Evolution vs Creation

[kt_mom]

With that line of thinking, it sounds as if you believe science is an evil force and against God. Can you not believe that God empowered us with knowledge to learn how the Earth progressed and how we came about in this world?

I guess it's a matter of deciding whether to view knowledge as a good thing or a bad thing. Those that want to control you (other humans) would have you believe that knowledge in the form of science is bad. I happen to think that the knowledge (and that includes all that is proven through science) is a beautiful gift.

No, I do not believe that science is an evil force or against God at all. I believe that God has empowered scientists to do all kinds of things such as come up with cures for diseases. I also believe that sometimes God just heals people in a way that even science can't explain.

But like I said, if science shows this world to be older than I believe then God created it that way.

Knowledge is a wonderful thing. I guess it jsut depends on who's knowledge you chose to believe. Becasue I think that's really what it boils down to, what you chose to believe. I chose to put my faith and trust in an all powerful loving God.

 

[kt_mom]

I would hardly think my God would choose King James to lead anything. He did more to corrupt the church than help it.

You know, that's the funny thing about believing in an all powerful God. He can do anything He wants to. I don't understand all that He has done, or why He has used certain people or certain events for things, but He does. Maybe our earthly minds aren't made to understand all of it. Maybe that's why the Bible teaches us to have faith in Him. I chose to believe by faith. And in the end if it all comes down to just plain old evolution and then we die, then I haven't lost anything. But I don't think it will come down to that. I think that I will faace my creator one day. And I know that He has held my hand through things that I could never have gotten through alone. I know that He works in my life and in the lives of those around me. And I would much rather believe in that.

I'm not trying to convert anyone or trash anyone else's belief. Just share from my point of view what I see and why I see it that way.

 

[Sir Ron]

You know, that's the funny thing about believing in an all powerful God. He can do anything He wants to. I don't understand all that He has done, or why He has used certain people or certain events for things, but He does. Maybe our earthly minds aren't made to understand all of it. Maybe that's why the Bible teaches us to have faith in Him. I chose to believe by faith. And in the end if it all comes down to just plain old evolution and then we die, then I haven't lost anything. But I don't think it will come down to that. I think that I will faace my creator one day. And I know that He has held my hand through things that I could never have gotten through alone. I know that He works in my life and in the lives of those around me. And I would much rather believe in that.

I'm not trying to convert anyone or trash anyone else's belief. Just share from my point of view what I see and why I see it that way.

But do you even understand that religious leaders have commented on the way King James changed things in the bible from the original translation???? This has nothing to do with "faith". I have faith in God. I do not have blind faith in King James. The NIV is a much more accurate version of the Bible.

 

[JennyMominRI]

SO I'm guessing some of you are not fans of my new favorite sitcom the Big Bang Theory?

 

[Spidey7]

No, Science doesn't teach that at all. It shows that matter can be both created and destroyed.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack science. But if you are going to do so, don't misstate facts.

Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. The most cutting edge debates in science on this theory, with Stephen Hawking and other famous scientists on this issue, they are in agreement that matter cannot be "destroyed" it can only take some other type of form or state. When a building is destroyed, the particles that made up the bricks, morter, walls etc., is not "destroyed" it is just transformed from one state to another. The matter is just transformed, it isn't destroyed.

Evolution doesn't even comport with the basic laws of thermodynamics which is you can't get energy out of something without putting energy into it.

I'm not attacking science, I'm attacking the pure evolution big bang theory to explain the absence of a creation.

That's not to say that evolution "big bang" and all that doesn't happen, its still happening today. Creatures evolve with time, but they don't fundamentally change from one species to another. Stars explode, "big bang" that matter is transformed, there are black holes etc., but that doesn't prove that there is no God. To me it only enforces the fact that there is something else that possibly creates/manipulates what we know to be in our reality of existence.

 

[kt_mom]

But do you even understand that religious leaders have commented on the way King James changed things in the bible from the original translation???? This has nothing to do with "faith". I have faith in God. I do not have blind faith in King James. The NIV is a much more accurate version of the Bible.

I'm not sure I remember saying the the KJV was the Bible that I read. I just said that God is capable of making sure that His words are passed on the way He wants them to be. Many Christians use severl different texts when studying the Bible. And many Christians use the NIV Bible, as do I.

 

[JennyMominRI]

I'm not sure I remember saying the the KJV was the Bible that I read. I just said that God is capable of making sure that His words are passed on the way He wants them to be. Many Christians use severl different texts when studying the Bible. And many Christians use the NIV Bible, as do I.

Then why do so many bibles say different things?...Why does the Jewish Bible (tanakh) have some major differences from versions of the OT?

 

[Spidey7]

More or less laughable than working out where your God came from?

ford family

I'm not saying I have worked out "where God came from," just that to me it makes more sense that there is something (a God) more powerful than us that we can't comprehend that is behind our existence and reality that creates and manipulates, rather than it just poof, big banged one day.

I don't have all the answers, I just believe there is a God, it is something I believe not something I can prove. I have to take an extra leap of faith in what I believe, which is a better proposition to me than we just all appeared here one day from "evolution." All of those theories don't explain any of this too me (the fundamental question of where did this all come from.)

But I'm not trying to convince you, you can believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[Sir Ron]

I'm not sure I remember saying the the KJV was the Bible that I read. I just said that God is capable of making sure that His words are passed on the way He wants them to be. Many Christians use severl different texts when studying the Bible. And many Christians use the NIV Bible, as do I.

Well, you quoted me when I was specfically referring to King James. Then you quoted me again and said you had faith in the humans who wrote it when I again mentioned King James. So I think it's understandable to make my assumption. My apologies.

 

[salmoneous]

Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. The most cutting edge debates in science on this theory, with Stephen Hawking and other famous scientists on this issue, they are in agreement that matter cannot be "destroyed" it can only take some other type of form or state.

