Theist logic

Originally posted by The Chess Express
You claim that I don’t know evolution and you say "animals come in entirely, EVOLVED forms" 😀😵😲🙄

There is no such thing as an entirely evolved form to an evolutionist! Everything is constantly evolving! Eeesh...get your science straight and come back in a few years...

Half a wing is fine when everything else out there also only has half a wing. Half a wing can be used for gliding, which could be extremely beneficial for a tree living organism when it's got to get away from predators.

Evolution is an arms race. Predators evolve which increases the pressure on the prey. This forces only the best to survive and reproduce. Bad genes die out, good ones survive. Even you cannot deny the logic of this.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
It’s also a matter of interpretation. Genesis 2 doesn’t specify any order, it just says what God did. Genesis 1 specifies the order of events by numbering the days of creation. One can also look at Genesis 2 as being a quick recap of Genesis 1, but also to include Adam & Eve.

Um. It DOES specify (in verse 5) that before there was field shrub or grass that God
created man (verse 7).

Unless you want to interpret 'before' as 'after,' you're totally out of luck on this one.

These two creation stories (from two different traditions) have a blatent contradiction.

Sorry, bud.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Um. It DOES specify (in verse 5) that before there was field shrub or grass that God
created man (verse 7).

Unless you want to interpret 'before' as 'after,' you're totally out of luck on this one.

These two creation stories (from two different traditions) have a blatent contradiction.

Sorry, bud.

Nemesio

Gen 2:4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

In regards to when vegetation and humans were created, these verses say that vegetation was created before men, but that vegetation was not growing on the earth because of a lack of rain.

Science has shown (I believe) that even seeds that are thousands of years old can bloom.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hey, I was told to look at scripture. So I did. And it turned out to be full of factual falsehoods (just to make it easy, let's call them lies). You say 'my interpretation could be wrong'. The difference between creationist's assertions and scientist's opinions, is that scientist's opinions are based on multiple lines of physical evidence. It i n. The worst evolutionary adaption that man ever got was the ability to bend at the knees.

Hey, I was told to look at scripture. So I did.

Good!

And it turned out to be full of factual falsehoods (just to make it easy, let's call them lies).You say 'my interpretation could be wrong'.

Do you say that it is impossible for your interpretation to be wrong? I agree that the scripture can say different things to different people. That is why there are so many different kinds of Christianity.

Scientists for example interpret the “evidence” in different ways all the time, so in this regard there is not much difference between science and religion. The scripture is a mystery as science is. The more we find out about the two, the more we know.

The difference between creationist's assertions and scientist's opinions, is that scientist's opinions are based on multiple lines of physical evidence. It is the agreement between multiple independant sources that gives strength to science, and it is the lack of consistancy and its reliance on smoke and mirrors that detracts credibility from creationism.

I realize that this is what some of the more close minded scientists think, but it is actually far from the truth. The goal of any religion is to find God. When God reveals himself to a soul, then that is the best evidence one can ever have. Why is it so difficult to believe that there are saints in this world who have experienced God for themselves and know more than we do?

What about the other site? Saw one creationist site, seen them all. The lies and "evidence" are the same, just the crooked words and the crooked people who bandy them about change.

You’re entitled to your opinion whatever it may be, but there are two sides to everything. It’s good to at least keep an open mind.

CE, you seem a sensible bloke in so many ways. It pains me to see a smart guy reduced to bowing and scraping not to a god, but to the people who lie to you and then tell you to trust them. Pick yourself up, raise your eyes, don't feel so compelled to be ashamed to be yourself. Be proud. Question everything. Cast off the shackles of religion. The worst evolutionary adaptation that man ever got was the ability to bend at the knees.

LOL…I bow to God Scott, not to any creationist! I’m trying to find the truth as you are. I have said it before and I’ll say it again, it's my firm belief that science and religion will one day converge and support each other. I don’t accept either position 100%. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Both scientists and creationists agree (the ones that are not close minded that is) that we have a lot to learn.

