Christian dun believe in Darwin's

M©+square SG

Woah. Ouch!

Ray87 SG

*drag laurence82 in* c'om join in the fun!!

Im getting out of here.

Icemoon SG

should be quite low. I'm not exactly a bright person.

but then hey .. I'm not a xtian. so my intelligence has nothing to do with theirs. Wink

Icemoon SG

Ah .. I know what it means but don't feel like discussing with you. I rather have shotgun or northwind as my sparring partner. I pass.

U felt my argument is not convincing, but it is better than your assumptions. U have no ground which support your assumption at all.

I have no assumptions when I asked you the simple question. Exactly how do ancients comprehend evening and morning without the sun?

It is from a human perspective and u really have no ground to redefine wat is morning and night for god. I put tis statement down for all to read again

This is ludicrous. Now you are teaching us how to interpret Scripture? Don't pretend to be a young Earth spokesman when you don't even believe in the Bible.

Is jesus killed in a ulu place ? It happened in the middle of a thriving city. Reports r not gonna be fragment since the dead really walk on the streets and shouting to everyone and get their attention. How could anyone dismiss such a prominent event ?

Yar hor .. why ah? Embarassed any christian want to explain?

Isn't tat wat u mean in the previous reply ? The bible states tat the flood cover even the tallest peak. So the bible lie ? As said, it don't need to be a science textbook. If it doesn't record the atomic structure or laws of gravity no one is blaming it. But it shouldn't lie or report of wrong things. It shouldn't claim the world is only 6000 years. It shouldn't claim no evolution. It shouldn't claim there is flood tat cover earth till the top of the tallest peak. Tat shows the fallible of the bible

You have not proved to me:

1. The tallest peak mean the tallest peak in the world.
2. The 6 days mean 6 human days.

In 1, you cannot confidently discriminate between the case when they mean a localised region (ie. mesopotamia) and when they mean the whole world (to the ancient, mesopotamia is the world .. you expect them to know Singapore?)

In 2, the old earthers have quite valid reasons to reject 6 human days.

Icemoon SG

You are too cheam for me.

What light and no light? The ancients know the stars, sun and moon give off light. If the sky not cleared and sun not created, then the world will be in eternal night-hood. Where got evening and morning one day?

Icemoon SG

To all,

I'm not converting anyone to my viewpoint. I think it is pointless, especially for some of you who don't share some fundamental assumptions (like there is a God).

What matters is to think critically. There are many perspectives and we should admit there are other interpretations.

6 human days and 6 God days? Ah .. not contradicting as Einstein have shown us.

Tallest peak in the world? Ah .. to the ancients Mesopotamia is the world.

ha8n SG

its not the path that ur trying to show to anyone what u want to show

its the Path that they r abled to see themselves regardless

of Light or Day ....LA LA LA

Shotgun SG

Well Icemoon, lets us examine the whole 6 days question another way.

If like in 2 Peter 3:8 suggest, that indeed 1 day is God's perspective is like a thousand earthly days. Wouldn't the recorded scriptures have decieved its readers until 2 Peter became part of the scriptures. That would be an awful long period of time for God's people to have been decieved don't u think?

The verse in 2nd peter was really just implying how God is beyond time.

Another thing is that God himself created the governing of time. Light and Darkness, and set aside 12 hours to govern the day, and 12 the night. That would make up a day. And 7 days to a week. In John 11:9, Jesus himself mentioned of a 12 hour day and 12 hour night?

I do believe that when Genesis said 6 days, it really meant 6, 24 hour days as we know. God could have done so in 6 seconds, but i guess he chose 6 days for His own reason.

Now, I am not saying that you are wrong. Since God is beyond time, and since time is relative, u could be right in a way. What I am saying is that, God intended for us to understand it as 6 human days.

Icemoon SG

Nov 15, 2005
Man's evolution from monkey a proven scientific fact? No, it's not

I watched the show 'A Species Odyssey' on Channel NewsAsia on November 6 and was very concerned with the way the highly debatable theory of human evolution was presented as a fact.

