|
|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
God's creation vs. Science
|
Follower of Jesus
User ID: 507164
9/21/2008 2:40 PM
 | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I believe that before the Sun was created on the 4th day that God gave off light from Himself but not a "source" like the Sun. The sun was created to maintain the earth which also leads me to believe that the Sun represent God and the Moon represents Jesus which has craters or took a beating for us on earth. The light of the Sun (God) reflects off the Moon (Jesus) and hits the earth every day. |
|
Oh, I see.
User ID: 491539
9/21/2008 2:45 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
BUT in the chapter two it says this:
Gen 2:7 And the LORD 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 the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 249919
Man was created in Genesis 1:26.
If we go with your theory, Adam would have been be created twice.
This 2:7 passage is referring bank to Genesis 1:26 and expounding on it.
Same thing with 2:8-9. more detail is given.
Make sense?
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
You will notice that in the 2nd account Adam was created FIRST then the plants and animals. (he even named them)
This is a different creation than the first account in chapter one. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 249919
No it's not, or these things (Adam included) would have been created TWICE. This defies logic.
That's why creation here is out of order. This chapter is giving MORE DETAIL on chapter 1.
For example:
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
It was done in chapter 1, this passage is restating the creation with further detail.
Gen 2: 19 could read in modern language:
God created the animals in Gen 1. Period.
But here is some further explanation. Further, when Adam was finally there God brought the created creatures (as stated in the first sentence) to Adam to name them.
"Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful." -Ben Franklin |
|
Oh, I see.
User ID: 491539
9/21/2008 2:49 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I believe that before the Sun was created on the 4th day that God gave off light from Himself but not a "source" like the Sun. The sun was created to maintain the earth which also leads me to believe that the Sun represent God and the Moon represents Jesus which has craters or took a beating for us on earth. The light of the Sun (God) reflects off the Moon (Jesus) and hits the earth every day. Quoting: Follower of Jesus
Then how was the earth on it's axis and in place with no sun?
The word for creation of the sun is ASAH.. To RECREATE.
"Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful." -Ben Franklin |
|
Follower of Jesus
User ID: 507164
9/21/2008 2:54 PM
| | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I believe that before the Sun was created on the 4th day that God gave off light from Himself but not a "source" like the Sun. The sun was created to maintain the earth which also leads me to believe that the Sun represent God and the Moon represents Jesus which has craters or took a beating for us on earth. The light of the Sun (God) reflects off the Moon (Jesus) and hits the earth every day.
Then how was the earth on it's axis and in place with no sun?
The word for creation of the sun is ASAH.. To RECREATE. Quoting: Oh, I see.
God's light would shine over the earth and still create day/night. |
|
Oh, I see.
User ID: 491539
9/21/2008 3:04 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Allow me to explain it this way;
In Genesis we see the serpent appear in chapter 3. Correct?
Where prior to that does it say Lucifer fell? (We read of this in Isaiah)
What happened to make Satan, in fact Satan in Genesis 3 and not Lucifer the anointed Angel?
Lucifer had to fall prior to the RECREATION of earth.
Genesis 1:2 says the earth was null and void, BUT in Isaiah it says God creates NOTHING that is void.
The earth was void in Genesis 1:2, how did it get this way?
Answer: the fall of Lucifer.
The earth existed prior to Genesis 1:2, as did the sun.
"Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful." -Ben Franklin |
|
Oh, I see.
User ID: 491539
9/21/2008 3:10 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Follower,
I am not trying to prove a point, I am trying to share something that took me years of seeking the Holy Spirit, careful and lengthy study, and teaching the book to understand.
If what you believe sits right in your spirit and is in tune with the Holy Spirit, so be it.
My intention is not to say I'm right and your wrong.
The Word is clear and uncomplicated. That is the beauty therein, isn't it?
"Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful." -Ben Franklin |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/21/2008 3:46 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
But one is based on faith, the other is based on actual evidence. Take your pick!
WRONG!
Scientists have NO PROOF of evolution, only a THEROY.
Meaning, they have FAITH that they are correct.
So evolution is based on
.FAITH!!! Quoting: Oh, I see.
 Listen  pick up a book or go read some creditable websites like the ones below, you are not going to understand Evolution reading a site like answers in genesis.org. You know nothing about Evolution
[link to evolution.berkeley.edu]
[link to tolweb.org] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/21/2008 3:49 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Also, according to Genesis, birds were created before land creatures. Birds created on the 5th day, land creatures created on the 6th day.
