Theistic Evolution

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't know ancient Hebrew, and I can't be sure that the translators got it right. It could be dust, it could be muddy soap. Interestingly evolution does not mention either - which suggests you are using a strawman - which suggests you know you are wrong.

Bla bla bla - you're getting a bit far too technical and have only critics to pass rather than your honest opinion. If the Bible says dust, it is dust. Surely even in Hebrew, or even your mother language there is a understanding in the difference between dust and soup.

Then, an honest mistake (a couple i see ) which proves your technicality. For the sake of correctness, please ignore my "soap's" as it was meant to be "soup". Suck on the soup strawman.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The Vedic scriptures like the Upanishads are older

Jip, if they are older they are. Now evolutionist need to show me anything they have recorded older than the Vedic. I dont think there will be any. Even if you take a good look at the Vedic, it is all God.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, you know, I suppose cave paintings are older than the Vedas also (albeit barely), but again, that means nothing also.

You know what, that is a very good point you have here. I need to research more LOL

Originally posted by Nicksten
Jip, if they are older they are. Now evolutionist need to show me anything they have recorded older than the Vedic. I dont think there will be any. Even if you take a good look at the Vedic, it is all God.

I'm not doubting it's not "All God" - thats the only way it makes sense.

I just dont see why you cant reconcile a creationists view of the universe which fits in with the general truth of evolution , rather than limit yourself to 6000years and go against the available evidence.
I mean why the big deal? This is the way God created the world/universe - move on.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, you know, I suppose cave paintings are older than the Vedas also (albeit barely), but again, that means nothing also.

Some "cave paintings" are way older than the Upanishads.
I believe the ones at Ayers Rock are. Certainly claimed to be older than YEC claims.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I believe that humans and animals can not mate.

They can mate, they won't be able to 'breed'. Neanderthals and us though shared 99% of our DNA, we had a relatively recent common ancestor so our genetic lines hadn't diverged that much. As a result we were still able breed.[/b]

Yes sorry I actually meant breed.

Neanderthals and us though shared 99% of our DNA, we had a relatively recent common ancestor so our genetic lines hadn't diverged that much. As a result we were still able breed.
Even if the Neanderthals all died out 30,000 years ago and we were able to breed, why would there be no Neanderthals walking around today. Surely the human race will not get extinct ever and if there was a link between us and the Neanderthals it would have carried on until now.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, you know, I suppose cave paintings are older than the Vedas also (albeit barely), but again, that means nothing also.

Again, it means nothing to you.

Everything in existence has some meaning for me - because it's there and it's real.

Originally posted by Nicksten
Yes sorry I actually meant breed.

[b]Neanderthals and us though shared 99% of our DNA, we had a relatively recent common ancestor so our genetic lines hadn't diverged that much. As a result we were still able breed.
Even if the Neanderthals all died out 30,000 years ago and we were able to breed, why would there be no Neanderthals walking around to ...[text shortened]... ver and if there was a link between us and the Neanderthals it would have carried on until now.[/b]

I believe Proper Knob would tell you that Neanderthals were wiped out by the mightier homosapiens.

Originally posted by Nicksten
Yes sorry I actually meant breed.

[b]Neanderthals and us though shared 99% of our DNA, we had a relatively recent common ancestor so our genetic lines hadn't diverged that much. As a result we were still able breed.
Even if the Neanderthals all died out 30,000 years ago and we were able to breed, why would there be no Neanderthals walking around to ...[text shortened]... ver and if there was a link between us and the Neanderthals it would have carried on until now.[/b]

Not to mention that you believe a Flood wiped out everyone bar 8 people, right?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'm not doubting it's not "All God" - thats the only way it makes sense.

I just dont see why you cant reconcile a creationists view of the universe which fits in with the general truth of evolution , rather than limit yourself to 6000years and go against the available evidence.
I mean why the big deal? This is the way God created the world/universe - move on.

It's just that....which part of evolution do you see fit for a Christian to accept? I said so previously that there is a small but very limited part of evolution that I do believe in, and that is the part where scientists have proven evolution in a lab. Literally.

The "general truth" of evolution denies God. This is a big deal would'nt you say?

I believe the universe and the galaxies could be a billion x billion millenniums old, but ours started 6000 odd years ago. I have good evidence for the 6000 years (Bible) but none for the other.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Not to mention that you believe a Flood wiped out everyone bar 8 people, right?

...for the Bible tells me so 😉

Would it have made a difference ..... cause according to you the flood never happened right? So if the flood didn't happen, my argument stands strong.

Originally posted by Nicksten
...for the Bible tells me so 😉

Would it have made a difference ..... cause according to you the flood never happened right? So if the flood didn't happen, my argument stands strong.

You cant have it both ways. Are you now saying you dont believe the world wide flood of the bible with Noah,etc. ever happened?

Originally posted by Nicksten
It's just that....which part of evolution do you see fit for a Christian to accept? I said so previously that there is a small but very limited part of evolution that I do believe in, and that is the part where scientists have proven evolution in a lab. Literally.

The "general truth" of evolution denies God. This is a big deal would'nt you say?

I beli ...[text shortened]... 6000 odd years ago. I have good evidence for the 6000 years (Bible) but none for the other.

The "general truth" of evolution doesn't have to deny God at all. Only your version of "Him" .

edit: what is your main "good evidence" for the 6000 yr old Earth? fire away

Originally posted by Nicksten
Yes sorry I actually meant breed.

[b]Neanderthals and us though shared 99% of our DNA, we had a relatively recent common ancestor so our genetic lines hadn't diverged that much. As a result we were still able breed.
Even if the Neanderthals all died out 30,000 years ago and we were able to breed, why would there be no Neanderthals walking around to ...[text shortened]... ver and if there was a link between us and the Neanderthals it would have carried on until now.[/b]

No one is completely sure why Neanderthals died out, but i wouldn't be surprised if we had something to do with it. We, as a species, have a huge propensity for violence. They couldn't compete with us for resources, we were too smart for them. I've read a suggestion that it was out ability to share which is what did for the Neanderthals.

Why will the human race not go extinct? Pretty much all life on this planet as gone extinct at some point. Why are we any different?

Originally posted by Nicksten
Surely the created can not witness self creation.

Well, my point is that the story of Genesis covers time before man's existence, and yet the book was written by a man. How did Adam know what happened before he even existed? Did God sit down with him one day and tell him all that stuff? Are we to take Adam's word for what God told him?