While micro-evolution, ie the process of mutation and natural selection, can be observed in nature and is a proven fact, macro-evolution - the theory that all the organisms we see today resulted from the micro-evolution of simpler pre-existing organisms, which ultimately came from non-living matter - is not a proven fact.

It is in fact contradicted by huge gaps in the fossil records as well as other theoretical considerations (see www.answersingenesis.org).

Because of the evidence and theoretical considerations, many scientists have now repudiated the theory of macro-evolution (see, for example www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf), and the number is increasing despite the 'persecutions' by scientific establishments wishing to maintian their unwarranted naturalistic philosophy. (See Dr Jonathan Well's The Icons of Evolution, chapter 12).

We must note carefully that micro-evolution does not necessarily imply macro-evolution. Micro-evolution only implies that given enough time, living things may change as they adapt to the environment. For example, given enough time, apes may change.

But micro-evolution does not necessarily imply that all the living organisms that we see today originates from pre-existing organisms. For example, to say that apes may change given enough time does not necessarily imply that man did come from apes. Above all, micro-evolution does not explain how the RNA/DNA comes about in the first place. (See www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf).

Paleontologists often construct the supposed intermediates between monkeys and humans with much imagination and subjectivity which resemble myth-writing. (See The Icons of Evolution, chapter 11). Many such constructions have in fact been proven false (eg the Piltdown man which deceived scientists from early 1900s to 1953), while the remaining ones are highly debatable (see www.answersingenesis.org).

People should not be given the idea that evolution from monkey to man is a proven fact of science when it is not and the media should not just present one side of the story without presenting the evidence and theoretical considerations that contradict it.

While many books showing the fallacy of macro-evolution can now be found in bookshops and the National Library in Singapore (eg Dr Michael Denton's Evolution, a theory in crisis, Dr Michael Behe's Darwin's Black box), documentaries showing the fallacy of macro-evolution should also be shown on TV to let the public know the truth about our origin.

Andrew Loke Ter Ern (Dr)

Icemoon SG

Ah .. it is so obvious you dunno your Scripture well.

For it is written in Psalm 90, "a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Gotcha! Wink

Shotgun SG

Again. Psalms are hymns that are written to praise the Greatness of God. And the context of this passage in psalm 90 is exactly the same as the verse in 2nd Peter. To describe that God is great and beyond time.

In anycase, the book of psalms was compiled during the time of David's reign. Psalm 90 itself was attributed to the prayer of moses... which is still a long long time from creation.

However, like I have conceded, that God is supposed to be beyond time. But, as the scriptures were intended for Man's understanding, when it said "Days" it really meant 6 human days.

It is like an author writing a story in a book.

He can take as long as he like to write about a man's trip to the loo. A few days to think of how to phrase it, what people he would meet etc etc. Yet, in the timeline of the book, barely minutes would have passed.

Catching my drift?

stupidissmart SG

Now, about the Light and Sun thing. That shows how limited our human capabilities to comprehend is. How on earth was light created before a source of light was created? Its not logical right? Impossible right? Light cannot exist without a source.

Personally I think it is not because of men limited understanding but the author of the bible is living thousands of years ago and tat is why he do not know tat a light source is needed for light.

I entered into this arguement knowing well that I would not be able to convince an evolutionist to jump over to the creationist side of the fence. Reason is, that is what we were taught since young. I was taught that a big bang happened, and a unbelievable coincidence of events followed that resulted in the planet Earth being formed. And followed by another impossible coincidence that Earth's position in relation to the sun was just perfect for it to support life. And then followed by another unbelievable coincidence of event, life began to evolve. And thru some strange coincidence, intelligence in life began to develop, and somehow only us humans became the supreme intellect being, that could architect its species into becoming a civilisation.

Be scientific about the probability of that happening?

