 |
|
| Religion Forum Index » Jehovah's Witnesses Forum » The Bible And Evolution..compatible?... |
|
Page 3 of 17 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 15, 16, 17 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| The Whistle-blower... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 1:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I SAY NOPE. THE BIBLE IS NO SCIENCE MANUAL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Free Lunch... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:31:15 -0800 (PST), "OBVES at (no spam) aol.com" <OBVES at (no spam) aol.com>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Quote: On Nov 3, 1:12?pm, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com
----
Note that now when we are closing in our endtime era on second coming
of Jesus many hidden truths of the Bible come into view - Daniel 12.4.
Send to Watchtower this one reference of paramount importance to see
that evolution can be compatible with the Bible.
Job 36.27-28.
The same natural pheonomena can be explained both ways . To those who
don't know who is God it is the law of nature but in actuality
according to the Bible it is God's work through the laws of nature .So
if the theory of evolution is accurate we must see God working behind
it and it is based on the Bible.
JW's are so silly that other Christians laugh at them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Free Lunch... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:35:07 -0800 (PST), The Whistle-blower
<Codebreaker at (no spam) bigsecret.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Something so obvious that everyone who is still capable of thinking
realizes. Those who do not do that, have only themselves to blame. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Darwin123... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 7:41 pm, "Ips-Switch" <Ips-Swi... at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote:
Quote: "IlBeBa... at (no spam) gmail.com" <ilbeba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:afc16044-6f6a-4d5c-b5d7-237dafcbd745 at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
If youre really interested in your questions particularly a young
earth, the fallacy of Carbon 14 Dating , etc..., Id like to suggest
you visitwww.answersingenesis.org which will sufficiently answer
all of them.
Carbon 14 dating is a nonissue with regards to the ancient
earth. The supposed age of the earth comes from uranium-lead dating of
single garnet crystals in igneous rock. Does AnswersInGenesis Does
discuss this method of dating rock? If it doesn't address this issue,
then what they write on carbon 14 is misleading.
You claim that "macroevolution" requires time on the scale of
millions of years. If so, carbon 14 dating is totally irrelevant to
the issue of "macroevolution." Carbon 14 dating is not useful for time
periods of 100 KY. Therefore, it has absolutely no bearing on the
issue of "macroevolution".
A slab of granite or basalt with garnet crystals can be sufficient
to establish that the earth was made more than a million years ago. No
fossils are needed. The "implausibility" of evolution occurring at a
fast rate is a nonissue.
There are igneous rocks that indicate that they cooled down from
magma more than a million years ago. All that was necessary was a
determination of isotopic ratios with respect to uranium and lead.
Redeposits, layers, and all that other stuff "debunked" by
AnswersInGenesis totally miss the point. The "ancient" earth was not
made up to fit theories of evolution. Rather, the physics of
radioactive decay were used to establish the age of the earth.
If you want to prove that the earth is really less than 6500 years
old, you have to address that point. Try and focus. Just explain how
the uranium-lead isotope ratios, taken from single crystals, can
possibly go wrong. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joseki... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 5:19 pm, Free Lunch <lu... at (no spam) nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Quote: On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:31:15 -0800 (PST), "OB... at (no spam) aol.com" <OB... at (no spam) aol.com
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
On Nov 3, 1:12?pm, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com
----
Note that now when we are closing in our endtime era on second coming
of Jesus many hidden truths of the Bible come into view - Daniel 12.4.
Send to Watchtower this one reference of paramount importance to see
that evolution can be compatible with the Bible.
Job 36.27-28.
The same natural pheonomena can be explained both ways . To those who
don't know who is God it is the law of nature but in actuality
according to the Bible it is God's work through the laws of nature .So
if the theory of evolution is accurate we must see God working behind
it and it is based on the Bible.
JW's are so silly that other Christians laugh at them.
