Evolution

Because unlike you when commenting in a thread I try to take into consideration the OP of the thread and what they have in mind.

 

I don't believe you. You ask for proof of opinions, of beliefs, of musings and theories, and you tell people that they have stated these things as fact. And I think you do it because if you can prove that evolution isn't 100% fact, and make it look like "evolutionists" believe that it is 100% fact, your own beliefs, which are largely untenable, will look more plausible as a result. Note: I have not made that statement as a fact. But you will act as though I have, and you will want proof of it.

What I am saying is that the things which are used as evidence of evolution are irrefutably real and true and happening. Whether one interprets them as evidence of evolution is one's own choice, and if you choose to believe that they do not support evolution as a theory (support not prove, support not prove, support NOT prove), you can for all I care. However, I do feel that, if you took this evidence seriously enough to make a sensible statement about how they only don't "necessarily" evidence evolution, you should also take the time to see what else they don't evidence. Because as we seem to keep coming back to, the theory of evolution has changed in response to that evidence. If people are interested in understanding how and if evolution happened, rather than in the petty minded defense of a theory regardless of whether it's correct, then evidence which doesn't necessarily evidence an existing theory isn't going to persuade them to abandon it altogether. And again, you seem to regard that as a weakness, which when you get your beliefs from a theory that hasn't been revised for thousands of years, is I guess understandable.

To be blunt, given the things that you've said you believe, I think you could claim that anything was "not necessarily evidence" of just about anything. But it's a moot point: I'm not sure what argument you think I'm even countering. All you seem to say in this thread is that evidence for evolution is not necessarily proof of evolution. So what? Everyone already knows that. Merely stating over and over again that one thing is not another thing is at best pointless and at worst misleading, as it implies that one thing SHOULD BE, or has been claimed to be, the other thing.

I thought complaining about name calling was.

 

And yet a moment ago YOU were accusing ME of ad hominems.

Please I have read the thread and I still have the question after reading what has already been said and so will you please find where it has already been answered and quote it for me. Also thank you for your valuable time.

There was nothing irrelevant about that post in the course of the debate. Although obviously the debate has strayed a little from the OP's original intention, to refer to this as "hijacking" and to attribute it to one individual is misleading and disingenuous. Also, if you feel that strongly about clutter and tangents in threads, might I suggest that you either answer such tangential questions promptly and concisely, or ignore them. Making repeated posts that amount to little more than saying "I am not going to answer this question", "I am still not going to answer this question" and "I already answered this question" is hardly productive.

 

Please note that this says that the Sun was created before the plants and so the plants did not have to go 4000 years without sunlight.

Glad, I could help out.

 

There you go again! Gen. 1 clearly says the sun and moon were created after the earth and vegetation. I've previously quoted the passage and cited four standard Bible translations. There isn't any ambiguity in the language. Are you denying that the Bible says that or saying that it somehow doesn't mean what it says?

 

To be fair, according to what it says in Genesis 1, day and night (light and darkness) existed before the sun and moon and stars.

My big question is: What is the firmament? Is the firmament the entire universe surrounding Earth?

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

Interestingly Gen 1:14 does not use the word "created" as you say. Most of the translations I looked at used the phrase "let there be" which would to allow for the thought of those luminaries already having been created and now with this command from God they are now visible to the Earth.

Interestingly if one of the reasons that these luminaries where not visible on the Earth before this was excess carbon dioxide, then with the creation of the plants on the third day, those plants would have used up a lot of the carbon dioxide and would have contributed to allowing the luminaries to be visible on that fourth day.

 

yes because it is science and i believe science to be the only fact

 

Wow, this is what spirituality is all about huh? Picking apart words and contexts lol.

 

Interestingly, Gen. 1 says that on the third day, God commanded that the earth bring forth vegetation. On the fourth day he said "Let there be lights in the heavens..." Then he "made the two great lights..." and "the stars also" and "placed them in the expanse of heaven..." Note the words "made" and "placed" indicating that they weren't there before. That's from the NAS, the RSV, and the Good News Bible. The KJV uses the term "set" instead of placed, but same difference. Interestingly, your version therefore doesn't hold water.

 

.

 

16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good.

This is from the New World Translation.

 

If that's what you want to believe, don't let me stand in your way.

 

That seems to be your standard refrain when somebody presents evidence to refute your claims. The implication is that it's just their belief, when it's actually black and white and printed in the Bible. Check it out. Obviously you believe what you want to believe, whatever the evidence or argument to the contrary.

 

Like I’ve said before, I’m not here to force my beliefs on anyone and if someone wants to believe that the Bible, in places, makes no sense what so ever; then fine, it’s not my job to twist his arm.

As I’ve already mentioned before in the case of the meaning of the word “day”, sometimes what seems “black and white” ends up meaning something all together different.

This time in the case of the word “make”, even in English it has more meanings than created or constructed.

When Jesus at Matthew 5:45 says; “that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous.” is Jesus really saying that God creates the sun anew everyday when it rises or that he is creating rain anew every time it rains; personally, I don’t think so, I think he is just using what he’s all ready created.

But like I said; if that's what you want to believe, don't let me stand in your way.

 

:"Make" and "placed" have specific denotations and connotations in the English language that are inconsistent with uncovering something that was already there. Make, in the context Jesus used, "makes the sun rise" or "makes it rain" obviously means causes. If it just said God makes the Sun or makes the rain, it would mean create anew. If you think, in the context of Gen.1 "make" and "placed" means uncover, go right ahead. Some may believe you.

 

First, the Bible was not written in English, I was merely pointing out that even in English the word "make" can be used in ways that mean other than create or construct and that is just a fact.

Now let’s take at the actual words under discussion.

(Create) bara' (baw-raw') 1254.
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes) -- choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

(Made) asah (aw-saw') 6213
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows) -- accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress(-ed), (put in) execute(-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, (fight-)ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ((a feast)), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be (warr-)ior, work(-man), yield, use.

(Placed) nathan (naw-than') 5414
A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (put, make, etc.) -- add, apply, appoint, ascribe, assign, X avenge, X be ((healed)), bestow, bring (forth, hither), cast, cause, charge, come, commit, consider, count, + cry, deliver (up), direct, distribute, do, X doubtless, X without fail, fasten, frame, X get, give (forth, over, up), grant, hang (up), X have, X indeed, lay (unto charge, up), (give) leave, lend, let (out), + lie, lift up, make, + O that, occupy, offer, ordain, pay, perform, place, pour, print, X pull, put (forth), recompense, render, requite, restore, send (out), set (forth), shew, shoot forth (up), + sing, + slander, strike, (sub-)mit, suffer, X surely, X take, thrust, trade, turn, utter, + weep, + willingly, + withdraw, + would (to) God, yield.

Please notice that only bara' means create, whereas both asah and nathan have many definitions none of which is create. Please note that asah (made) can mean become which would allow for what I’ve been saying. Also Nathan (placed) can mean apply, assign, cause again allowing for what I’ve been saying.

 

This endless bout of trivial semantics cannot be what the Bible is talking about...
This isn't Spirit....it's a linguistic nightmare..

 

In order to better understand God's word, we have to better understand the meaning behind the words of the Bible.

Through study, we learn and knowledge expands. The Bible was meant to be studied daily.