Lets put it this way. No matter how small tis probability is, it is many many times easier than an infinite complex god popping out of nothing. Laughing

U got to take note tat there r infinite sites for reaction, infinite space avaliable for such reaction and infinite time given for a reaction to cause life to appear. Given such a high number of chances, it is not impossible for life to be formed naturally. Using your analogy of a printing house, lets imagine there were 10 billion to the power of 10 billion (now just simply put as *infinite*) printing house exploding every second. Then in each printing house there is again *infinite* paper and ink in it. And it is given *infinite* time for reaction to occurs. If u look at the probability, u can guess tat there is a chance of probability tat resulted in your oxford dictionary

Well, first of all, the destruction of the city might have been to prevent the evil from that city from spreading. Dooming all of humanity. And at that time, Christ has yet to die on the cross to redeem their sin. Prophets warned the city, yet, the city refused to believe. There was not much option.

Why does christ not come down earlier then Rolling Eyes So in short u r suggesting god allow the earlier men before christ to suffer without redress ? The gays now in modern time has also been "warned" as well. So should god kill all of them to prevent "evil" from spreading and "doomed" all humanity ?

Ah .. I know what it means but don't feel like discussing with you. I rather have shotgun or northwind as my sparring partner. I pass.

Rolling Eyes I will treat tis answer as "there is no other meaning in evening and morning in hebrew but I can't answer tat now because I first stated there is some other meaning before"

I have no assumptions when I asked you the simple question. Exactly how do ancients comprehend evening and morning without the sun?

U made the assumption tat it is god time and not human time. And as said before, the light was made in the first day. The sun is just to make the time more easily interpretable. How do ancients comprehend time without the sun ? Sorry man, men was created after the sun was created. So all the while they have the sun and it really make it easier for men to mark the time. So your question is not valid

This is ludicrous. Now you are teaching us how to interpret Scripture? Don't pretend to be a young Earth spokesman when you don't even believe in the Bible.

Strawman Laughing I am not teaching "you all", I am telling u only. And I never act as a young earth spokesman. I am just telling u u have no rights, evidence or anything to support your stand

You have not proved to me:

1. The tallest peak mean the tallest peak in the world.
2. The 6 days mean 6 human days.

HAHHAHA... Why don't u read back the 2 points u have written ? Why isn't the tallest peak the tallest in the world ? Laughing WHy isn't 6 days just meant as 6 "human days" (No one ever states tat there exist a god version of day). Obviously the ball is in your court to prove otherwise because literally speaking, the tallest peak is the tallest peak in the world and days just meant as days

In 1, you cannot confidently discriminate between the case when they mean a localised region (ie. mesopotamia) and when they mean the whole world (to the ancient, mesopotamia is the world .. you expect them to know Singapore?)

As said, the bible is GOD INSPIRED. Therefore if it says the world, it should be the world according to go knowledge. If it is simply written by people in mesopotamia, then it is not god inspired and there will be tons and tons of errors inside the bible such as not even knowing there r other parts of the world

In 2, the old earthers have quite valid reasons to reject 6 human days

State them

Nov 15, 2005
Man's evolution from monkey a proven scientific fact? No, it's not

I read at the passage and see the many website he use from christian sites and simply offering his opinion without much evidence really make me wonder how seriously should it be taken. If there r serious loopholes in evolution, I expect it to be publish in scientific journals instead of getting it stuck in bible sites.

For it is written in Psalm 90,

If u look at psalm, u can see a lot of songs and dances and exaggeration in it.

Psalm 88 onwards
A song. A psalm of the Sons of Korah. For the director of music. According to mahalath leannoth. A maskil of Heman the Ezrahite.

Songs r really meant to be exaggerated and the words there is just to show how great is god. U wanna take it literally ? Then why don't u give a literal meaning to the below sentence from psalm as well

then no harm will befall you,
no disaster will come near your tent.

Christians never suffer any harm nor disaster meh ?

For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;

12 they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

13 You will tread upon the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

So since u r a christian, then go and see if u r okay after trampling a great lion or serpent lor

You have exalted my horn [a] like that of a wild ox;
fine oils have been poured upon me.

So christians have horns ? I thought only the devil has horns

If u read the passages, u will see tat it is just a song and some of its wording is really just words from a fanatic.

Icemoon SG

Light made in first day doesnt mean it is light from the sun. The ancients know there are many sources of light and the sun is just one.

You argue it is human time, that's why my question is valid and your point that what men were created after sun was created is not valid. If you say it is God time, then it can make some sense. After all, God doesn't need a sun to tell him the time, I suppose.

