Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:57 pm
Because its true perhaps?
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Audie, please don't be so naive. What YOU apparently believe the alternative likely is would be FAR more "wacky": Nothing produced awesome design and complexity - now THAT is wacky. But if something else produced it, or rather SOMEONE, then you think it's wacky. But what is more reasonable? And, YES, I do believe the world and universe are VERY old. But if you knew more about how words are used in the Bible, you would know that this text well supports that. Cute comment, no cigar!The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.
Why indeed, would a god give such a wacky story?
There is an epiphany lurking in there.
Demonstrably changed step by step?Audie wrote:The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.Philip wrote:Interesting, the different reactions to the Genesis text. Those who don't believe the Genesis Creation accounts are true, like Audie, and even Neo - a Christian - can see the text doesn't allow for evolution. And those that believe it does must force un-natural meanings or read into it things the text does not say - or that it clearly contradicts.
So, if the evolution of man from animals occurred, why did God give some crazy, stork-like story as opposed to the simple truth? And how could Genesis 3:20 be true? "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." And if God gave us some wild symbolic story about the foundational story of the Bible, how many other miraculous parts of Scripture are simply symbolic. And how do we know which are which, upon the precipice of that treacherously slippery slope?
Why indeed, would a god give such a wacky story?
There is an epiphany lurking in there.
Cute is trying to turn it back on me, cute is substituting "awesome complexity" for a wacky story about the one behaviour ofPhilip wrote:Audie, please don't be so naive. What YOU apparently believe the alternative likely is would be FAR more "wacky": Nothing produced awesome design and complexity - not THAT is wacky. But if something else produced it, or rather SOMEONE, then you think it's wacky. But what is more reasonable? And, YES, I do believe the world and universe are VERY old. But if you knew more about how words are used in the Bible, you would know that this text well supports that. Cute comment, no cigar!The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.
Why indeed, would a god give such a wacky story?
There is an epiphany lurking in there.
Why not ask for a complete history of the Roman Empire while you are at it?RickD wrote:Demonstrably changed step by step?Audie wrote:The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.Philip wrote:Interesting, the different reactions to the Genesis text. Those who don't believe the Genesis Creation accounts are true, like Audie, and even Neo - a Christian - can see the text doesn't allow for evolution. And those that believe it does must force un-natural meanings or read into it things the text does not say - or that it clearly contradicts.
So, if the evolution of man from animals occurred, why did God give some crazy, stork-like story as opposed to the simple truth? And how could Genesis 3:20 be true? "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." And if God gave us some wild symbolic story about the foundational story of the Bible, how many other miraculous parts of Scripture are simply symbolic. And how do we know which are which, upon the precipice of that treacherously slippery slope?
Why indeed, would a god give such a wacky story?
There is an epiphany lurking in there.
Ok. Here's your chance to demonstrate single called life changed step by step over time to become humans.
I think that's what Able is looking for. And guess what else? If you answer, you will be staying on topic.
Please try to stay on topic. This thread has nothing to do with the Roman Empire. Sheesh! People and their ADD!Audie wrote:Why not ask for a complete history of the Roman Empire while you are at it?RickD wrote:Demonstrably changed step by step?Audie wrote:The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.Philip wrote:Interesting, the different reactions to the Genesis text. Those who don't believe the Genesis Creation accounts are true, like Audie, and even Neo - a Christian - can see the text doesn't allow for evolution. And those that believe it does must force un-natural meanings or read into it things the text does not say - or that it clearly contradicts.
So, if the evolution of man from animals occurred, why did God give some crazy, stork-like story as opposed to the simple truth? And how could Genesis 3:20 be true? "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." And if God gave us some wild symbolic story about the foundational story of the Bible, how many other miraculous parts of Scripture are simply symbolic. And how do we know which are which, upon the precipice of that treacherously slippery slope?
Why indeed, would a god give such a wacky story?
There is an epiphany lurking in there.
Ok. Here's your chance to demonstrate single called life changed step by step over time to become humans.
I think that's what Able is looking for. And guess what else? If you answer, you will be staying on topic.