My point is that the question is still open, this is why most of the things that science tells us are called theories. To totally accept one side and totally reject the other leaves out half the equation.

Half a wing is fine when everything else out there also only has half a wing. Half a wing can be used for gliding, which could be extremely beneficial for a tree living organism when it's got to get away from predators.

Evolution is an arms race. Predators evolve which increases the pressure on the prey. This forces only the best to survive and reproduce. Bad genes die out, good ones survive. Even you cannot deny the logic of this.

I don’t necessarily accept that “evolving” creatures would have to be crippled.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're in error yet again. Everything isn't necessarily evolving; most species die out entirely. And an evolved form is just that; one that has evolved from other forms. Is there anything you can get right?

And when you're quoting, don't cut off half the sentence - it's dishonest.

"animals come in entire, evolved forms not with "half-leg, half-wings".

You're in error yet again. Everything isn't necessarily evolving; most species die out entirely. And an evolved form is just that; one that has evolved from other forms. Is there anything you can get right?

You can’t even get the facts right. Just because a species goes extinct does not mean that it wasn’t constantly evolving when it was around.

And when you're quoting, don't cut off half the sentence - it's dishonest.

"animals come in entire, evolved forms not with "half-leg, half-wings".

It makes no difference marauder. Animals do have half legs and half wings. Take penguins and ostriches for example.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
It makes no difference marauder. Animals do have half legs and half wings. Take penguins and ostriches for example.

You know, it can be frustrating to argue with you, because the
examples you cite sometimes make no sense.

Penguins and ostriches do not have 'half wings' (or legs). They are
fully developed appendages which are physiologically analogous to
fore-limbs in mammals.

If you wanted to talk about 'half legs' the closest you might come
is the vesitigial hip bones in whales, which are easily explained by
evolution.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Um. It DOES specify (in verse 5) that before there was field shrub or grass that God
created man (verse 7).

Unless you want to interpret 'before' as 'after,' you're totally out of luck on this one.

These two creation stories (from two different traditions) have a blatent contradiction.

Sorry, bud.

Nemesio

The only verse from Genesis that I agree with is that they can't dance...

Edit - Sorry, that's the chorus.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You know, it can be frustrating to argue with you, because the
examples you cite sometimes make no sense.

Penguins and ostriches do not have 'half wings' (or legs). They are
fully developed appendages which are physiologically analogous to
fore-limbs in mammals.

If you wanted to talk about 'half legs' the closest you might come
is the vesitigial hip bones in whales, which are easily explained by
evolution.

Nemesio

You know, it can be frustrating to argue with you, because the
examples you cite sometimes make no sense.

The feeling is mutual.

Penguins and ostriches do not have 'half wings' (or legs). They are
fully developed appendages which are physiologically analogous to
fore-limbs in mammals.

Penguins use there wings for swimming (an evolutionary adaptation according to the evolutionist) and an ostrich’s wings are useless, and are either coming or going.

If you wanted to talk about 'half legs' the closest you might come
is the vesitigial hip bones in whales, which are easily explained by
evolution.

Off the top of my head I can think of some snakes that have the “remnants” of legs. Do some research. Take a trip to the Galapagos islands. Email an evolutionist. I’m sure he’ll give you plenty of examples.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]You know, it can be frustrating to argue with you, because the
examples you cite sometimes make no sense.

The feeling is mutual.

Penguins and ostriches do not have 'half wings' (or legs). They are
fully developed appendages which are physiologically analogous to
fore-limbs in mammals.

Penguins use there wings for swimming ...[text shortened]... to the Galapagos islands. Email an evolutionist. I’m sure he’ll give you plenty of examples.[/b]

So basically you are now agreeing with the evolutionists that things are in a constant state of flux, and that intermediate forms do exist. Also, the technical term for things that used to have an evolutionary benefit in a predecessor of a modern species, but no longer confer that advantage (for example Ostrich wings (although they are used to some extent like aerofoils by the ostrich)), is 'redundancy'.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Gen 2:4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ...[text shortened]... in.

