Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Thu May 10, 2007 6:37 am

Quote:
Never said it didn't meet GOd's standards, only that we do not know what they are.

how do you know? you haven't provided any scripture to backup your perspective.

My point exactly. No scripture to tell us what perfect is.

Quote:
To claim we know God's mind, and what he declares is good is automatically perfect, is more than an audacious claim

not at all. He does tells us but i would like to see scripture backing your viewpoint, please.

Again, my point. Can't see any scripture that tells us what God is thinking when he says good.

Quote:
If God Says something is Good then Says something is Very Good. What is the Difference

just dependsupon which meaning you attach to those words. i can use all three to mean the very same thing. from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

1. Very Good-- used before adjectives, adverbs and determiners to mean 'in high degree'...

2. Perfect-- ...used to express actions completed...complete, correct, exact, accurate...excellant, very good.

3. Good-- of high quality or an aceptable standard...suitable or appropriate...used to show that you are pleased about something that has been said or done...

obviously, i left out many other meanings to the words.

Are you trying to agree with me? You keep proving my points. I am saying you cannot take a phrase like 'it is good' and say God is saying it is perfect. And by you showing me three different definitions, you seem to validate my point.

Quote:
So what is the Definition of Perfect then? Are we to agree that Noah was a perfect man in his Generations Literally

i think you need to be more flexible in how words are used and be aware of the many meanings words have.

Are you serious? Hold on, let me quote you.

the point is God called His creation good=perfect which means you do not call it anything else.

And we need to be more flexible?

so? for the rest of that paragraph--you need to learn the many different meanings and applications of the word 'good'

That was my point. Good doesn't mean perfect, it means a great many things. Wow...

Quote:
For example, while climates may stay relatively constant, weather from one day to the next and even from one season to the next may fluctuate

NO. stop trying to hang on to evolutionary thinking. it is not of God.

How is changing climates evolution?

Quote:
Coral reefs develop

so? that doesn't prove evolution,it proves that God gave them the ability to develope.

She wasn't trying to prove evolution

Quote:
But to deny that genetics and environment do not have an influence on survivorship and reproduciton is throwing out common sense.

it is not denying that genetics or the enviornment plays a part, they are not the sole influential factor. do you not think that God has foresight and would have taken into account what is needed when he created all things?

The foresight to maybe...make his creatures ahead of time with the genetic flexibility to survive fluxuations in the environment?

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Thu May 10, 2007 1:56 pm

My point exactly. No scripture to tell us what perfect is.

what you are trying to do is create a loophole so you can believe whatever you want or what ever feels good.

Again, my point. Can't see any scripture that tells us what God is thinking when he says good

we have tons of scripture that tells us what God is thinking, go to any concordance and lookup the word perfect, sinless,and other words like them and you start to get the idea.

Are you trying to agree with me? You keep proving my points.

how am i agreeing with you or proving your point? i am showing you that the three can mean the same thing thus we know what is being said and not left to guess.

And we need to be more flexible?

you missed the point.

That was my point. Good doesn't mean perfect

i just showed you that it does.

She wasn't trying to prove evolution

she is trying to hold onto alternatives which aren't biblical.

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Thu May 10, 2007 2:05 pm

what you are trying to do is create a loophole so you can believe whatever you want or what ever feels good

Not at all. I apologize if i wasn't clearer. What i meant was i am not going to make assumptions (not that you are). He merely said, it is good. Not perfect, but good. You said yourself that good can have different meanings. All i was saying is that we do not know that meaning.

we have tons of scripture that tells us what God is thinking, go to any concordance and lookup the word perfect, sinless,and other words like them and you start to get the idea.

I get the idea. But nowhere in genesis (that i see) does he describe his creation as perfect.

how am i agreeing with you or proving your point? i am showing you that the three can mean the same thing thus we know what is being said and not left to guess.

Sorry. What i read into it was that they had different meanings and that we shouldn't assume what one means. I assumed (against my own objections) what you meant. Apologies.
However, the three can also mean different things. And, i believe, in this case they do.

she is trying to hold onto alternatives which aren't biblical.

How are changing weather patterns not biblical? That is, after all, what we were originally talking about.

Also, arch, please look at another thread in God and Science i am about to begin. I think you may like it.

Edit: After reading this again, it sounded like a dig. I only meant to ask your opinion on the other thread, since you are the main reason i posted it

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Thu May 10, 2007 2:23 pm

He merely said, it is good. Not perfect, but good

so you are saying that God has imperfections in His abilities? 2 Sam. 22:31 would disagree with you.