Law of averages would point to one being right then.Audie wrote:Cute is trying to turn it back on me, cute is substituting "awesome complexity" for a wacky story about the one behaviour ofPhilip wrote:Audie, please don't be so naive. What YOU apparently believe the alternative likely is would be FAR more "wacky": Nothing produced awesome design and complexity - not THAT is wacky. But if something else produced it, or rather SOMEONE, then you think it's wacky. But what is more reasonable? And, YES, I do believe the world and universe are VERY old. But if you knew more about how words are used in the Bible, you would know that this text well supports that. Cute comment, no cigar!The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.
Why indeed, would a god give such a wacky story?
There is an epiphany lurking in there.
one of countless purported gods, cute is bringing in a whole new comparison of different topics.
As for who is the naif, you "know how words are used in the bible"? Give me a flippin' break. 38,000 sects of
Christianity, and then all say they got it right.
Good point Annette. Even if Audie's 38,000 sects is accurate, I bet all 38,000 believe God exists.Storyteller wrote:Law of averages would point to one being right then.Audie wrote:Cute is trying to turn it back on me, cute is substituting "awesome complexity" for a wacky story about the one behaviour ofPhilip wrote:Audie, please don't be so naive. What YOU apparently believe the alternative likely is would be FAR more "wacky": Nothing produced awesome design and complexity - not THAT is wacky. But if something else produced it, or rather SOMEONE, then you think it's wacky. But what is more reasonable? And, YES, I do believe the world and universe are VERY old. But if you knew more about how words are used in the Bible, you would know that this text well supports that. Cute comment, no cigar!The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.
Why indeed, would a god give such a wacky story?
There is an epiphany lurking in there.
one of countless purported gods, cute is bringing in a whole new comparison of different topics.
As for who is the naif, you "know how words are used in the bible"? Give me a flippin' break. 38,000 sects of
Christianity, and then all say they got it right.
God exists.
So you are familiar with scholarly approaches and methodologies to Bible interpretation, from people who have made careers of studying it as academics?!!! And I AM giving you a break. You insinuate that anything and everything asserted could match up with Scripture, which is untrue. Else why would you insinuate the Bible necessitates and teaches belief in a mere thousands of years old earth? I'll say it again, WACKY is all you've got for your version of whatever possibilities they could have occurred without a God. As for those 38,000 Christian groups, how many don't have Genesis in their Bibles and also don't think it is the word of God? A very short list will do just fine.Audie: As for who is the naif, you "know how words are used in the bible"? Give me a flippin' break.
RickD wrote:Good point Annette. Even if Audie's 38,000 sects is accurate, I bet all 38,000 believe God exists.Storyteller wrote:Law of averages would point to one being right then.Audie wrote:Cute is trying to turn it back on me, cute is substituting "awesome complexity" for a wacky story about the one behaviour ofPhilip wrote:Audie, please don't be so naive. What YOU apparently believe the alternative likely is would be FAR more "wacky": Nothing produced awesome design and complexity - not THAT is wacky. But if something else produced it, or rather SOMEONE, then you think it's wacky. But what is more reasonable? And, YES, I do believe the world and universe are VERY old. But if you knew more about how words are used in the Bible, you would know that this text well supports that. Cute comment, no cigar!The world is demonstrably very old, and the living things demonstrably have changed, step by step, over that time.
Why indeed, would a god give such a wacky story?
There is an epiphany lurking in there.
one of countless purported gods, cute is bringing in a whole new comparison of different topics.
As for who is the naif, you "know how words are used in the bible"? Give me a flippin' break. 38,000 sects of
Christianity, and then all say they got it right.
God exists.
I'd say you know the book (sic.) of the Bible better than ALL chrustians.Audie wrote:Stay on topic already. The comment is on who is understtandin' what all that bible talk means.
I bet I know that book better than most chrustians
And most of the christianists.Kurieuo wrote:I'd say you know the book (sic.) of the Bible better than ALL chrustians.Audie wrote:Stay on topic already. The comment is on who is understtandin' what all that bible talk means.
I bet I know that book better than most chrustians