Science has shown (I believe) that even seeds that are thousands of years old can bloom.

You know, I am breathless here.

Before Man
1:11-12 -- Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every
kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on the
earth that bears fruit with its seed in it.' And so it happened: the
earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every
kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God
saw how good it was. (day 3)

Verses 20-23 indicates that birds and fish appear (on day 5)

Verse 24 indicates that animals appear and then man (on day 6).

Genesis 2:4b-7 -- At the time when the Lord God made the earth
and the heavens -- while as yet there was no field shrub on earth
and no grass of the field had sprouted...the Lord God formed man
out of the clay of the ground...

Genesis 2:18 -- The Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be
alone. I will make a suitable partner for him. So the Lord God formed
out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air...

Review:

Genesis 1 -- Vegetation brought forth from the earth, then birds
and fish, then animals and man. Clearly delineated.

Genesis 2 -- No vegetation on the earth. Man created from clay.
Eden planted. Man lonely, animals made. Vegetation on the rest of
the earth left unspoken for.

Contradiction (if you read take these stories as history, rather than
metaphor, as I do).

Nemesio

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]You know, it can be frustrating to argue with you, because the
examples you cite sometimes make no sense.

The feeling is mutual.

Penguins and ostriches do not have 'half wings' (or legs). They are
fully developed appendages which are physiologically analogous to
fore-limbs in mammals.

Penguins use there wings for swimming ...[text shortened]... to the Galapagos islands. Email an evolutionist. I’m sure he’ll give you plenty of examples.[/b]

Find me an evolutionist that says penguins have 'half wings.' Or
ostriches. That their wings serve a different function, or none at all
does not mean that they are not physiologically whole (because,
a glance at their skeleton indicates that they are).

I tried to point you in the direction of 'half things' so you could try
to discuss evolution with Marauder. Your examples were ludicrous.

All of the vestigial things -- hip bones in whales, leg bones in
snakes -- are a product of selection, a clearly-defined evolutionary
process.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Review:

Genesis 1 -- Vegetation brought forth from the earth, then birds
and fish, then animals and man. Clearly delineated.

Genesis 2 -- No vegetation on the earth. Man created from clay.
Eden planted. Man lonely, animals made. Vegetation on the rest of
the earth left unspoken for.

Contradiction (if you read take these stories as history, rather than
metaphor, as I do).

Nemesio[/b]

Such limited thinking by you all. This is God we're dealing with, people. Does anybody here know the exact sequence that things happend?
Here is one possibility:
God created Earth, barren and lifeless
God created man's soul (who we truly are)
God created plants and animals
God created man's body and put man on Earth

Would that not satisfy both Gen 1 and Gen 2?
Why do I suggest this?
Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 2:8 And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

In 2:8 we see God PUTTING man in the garden. Putting involves a change of location. Where was man after creation and before being put in the garden? Don't know. Perhaps he existed only as a soul (as we die after our body dies).

We make many assumptionis when reading Genesis, I just made a few different assumptions.

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
Such limited thinking by you all. This is God we're dealing with, people. Does anybody here know the exact sequence that things happend?
Here is one possibility:
God created Earth, barren and lifeless
God created man's soul (who we truly are)
God created plants and animals
God created man's body and put man on Earth

Would that not satisfy both ...[text shortened]... make many assumptionis when reading Genesis, I just made a few different assumptions.

DF

Here's another suggestion.

Planet formed (4.5 BYA)
Life evolves.
Man evolves (1 million years ago).
Man gets lonely.
Man creates god.


Disprove me. No quote from the bible is gonna do that.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Here's another suggestion.

Planet formed (4.5 BYA)
Life evolves.
Man evolves (1 million years ago).
Man gets lonely.
Man creates god.


Disprove me. No quote from the bible is gonna do that.

What's that got to do with the Bible being accurate or not?
The topic was the apparent conflict between Gen1 and Gen2.
Stick with the sub-thread, man.

DF