But nowhere in genesis (that i see) does he describe his creation as perfect

maybe you are just choosing the wrong meaning of the word. i am looking at the list of verses for the word 'perfect' and nothing says that God has different degrees of his standards. i tink you are picking the wrong meaning to fit what you believe.

However, the three can also mean different things. And, i believe, in this case they do.

sorry not good enough, you need to back this up with scripture and credible scholars who have studied this thoroughly.

I only meant to ask your opinion on the other thread, since you are the main reason i posted it

why would i be the reason? i am neither a young nor an old earth creationist.

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Thu May 10, 2007 3:18 pm

so you are saying that God has imperfections in His abilities

Never said that. I think me and you can go back and forth all day. Look at my previous post. Jesus said good, and it didn't mean perfect. Either way, we are simply playing word games here. Both of us should just admit we do not know what pre-fall world was like. And, even if we could say God called it perfect, we do not know what his perfect is.

maybe you are just choosing the wrong meaning of the word

Maybe you are? Like i said, we could go back and forth all day.

why would i be the reason? i am neither a young nor an old earth creationist.

Maybe not. But i sometimes perceive your stance as "Science can go to heck." Probably not your stance, but either way it made me look at myself. I sometime rely too much on science and not enough on God. Even though me and you hardly ever see eye to eye,(

) you put me in my place in at least that category.

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Thu May 10, 2007 4:00 pm

Both of us should just admit we do not know what pre-fall world was like

i think i already said that in a previous post.

But i sometimes perceive your stance as "Science can go to heck

my stance with science is that it only plays a minor role in theological issues. creation, the flood are theological issues which science cannot determine what really took place. there is a reason for that and that has to do with faith.

Enigma7457 · Post by **Enigma7457** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:56 am

i think i already said that in a previous post.

Then what were we arguing about???

godslanguage · Post by **godslanguage** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:10 am

Actually, isn't the initial thread topic about ID and Evolution?

Archeologist, I actually agree with alot of what you say. But the fact is, in terms of science, evolutionists/Darwinists don't see the bible the way some of us see it, so quoting scripture to someone who is educated about whatever that scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution maybe and has blindingly accepted that philisophical position, the bible holds no credibility in those terms. ID is about looking at the evidence entirely differantly, with purpose and plan in mind, I agree that the bible is the primary source and Gods word is the most important(for us christians and for all of society) ,but you are going way off the core subject here, the subject is directly dealing with the evidence that the Darwinists see and promote in a differant manner. As christians I agree that ID can promote evolution in many instances, but at the same time wouldn't you agree that its time for representing a more fair position, as in, anything but ---->"evolution explains everything" as the default position

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Sat May 12, 2007 4:42 am

so quoting scripture to someone who is educated about whatever that scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution maybe and has blindingly accepted that philisophical position, the bible holds no credibility in those terms

the Bible tells us to stickwith the truth, it doesn't matter if they think it is credible or not. God said he will not let His word return to Him void (paraphrase) we only need to plant the seed.

it doesn't mean you are not educated and only spout scripture but you donot hide God either behind a general label of intelligent designer. God was very clear--HE created ... not an intelligent designer.

As christians I agree that ID can promote evolution in many instances, but at the same time wouldn't you agree that its time for representing a more fair position

NO. God doesn't do that neither should we. if we believe God and the Bible, then we say that. the moment we compromise and change we lose. not just the arugment, but souls for eternity.

the subject is directly dealing with the evidence that the Darwinists see and promote in a differant manner.

first off, do we know that the universe and the world is 17 billion years old? do the evolutionists? NO. they are guessing and we do not know. if you want to refute evolutionists, then you need to let God show you the truth, if you believe in a christian evolutionary model, then you are already off the track.

even christians get deceived and i will hold up this 'progressive creation movement' as an example. this thought is a scientific model not a theological /scriptural one, done by people who look to science first not the Bible. they look at the 'scientific evidence' mostly done by secular man who is deceived and being led astray, and desire that instead of what the Bible says or looking to God to lead them to the truth.

their faith is in what science has 'discovered' not what God has done. science doesn't know everything nor can it find the answers because it limits data & omits God. we are not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly, paul charges us to follow him as he follows Christ, Jesus said I am the way and so on. at no time do believers have permission to follow the world or its thinking.

if they do, then they are like peter when Jesus walked on water--they are looking at everything else but Jesus. Guess who sank?