer to Dywyddry.
The problem here is I accept creation by God and it proceeds with evolution. First life is created then the original specie will change to adjust themselve to the environment, were the environment might force mutation . And that is what I equate that have taken place in over 600-700 million years.
On the contrary. We actually ask that you take things in context and you refuse. You literally demanded that we ignore the context of the biblical quotations you offered.
This is exactly what I mean by dishonest behavior. You just accused your interlocutors of the very tactic that you were engaging in.
OK. (Believe me I wish it _hadn't_ been a requirement.)
Uh - OK. There's no evidence of that, but OK. You realize life has been here on Earth for about 4 billion years, right?
One more time: Genesis is NOT talking about evolution since it states that each "class" was created.
According to Genesis all animals - reptiles, fish, mammals and birds - appeared at the same time as fish, according to Genesis (the part you wish to ignore) women appeared after men.
This is a lie on at least two counts:
there is no mention (or even hint) of change. Each "class" is created.
there is no mention (or even hint) of millions of years.
There is no evidence to support that claim.
Except that "change", "adjustment" and "mutation" are not mentioned - there is no indication whatsoever that any "step" in that process was predicated on the previous one.
What you get with the Bible is a list of things, not even in the right order. You are the one thinking it must be evolution because that's what science tells us, so you make the story fit the facts.
So, you are of the opinion that it isn't God creating new species, it's natural selection i.e. "environment might force mutation"?
And you are also of the opinion that Man arose as a new species from a simpler creature?
I am of the believe: God created life, and programmed it that life form will change, in order to survive, : were the ultimate its creation will evolve into man.
I do not know nor we know , But interestingly in Genesis # 1 : 9--12 it say let the dry land giveforward grass, so it is up to us to interpret it . Probably there was life .
Can you name any creature that's mentioned in the Bible that "changed" into something else?
Lucifer? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually we do know. We have found fossilized microbial mats that we radioisotope-dated to 3.5 billion years ago, and biogenic substances (material that can only be produced by living organisms) 3.7 billion years ago.
No, probably it was the Nile after the yearly flood. The flood waters would recede, showing mud, then dry land - then grass would sprout. What would the author of Genesis be more likely to write about? A live-giving event he saw every year, or something that happened four billion years ago?
Separate names with a comma.