And which Christians are those? The one that kill themselves in war?
or Kill Muslims in wars, or..... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ips-Switch... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch at (no spam) nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:k26bf5dg5e3kuipei54l8ahbjque52ett9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Quote: On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:05:11 -0600, "Ips-Switch"
Ips-Switch at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Darwin123" <drosen0000 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e81d78ed-b736-447c-a7bd-805469a41434 at (no spam) w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 7:41 pm, "Ips-Switch" <Ips-Swi... at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote:
"IlBeBa... at (no spam) gmail.com" <ilbeba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:afc16044-6f6a-4d5c-b5d7-237dafcbd745 at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
intelligent personal Creator (which even Dawkins admitted to there
being) ....thereby delaying moral accountability ,
??????????????????????????????????????????
I didn't post that! You're misquoting me. ;-)
let me quote your entire post (if you don't want to have people confuse
your statements with Dave's lies (as I did) please give us a better idea
who wrote what):
The below is what I wrote:
Quote: On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:41:05 -0600, "Ips-Switch"
Ips-Switch at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
+ How about a scientific site instead of a supernatural magical religious
site? There are no scientific answers there.
+ Even if they were... what makes you think any of the 10,000 known gods
were behind it?
+ Moral accountability has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in a
magical god.
+ There is no scientific evidence of any of the gods and goddesses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ips-Switch... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<OBVES at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
news:acda81c0-bedb-42a6-9eae-467645fbdbbd at (no spam) j19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 1:12�pm, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com>
-----------
These are the things anyone should bear in mind when thinking about
God and evolution .
The Bible is the only authoritative source of Truth inspired by God
and it reflects the infinite mind of God.
+ Talking animals. Pregnant virgins. Sticks that turn into snakes.....
that's the mind of a god?
With this in mind we must be aware that we may not uderstand the Bible
very well as it may be or should be the most complex book of all the
books .
+ Admitting you never read the bible, how can you comment on it complexity?
There's nothing complex about it. Go to page 1 and start reading.
This explains why we have so many christian denominations.
What if the evolution is real and yet we can say that God creates all
things ?
It is crystal clear from the Bible ( the Book of Job ) that God
creates clouds and raindrops and how we see this is happening ?
Scientists can explain that sacientifically and yet it is God that
creates raindrops .
+ That's absurd.
The answer to your question is simple . God works through the
evolution and if it took place it is compatible with God and the Bible. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Free Lunch... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 23:11:13 -0600, "Ips-Switch"
<Ips-Switch at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Quote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch at (no spam) nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:k26bf5dg5e3kuipei54l8ahbjque52ett9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:05:11 -0600, "Ips-Switch"
Ips-Switch at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
"Darwin123" <drosen0000 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e81d78ed-b736-447c-a7bd-805469a41434 at (no spam) w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 7:41 pm, "Ips-Switch" <Ips-Swi... at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote:
"IlBeBa... at (no spam) gmail.com" <ilbeba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:afc16044-6f6a-4d5c-b5d7-237dafcbd745 at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
intelligent personal Creator (which even Dawkins admitted to there
being) ....thereby delaying moral accountability ,
??????????????????????????????????????????
I didn't post that! You're misquoting me. ;-)
let me quote your entire post (if you don't want to have people confuse
your statements with Dave's lies (as I did) please give us a better idea
who wrote what):
The below is what I wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:41:05 -0600, "Ips-Switch"
Ips-Switch at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
+ How about a scientific site instead of a supernatural magical religious
site? There are no scientific answers there.
+ Even if they were... what makes you think any of the 10,000 known gods
were behind it?
+ Moral accountability has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in a
magical god.
+ There is no scientific evidence of any of the gods and goddesses.
I caught that after I had posted. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jimbo... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 6:36 pm, "IlBeBa... at (no spam) gmail.com" <ilbeba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Nov 3, 12:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
Depends what TYPE of evolution you are talking about ; if its
Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
celled Pond Protozoa
Darwin never stated such.
Quote: and thru ions of time, chances, and
accidents...
Darwin never said this either. What he did say was the "survival of
the fittest", in the context of survival of the most adaptable.
