 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
 Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| holly102869 wrote: | Genesis chapter 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
So the rock we now call Earth was here. It was dead. Now alive through the Power and Glory of God.
So it is possible that at some point and time life had been here once before. Ofcourse it is.....
Wow, could both sides be right? |
When Gen 1 states the 1st day, the 2nd day, etc... and Exodus 20:11 states that God created everything in 6 days... I can't see how that leaves room for something being created prior. Can you explain how that works out according to scripture?
Thanks.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
holly102869
Show Poodle
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 270
Location: Central, Florida USA
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the Earth was not here why would it say without form or that God hovered over the water.
God created what we see today. Like when you mold clay into a bowl. You had the clay and molded it until it was formed into a bowl.
Remember man made the calender we go by not God. God is the beginning and the end. Only he knows what a day truely is. Or you can say that God is all powerful and can accomplish in one day what we couldn't do in 10 lifetimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| holly102869 wrote: | | If the Earth was not here why would it say without form or that God hovered over the water. |
If 'God hovered over the water'... where was the water Holly? The earth was here. I didn’t write it wasn’t…
| Quote: | | Remember man made the calender we go by not God. |
Wrong again. The verse I cited was part of the 10 Commandments. It outlined the work week that we were supposed to follow... God made this... not us... Created in 6days and rested 1. We are to work 6 days and rest 1. Pretty simple me thinks…
| Quote: | | God is the beginning and the end. Only he knows what a day truely is. Or you can say that God is all powerful and can accomplish in one day what we couldn't do in 10 lifetimes. |
That is all well and good but does nothing to advance your point... Can you provide any scripture lending credence to your assertion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5846
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | ToE does carry into the other fields of science... abiogenesis being one of them... |
Biology as a whole, yes. Abiogenesis is related despite not being a part of the theory of evolution. Something you somehow still don't seem to grasp.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Evolutionists seem to get all bent out of shape when they are told said supposition when it demonstrates the depravity of the theory itself. |
Scientific theories in general are amoral, not moral or immoral (applications of scientific theories can go either way but are a completely different subject). Questions of morals are not touched by science.
What depravity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | ToE does carry into the other fields of science... abiogenesis being one of them... |
Biology as a whole, yes. Abiogenesis is related despite not being a part of the theory of evolution. Something you somehow still don't seem to grasp. |
Um... I grasp it just fine... however, the application of evolution is indeed applied to abiogenesis... that much is certain. Whether or not it is an 'officially' recognized subset of the Theory of Evolution is pretty must a moot point though as we do indeed need life in order for it to evolve.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Evolutionists seem to get all bent out of shape when they are told said supposition when it demonstrates the depravity of the theory itself. |
Scientific theories in general are amoral, not moral or immoral (applications of scientific theories can go either way but are a completely different subject). Questions of morals are not touched by science.
What depravity? |
I’m not referring to the morality of the application FFT… I’m referring to the absence of evidence supporting the general theory and the use of absent evidence to support it. The empirical evidence demonstrating the veracity of the theory simply does not physically… empirically exist. Darwin thought the fossil record would bare this out... he was wrong. Stephen J. Gould admitted as much... so, he creates Punk-eek to cover for the absence of evidence. So, we now spend a lot of time discussing genetics... but even the empirical evidence of that field demonstrates a limitation of mutational changes… thus providing zero support for goo-to-you scenario.
So... the depravity of the theory lies in the use of the absent empirical evidence.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5846
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Um... I grasp it just fine... however, the application of evolution is indeed applied to abiogenesis... that much is certain. Whether or not it is an 'officially' recognized subset of the Theory of Evolution is pretty must a moot point though as we do indeed need life in order for it to evolve. |
And where the life came from is completely irrelevant to what happened to it afterwards.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I’m referring to the absence of evidence supporting the general theory and the use of absent evidence to support it. |
Ah. So you're just making things up or remaining deliberately ignorant to support your position? Wouldn't that be depraved?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | The empirical evidence demonstrating the veracity of the theory simply does not physically… empirically exist. |
The empirical evidence you think is required may not exist, but isn't expected to exist anyway so your opinion here is pretty vacuous.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Darwin thought the fossil record would bare this out... he was wrong. |
Ah yes. Surely he did.
| Darwin wrote: | But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.
[From the chapter referenced:]
These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.], taken conjointly, will to a large extent explain why -- though we do find many links -- we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. It should also be constantly borne in mind that any linking variety between two forms, which might be found, would be ranked, unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored, as a new and distinct species; for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated. |
So yeah. Why do you feel the need to lie about what Darwin said? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Um... I grasp it just fine... however, the application of evolution is indeed applied to abiogenesis... that much is certain. Whether or not it is an 'officially' recognized subset of the Theory of Evolution is pretty must a moot point though as we do indeed need life in order for it to evolve. |
And where the life came from is completely irrelevant to what happened to it afterwards. |
Of course it is... I mean... if we found out the process for how life formed it wouldn't give us any indication how evolution occurs.  The only reason it is now no longer considered part of the general theory is because of the absolute impossibilities associated with it. Tommy Huxley thought it was when he was making his rounds spewing the new gospel… it was only until later, when the impossibilities and difficulties were realized was a division officially made. No one has yet addressed the textbook issue though… if it is indeed seperate… why is it taught as if it is?
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | I’m referring to the absence of evidence supporting the general theory and the use of absent evidence to support it. |
Ah. So you're just making things up or remaining deliberately ignorant to support your position? Wouldn't that be depraved? |
Look... FFT... it isn't me making this assertion... would you like a few quotes? Or are you going to continue with the head in the sand drill and snivel about quote mining or the like?
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | The empirical evidence demonstrating the veracity of the theory simply does not physically… empirically exist. |
The empirical evidence you think is required may not exist, but isn't expected to exist anyway so your opinion here is pretty vacuous. |
OK... what evidence does exist supporting it? Fossils? Genetics? What?
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Darwin thought the fossil record would bare this out... he was wrong. |
Ah yes. Surely he did.
| Darwin wrote: | But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.
[From the chapter referenced:]
These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, |
|
Can't say that now... can he? I don't see how I misrepresented this as we don't find fossils for the lack of looking.
| Quote: | | poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.], |
Not really an issue now as we have fossils of virtually all types of organisms to include soft tissue fossils...
| Quote: | | we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. |
He realized this in 1859 and is true today...
| Quote: | | It should also be constantly borne in mind that any linking variety between two forms, which might be found, would be ranked, unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored, as a new and distinct species; for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated. |
And these 'transitional species' have not been found... but he believes there would be some fossils demonstrating a transition…
| Quote: | | So yeah. Why do you feel the need to lie about what Darwin said? |
Darwin did believe... according to these quotes FFT... that these forms would be found in one shape or another. Don’t try telling me I’m lying about this when the evidence demonstrating otherwise is overwhelming… and sitting right there front of your nose. It only makes you look small. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| holly102869 wrote: | Genesis chapter 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
So the rock we now call Earth was here. It was dead. Now alive through the Power and Glory of God.
|
God made that water just the verse before.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
