Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire One theologist's view on evolution.

Those searching for truth will eventually find Truth, the Truth. That is, if they don't have a God scotoma or blind spot, emotionally excluding any truth pointing toward God.

One example is the statement of Dr. Francis Crick, who along with partner, Dr. James D. Watson, were the first to describe the DNA double helix molecule in 1953. Crick, as an old man, came to the conclusion that there had to have been "original information". He postulated some scenario about a space ship landing with an information capsule. Now, to me, it takes a lot more "faith" to believe such rubbish than to believe the Scripture when it declares, "In the beginning was the Word". That sounds like "original information" to me...

DF

Not supposed to make assumptions.



To me this sounds like an assumption.

Good post

Prove there is/was God... and, no...don't quote scripture. That isn't proof, just belief.

That is an outright falsehood, and you have no basis but your dogma to state that. Many stones have particles within them from vastly different periods.

Your VooDoo science is all dogma and no real science at all.

The importance, to humans, of whether or not God exists is not that He did or did not make us, but in that by Him we can have everlasting life. He tells us that to unbelievers there is no God to save them but if you believe, then there is Him to save you. Those who believe there is no Heaven are correct, for themselves. If you believe, there is a Heaven for you. Both views are correct, for them.

eyeball...

A well measured response, for sure.

My big question is Save me from what, and save me for what?

I don't feel like money or a non-perishable food.

I don't know, it was His story.

There are two modes of creation discussed in genesis. As you say, the "from nothing" creation (which theologians call ex nihilo) of the universe, all matter, the physical laws, etc., and then the creation of life forms, which Genesis clearly states is ex materia, i.e., from something already at that time in existence. All life, including man, was created from preexisting matter, and it was accomplished by the waters, under God's direction. "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life..." Unless you're suggesting that Adam wasn't a moving thing, or didn't have life, that includes him. As to specifics, Genesis later describes what Adam was made from as either muck or dust (depending on the translation), referring to matter already in existence. Eve was made from Adam's genetic code as found in cells in one of his ribs, i.e., she was his female identical twin.

I can see how you deduced that Adam and Eve are identical twins from the putative original cloning from Adam's rib material.

Technically, not really identical because at least one sex chromosome was changed.

Your point, however flawed, raises some interesting molecular genetics issues with the Biblical account of the creation of Eve.

No one can prove or disprove God. Either one accepts the scripture or doesn't accept the scripture. Even the Devils believe and they shudder. (Reading the scripture, again). But, they do NOT accept the scripture and they don't act on what it says.

It's a form of arrogance to believe the world revolves around us and unless we understand something, it can't be.

We can't see the wind, but we can sure see what it's doing and where it's been.

DF

What is a theologist??

Evidently, an unconventional theologian...

DF

Exactly...
And how many billions passed before it came to that state of destruction?
How old was the universe before Lucifer rebelled?
How long does it take a star to give birth to elements?
How long did it take the earth to cool?
How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center?
The world may never know...

Yourself...

DF

#'s 1 and 2 are because of poor lab practices....carbon 14 is always being produced if you touch a diamond and dont properly sterilize the surface carbon 14 from your hands shows up in the test....how do you explain the fact that other radiometric dating techniques using isotopes of calcium and such with half lives in the millions of years work out?

largest des4ert(im guessing your saying the Sahara) is only bout 4,000 years old because before the last ice age it wasnt a desert, it was grasslands....change in climate meant the grasslands changed to desert.....oldest desert is dated atleast 55 million years ago....

#4 oldest living organisms are much older than your 4,000 years.....there is a creosote bush in Texas an estimated 12,000 years old....a colony of poplars in California is estimated at 80,000 years old.....

dont understand your last question? modern humans have only been around about 35,000 years and they encountered some sort of bottle neck bout 20,000 years ago that damn near wiped them off the earth.....hominids have been around alot longer but most of these were not human, lot of them were closer to ape than human.....

course none of this says there is no God.....seems only some hard core christians equate an old earth with no god, hell of alot of others have no problem with it.....a second or a million years, its all the same to God, no reason the earth cant be several billion years old and there still be a god....

He said He put certain truths in the Bible to act as stumbling blocks for the unbelievers, the self-ascribed intellectuals, that they would fall into their own devices, and He did.

You'll never have scientific answers to theological questions. No matter how much you find out, there will always be an ultimate WHY.

DF

luv2safari,



We have a few things going on here.

First you say it is a falsehood and then you try to explain it away. You want us who give it some thought to beleive a fifteen pound rock can be broken into four pieces and the four parts of the whole are deposited billions of years apart. And you wnt us to believe this is more scientific than beleiving the one rock was not dated accuratley in the first place.

What's more interesting is no one mentioned the Electron Mass Spectrometer is wrong. I should have noted the rock was dated with theoretical billions of years dating while the maximum dating with carbon 14 dating is thousands of years. All samples of coal, oil and fossils date about the same age; a few thousand years old. Based on the billions of years old theory none of the samples should have any carbon 14 left in them.

This takes us back to the idea of world view. If one starts with the idea that man has most or all the answers he will reject God's Word in whole or in part. If one starts with the idea that the God of the Bible is Inifinate then he has no problem acepting God is able to have His writers write what He wants clearly.

Remember both camps use the same info, that is unless a human artifact or fossil is found in the wrong strata. Then the Evolutionist throws it out while the Creationists displays it.

Intentional obfuscation interjected into the written word of God by God himself to trip up the unbelievers?

Isn't the point of God's infinite love to convert unbelievers into believers so that they can be saved?

Seems counter-productive.

Puzzling.