HAHHAHA... Why don't u read back the 2 points u have written ? Why isn't the tallest peak the tallest in the world ? WHy isn't 6 days just meant as 6 "human days" (No one ever states tat there exist a god version of day). Obviously the ball is in your court to prove otherwise because literally speaking, the tallest peak is the tallest peak in the world and days just meant as days

Picture this. If you're the Hebrew nomand reading this or listening to this account during Moses' time, then what's the mental picture in your head? Will you imagine this big land mass called America flooded?

Ah .. it is 'cos of this kind of mentality that's why science is not progressing. Galileo was almost killed. With your mentality, the bible can be a science textbook as well. Woe be to us human.

He said many scientists are turning againt evolution. He has a link on that .. 100 something .. I never bothered to read.

Icemoon SG

Actually our agenda is clear la.

1. SIS has an axe to grind with the Bible. That's why he die die also must "support" the young earther's argument then use science (evolution) to axe Scripture to death.

2. Icemoon, the theist, gives Scripture a chance. He tries to find the most conciliatory interpretation given our current scientific knowledge, without compromising on the ancient's interpretation.

I'm not ashamed to admit my agenda. Do you, SIS? Wink

M©+square SG

Interesting.

Icemoon SG

Or else I cannot fanthom why someone can go extreme to interpret something when he doesn't give a hoot about that book.

I can understand why Shotgun is doing this .. but SIS?? Why is he wasting time reading and interpreting a "book of fables"?

stupidissmart SG

Tat is a funny thing. Why is your question valid while mine is not ? As said he already clearly stated wat is a day and night. And the definition never changes after the fourth day when the sun was created. He even stated wat is the intention of the sun is to mark out the time for easier reference. However the day is the same day as in the firts day. For your case, u never presented anything tat support your argument. There is nothing in the bible tat tell us god use a different "day" as men. U just say wat u think and ask othet to prove u wrong. Why don't u present your own evidence ?

The bible claims it is never outdated and can be used for all time. Therefore it can be used today as well. So u saying it can only be used in the past and now considered obsolete ? Since it says world, it is really the world. Otherwise surely people can escape the flood easily by climbing up the mountains and therefore god becomes wrong in noah ark where noah is the only family left.

Second, , if the flood can cover till the tallest of the peak, lets say by your preposition of only a localise region, by gravity the flood will flow over to the other side of the mountain and it will never be able to cover till the tallest mountain as well. The only way to really cover water till the mountain top is only by making sure the whole world is cover by water in the flood.

Ah .. it is 'cos of this kind of mentality that's why science is not progressing. Galileo was almost killed. With your mentality, the bible can be a science textbook as well. Woe be to us human.

So u r treating the bible as a book where u select which part to believe and which part to not believe ? Aren't u writing your own religion then ? The woe of men is simply believe in the bible.

He said many scientists are turning againt evolution. He has a link on that .. 100 something .. I never bothered to read

100 scientist in the field of biologist is low, considering the world probably churn out a few thousands every year

I'm not ashamed to admit my agenda. Do you, SIS

Why ? starting to try attacking on persoanlity instead now ? Did I ever say I support the young earth arguments ? Why label me as such ? Anybody can see how biased your statement on your agenda and opinion of mine is.

In the case of tis thread, it is simply obvious to me tat people r rejecting science merely because of a 2000 years old book. There r some who even believe tat the earth is as young as 6000 just because the bible says so. To me, tat is really a dis service to themselves and tat is why I am here to correct tis wrong concepts they have.

Icemoon SG

Finally .. we actually have the same mission here. Mr. Green

But my tactic is better. Instead of telling pple to trash the book .. I tell them "look, there is another possible interpretation".

Whose message is more welcoming? Who is more effective? Wink

askxyz SG

1 John 1:5 declares, "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all." God Himself was the light for the first three days of Creation, just as He will be in the new heavens and new earth, There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever (Revelation 22:5). Until He created the sun, moon, and stars, God miraculously provided light during the day and did not do so during the night (Genesis 1:14).

Chin Eng SG

I agree Laughing x2.

« Previous Page Next Page »