I guess it depends uponw what you mean by "destroyed". Matter can be turned into energy - which is not matter. And energy can be transformed into matter. To, me if you take matter and do something to it so that it is no longer matter, that counts as being destoryed. And if you take something that isn't matter and turn it into matter, that is matter being created. When a building is destroyed, the particles that made up the bricks, morter, walls etc., is not "destroyed" it is just transformed from one state to another. The matter is just transformed, it isn't destroyed. If you disagree about what it means to be destroyed, then we have a minor semantic disagreement.

But to get back to your main arguement - that the big bang couldn't have happened because matter can't be created or destoryed, that's simply misunderstanding of the science. Sciece does say that all the matter we have today could have been created out of the big bang.

Evolution doesn't even comport with the basic laws of thermodynamics which is you can't get energy out of something without putting energy into it.

Huh? That doesn't conflict with evolution at all.

I'm attacking the pure evolution big bang theory to explain the absence of a creation.

There is no "pure evolution big bang theory." You are attacking something that doesn't exist.

but that doesn't prove that there is no God.

Evolution doesn't prove there is no God. It doesn't calim to.

 

[salmoneous]

I'm not saying I have worked out "where God came from," just that to me it makes more sense that there is something (a God) more powerful than us that we can't comprehend that is behind our existence and reality that creates and manipulates, rather than it just poof, big banged one day.

You are contrasting two things that aren't in opposition. The Big Bang theory doesn't say there isn't something more powerful than us behind existence.

 

[kt_mom]

Well, you quoted me when I was specfically referring to King James. Then you quoted me again and said you had faith in the humans who wrote it when I again mentioned King James. So I think it's understandable to make my assumption. My apologies.

I apologize if it came across that way. When I origonally quoted you I was refering more to the part about the Bible being written by humans. Although I think that if God used the KJV to reach people then He meant to. Again, I don't know why.

I have not read or studied much on King James. I know that the KJV of the Bible is much harder to understand sometimes.

Jenny I have not studied the Jewish Bible so I don't know. I honestly don't know much about it at all.

 

[yearbook50]

SO I'm guessing some of you are not fans of my new favorite sitcom the Big Bang Theory?

I love that show too. It reminds me of so many people I have met in school.

 

[toto2]

I'm not sure I remember saying the the KJV was the Bible that I read. I just said that God is capable of making sure that His words are passed on the way He wants them to be. Many Christians use severl different texts when studying the Bible. And many Christians use the NIV Bible, as do I.

The study of language has shown that some words we thought meant someting , with further studies meant something else. That is the thing with knowing more , we understand more !

Here is an exemple:

"qadesh means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple . This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. it is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "*****" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.
bullet to'ebah means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew eating with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment would be "to'ebah." "


and :

" National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: The NGPA has analyzed the verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. 4 In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement."

So Translations of the same text come with different results. Is on Bible more "Bibely" than an other. If ther Bible is the exact word of God , and it's translation divinly inspired , who is more inspired ?

 

[JennyMominRI]

I apologize if it came across that way. When I origonally quoted you I was refering more to the part about the Bible being written by humans. Although I think that if God used the KJV to reach people then He meant to. Again, I don't know why.

I have not read or studied much on King James. I know that the KJV of the Bible is much harder to understand sometimes.

Jenny I have not studied the Jewish Bible so I don't know. I honestly don't know much about it at all.

No Problem

Just to be clear, I have absolute faith in G-d and I have certainly been tested in my life, many times....This does not mean that I cannot also believe in evolution...Evolution only explains what happens after the earth got here,not how it got here..
I was reading an Anne rice book once and she talked about the big bang being the moment when the cells of g-d began to divide.... That stuck with me for some reason

 

[JennyMominRI]

The study of language has shown that some words we thought meant someting , with further studies meant something else. That is the thing with knowing more , we understand more !

Here is an exemple:

"qadesh means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple . This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. it is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "*****" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.
bullet to'ebah means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew eating with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment would be "to'ebah." "


and :

" National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: The NGPA has analyzed the verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. 4 In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement."

So Translations of the same text come with different results. Is on Bible more "Bibely" than an other. If ther Bible is the exact word of God , and it's translation divinly inspired , who is more inspired ?

This is true..Shellfish is an abomination and is mixed fiber clothing..
The problem is that *abomintion* is not really a good translation of the Hebrew and there really is no good english equivalent

 

[Art Vandalay]

I don't *trust* creationists or evolutionists. I observe the facts and draw my own conclusions. Creationism requires a leap of faith at some point. That's fine and there's nothing wrong with that.

But evolution does not. It requires attention to facts. Note that I'm not arguing that evolution explains everything that's ever happened. Clearly it doesn't. But given what we know at this point, it is the most logical explanation. Evolution does not set the conclusion and find facts to support it. What we have learned has taken us to this conclusion.

Is there a possibility the conclusion is flawed? Of course. History is filled with examples of things we thought we knew, but were wrong about. However, the raw evidence is fairly compelling. Scientifically, it is the conclusion to which the facts point, not the facts drawn to support the conclusion.

 

[dcentity2000]

Is it so strange to think that God, in all His glory, could so comprehensively create a reality so intricate and perfect that it runs and evolves without any direct intervention?



Rich::

 

[Christine]

Is it so strange to think that God, in all His glory, could so comprehensively create a reality so intricate and perfect that it runs and evolves without any direct intervention?



Rich::

Thank you for saying this.

 

[Art Vandalay]

Is it so strange to think that God, in all His glory, could so comprehensively create a reality so intricate and perfect that it runs and evolves without any direct intervention?



Rich::

Nope, I don't think it's difficult to imagine at all