Evidence for God from Science

Well you learn something everyday...there is more than one way to skin a cat. But you don't seem to acknowledge that any of the mutations turn a gene into nonsense.....the most interesting one being that the DNA demands a protein to be made in the wrong place (new info there as well).

Mastermind, the way you are rude to me is still funny...keep it up....I dare you (Just kidding)

What it would say if it supported your opinion:
God created the heavens and the earth.
And that was the evening and the morning of the first day.

What it actually says:
God created the heavens and the earth.
And there was Evening, and there was Morning, a first day.

What version do you use? I have NASB, and on day 1 (24 hour period), it says "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. God saw the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, ONE day."

Please, someone tell me if Mastermind is being rude, or is it a side effect of his sarcasm, which I don't mind in the right proportions....

I've checked up several sites that show the direct literal translation of genesis. They are gramatically incorrect and quite confusing. They don't really reveal much on whether the 7 days were literally correct.

and btw, your own quote doesn't say it happened in one day.

One that I know of is that God is singular, yet the verb is plural (denoting God is not One Being of course...Trinity) (it's changed in recent versions, but that's from the original version). Hey, Mastermind, where is your masters degree and cap and gown? I have to be a master on Hebrew and such, mustn't you as well? What are some more? (sources man, you demand them from me, I demand them from you now). And my quotation does denote one day....?hablas ingles senor?

I don't need them. I'm not the one claiming my interpretation is the only possible one.

Slippery little bugger to nail down aren't you.

If interested, I recommend going through the thread at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 85&start=0, within which I provide and link to pages with Scriptural reasons for not accepting the days in Genesis as 24 hour periods.

Kurieuo.

You would be called a liberal, right?

Ex. 20:11, For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Genesis 2:2
By the seventh day, God completed His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done.

Exodus 31:17
It is a sign forever between Me and the Israelites, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, but on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.

Psalm 33:9
For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.

John 1: 1 - 4

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

1 Corinthians 15 15:21-22
For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Luke 24 24:25
And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!"

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You would be called a liberal, right?

I don't know, do you call me a liberal? If you read through to the end of that thread, you'll see many conservative evangelical scholars who are accepting of the position I take, and see it as entirely Scriptural.

Kurieuo.

I was just asking, don't get defensive, just curious.

Also, asked today. There are 3 words for day in Hebrew. Like, in the day of Jehosaphat means in the reign (1 version of day), but the one for Genesis and the 7 days are 24 hour periods. Not very confusing.

I'm a conservative and don't believe in YEC.

How is it that 6 days of creation (1 of rest) seems silly, but limitless God taking billions of years to evolve everything (which, of course, makes man no higher than a lowly animal) makes sense, even while contradicting God's word?

Dude, get it through your thick skull: not all Old Earthers believe in Evolution, and not all evolutionists believe we came from apes. I know that <a href="http://www.swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/F ... 2.html">Dr. Don K. Hotie, PhD</a> can be quite persuading, but for God's sake, listen.

How is it that 6 days of creation (1 of rest) seems silly, but limitless God taking billions of years to evolve everything (which, of course, makes man no higher than a lowly animal) makes sense, even while contradicting God's word?

Firstly, empirical evidence does not support 6 days of creation. Secondly, the translation of "yowm", the Hebrew word used to describe the period of creation does not mean sunrise to sunset in this context, but rather a space of time. Thirdly, time has no meaning for God. We perceive it to be billions of years, but just as you have no sense of time while sleeping, God has no consideration of time. Time depends on space, and vice versa. Since God created both, He cannot be part of it.

Please quote the contradictions from the Bible.

I don't believe in evolution, I believe in God's daily intervention in His creation.

Since you want to attack me, why don't you give us an explanation of how Noah fitted all the animals in the world onto his small ark?

Since when did I start attacking you?

There is empirical evidence-Bible. Yes, it is a good source, it was written through the Holy Spirit by man.

For the Ark, do you know how large that thing is/was (depending on if that is the Ark stuck in a mountain in eastern Turkey...several eyewitnesses have seen it, and haven't contradicted themselves).

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1031468

The Ark is frequently depicted as a small boat by those who have not bothered to check its dimensions. It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits tall. While there were several ancient cubits (generally the distance from a man's elbow to the extended fingers), a cubit was typically 1.5 feet or slightly longer. The 450-foot-long Ark would snugly fit in a football stadium and would be taller than a four-story building.

This sketch of the Ark is based on George Hagopian's credible account (page 40). The Ark did not look like a boat. It had a flat bottom, was not streamlined, and had windows in its top. The flat bottom would have made loading on dry land possible. Streamlined shapes are important only for ships designed for speed and fuel efficiency—neither of which applied to the Ark. Windows in the side might be nice for the passengers (or for the proverbial giraffes to stick their necks out), but side windows limit the depth of submergence and the maximum load. Riding low in the water gives a boat great stability. Actually, the Hebrew word for Ark does not mean boat; it means box, coffin, or chest—an apt description unknown to Hagopian.

You are believing too many things obviously. Fishes weren't on the boat, neither were insects and the likes, and God most likely summoned YOUNG animals, since they take up very little space (big elephant compared to small one). Also, you believe in species, as opposed to kinds. There are several species of dogs, lizards, bears, etc, etc....but there are no species, there are kind. Dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes are from the original dog like animals. They can all interbreed (I've heard all can, except nobody has mentioned the fox, but I'm thinking he's doglike too)(could be wrong on the fox if he's not dog like).

I'm not personally attacking you, I'm disputing your beliefs. Analogy is not liking someone's art-doesn't mean you don't like the artist.