Meaning that in relation to being able to survive in changing
environments, becoming more efficient food, resource gatherers, and
other such factors, animals adapt. Over time a series of small
adaptations can result in different species. It has nothing to do
with chances, or accidents.
worked its way up to a 206 bone human being having over 60
Quote: major anatomical systems all working collaboratively and balancing
each other .... then absolutely not. God said how he created man,
Yes, he waved his magic twanger and poof! There we were. Yeah, that
makes so much more sense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Darwin123... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 4:56 am, Jimbo <ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Nov 3, 6:36 pm, "IlBeBa... at (no spam) gmail.com" <ilbeba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
Depends what TYPE of evolution you are talking about ; if its
Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
celled Pond Protozoa
Darwin never stated such.
However, this model is consistent with the biological theory of
evolution. Darwin did say something in "Origins of the Species" about
how maybe life started in a pond full of ammoniac compounds. He
specifically said that he didn't know how life started, and that the
ultimate origin of life was not germaine to the origin of the species.
The origin of the first "simple form of life" was left to later
generations.
Don't get fooled by the "argument from incredibility" argument.
The statement was thrown as "sand in the eyes." However, it was close
enough to correct. Real biologists think all life is descended from a
first simple ancestor, which consisted of one cell or less. By
attacking statement, you implied that you thought there really was
"more than one type of evolution."
Personally, I would rather have "one celled Pond Protozoa"
as ancestors than a Watch Tower editor | |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joseki... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 4:56 am, Jimbo <ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
God said how he created man,
Quote:
Yes, he waved his magic twanger and poof! There we were. Yeah, that
makes so much more sense.
Magic? Whatever gave you *that* idea? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jimbo... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 9:25 am, Darwin123 <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Nov 9, 4:56 am, Jimbo <ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 3, 6:36 pm, "IlBeBa... at (no spam) gmail.com" <ilbeba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:12 pm, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Many who affirm to be Christians says yes..
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20080101a/article_01.htm
Depends what TYPE of evolution you are talking about ; if its
Darwinnian (Macro) Evolution where first life started out as a one
celled Pond Protozoa
Darwin never stated such.
However, this model is consistent with the biological theory of
evolution. Darwin did say something in "Origins of the Species" about
how maybe life started in a pond full of ammoniac compounds.
He was speculating, and made that clear before he said it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jimbo... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 9:32 am, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Nov 9, 4:56 am, Jimbo <ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
God said how he created man,
Yes, he waved his magic twanger and poof! There we were. Yeah, that
makes so much more sense.
Magic? Whatever gave you *that* idea?
What else would you call it? Magic? Voo-Doo? "Phenonmical Cosmic
Power! Itty-bitty living space...?" Sounds like magic to me,
unless you care to give us an exacting physical/mathematical construct
to explain it..? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ips-Switch... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch at (no spam) nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:jdodf5h8edtfvau109cou04uho6evqpuhs at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Quote: On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 23:11:13 -0600, "Ips-Switch"
Ips-Switch at (no spam) nospam.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
+ How about a scientific site instead of a supernatural magical religious
site? There are no scientific answers there.
+ Even if they were... what makes you think any of the 10,000 known gods
were behind it?
+ Moral accountability has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in a
magical god.
+ There is no scientific evidence of any of the gods and goddesses.
I caught that after I had posted.
:-) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joseki... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 9, 3:36 pm, Jimbo <ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Nov 9, 9:32 am, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 9, 4:56 am, Jimbo <ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
God said how he created man,
Yes, he waved his magic twanger and poof! There we were. Yeah, that
makes so much more sense.
Magic? Whatever gave you *that* idea?
What else would you call it? Magic? Voo-Doo? "Phenonmical Cosmic
Power! Itty-bitty living space...?" Sounds like magic to me,
unless you care to give us an exacting physical/mathematical construct
to explain it..?
Is Abiogenesis...Magic? Nobody has seen it happen, has not been
duplicated in a Lab.
And on the subject, do you think we are the only intelligent species
in this Universe? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:01 am
|
|