This model goes entirely against evolution.
According to the evolutionary model, birds evolved from land dwelling creatures.
That is a weak argument. But, one that some scientists ascribe to.
Birds did not evolve from land animals.
Evolution has recently been for the most part, disproven. Quoting: Oh, I see.
You are talking about "weak argument" 
"Birds did not evolve from land animals."
"Evolution has recently been for the most part, disproven."
Umm where?? Did they tell you this in Sunday school? |
|
Oh, I see.
User ID: 491539
9/21/2008 3:49 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Listen pick up a book or go read some creditable websites like the ones below, you are not going to understand Evolution reading a site like answers in genesis.org. You know nothing about Evolution
[ link to evolution.berkeley.edu]
[ link to tolweb.org]
Nonetheless, the FACT remains that scientists have NO PROOF of evolution, only a THEROY.
"Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful." -Ben Franklin |
|
Oh, I see.
User ID: 491539
9/21/2008 3:52 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
You are talking about "weak argument"
Yes.
"Birds did not evolve from land animals."
"Evolution has recently been for the most part, disproven."
Correct.
Umm where?? Did they tell you this in Sunday school? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 496448
No, I am a microbiologist by trade and one who reads and believes the Bible.
And You?
"Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful." -Ben Franklin |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/21/2008 3:53 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Birds did not evolve from land animals. Quoting: Oh, I see.
You probably don't believe in dinosaurs either
[link to www.cnn.com] |
|
Oh, I see.
User ID: 491539
9/21/2008 3:56 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 496448
As a matter of fact they are mentioned in......the Bible!
"Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful." -Ben Franklin |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/21/2008 3:59 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Nonetheless, the FACT remains that scientists have NO PROOF of evolution, only a THEROY. Quoting: Oh, I see.
No Proof I don't even know where to begin, someone please help this uninformed soul... DrPostman?? |
|
Oh, I see.
User ID: 491539
9/21/2008 4:04 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Do you understand that evolution is in point and fact, a theory?
If you do not understand simple basic facts, or word definitions, there is no way you can even begin to match wits with me.
Are you very young? Or just ignorant?
Here is the definition of theory....
Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
"Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful." -Ben Franklin |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 479477
9/21/2008 4:09 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
According to the book of Genesis, God created vegetation (the 3rd day) before he created the sun or the moon (4th day). Obviously, vegetation cannot grow without sun light.
So what gives?
Also, according to Genesis, birds were created before land creatures. Birds created on the 5th day, land creatures created on the 6th day.
This model goes entirely against evolution.
According to the evolutionary model, birds evolved from land dwelling creatures.
So what can explain God's unusual time line of creation that goes against science?
Genesis:
[ link to www.biblegateway.com]
You definitely have a point. It's not a well thought out example of creation and I've read it makes no sense to many scholars. I'm not so sure that birds evolved from land dwelling creatures. I do believe they came first though. If you study the Sumerian artifacts and drawings, you see the bird carrying the "plates of destiny". He is the Apsu or Abzu(I don't remember).
At any rate, their doesn't seem to be the correct chronological order. How do we know we didn't start out as four-legged beasts? Well, we needed a body, didn't we?
I do believe life evolved from water. |
|
Fusion
User ID: 479477
9/21/2008 4:20 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Listen pick up a book or go read some creditable websites like the ones below, you are not going to understand Evolution reading a site like answers in genesis.org. You know nothing about Evolution
[ link to evolution.berkeley.edu]
[ link to tolweb.org]
Nonetheless, the FACT remains that scientists have NO PROOF of evolution, only a THEROY.
Okay, Oh, I see. YOU DON'T SEE. I thought you had a valid point, until now. Genesis makes no sense as far as chronological order, but do you really think God reached down and shaped man from clay with his two hands? If that's true, why don't we see that now? Where is he? Why no new creations!!!!
Scientists DO have proof of evolution, but there are missing links! Everything is constantly changing and evolving. It's a process called life!
I believe in intelligent creation. I believe there is an intelligence that moves through all and in Genesis we read: God's spirit moved over the face of the waters." I believe scientists are calling it the "God particle".
If God's spirit moved over the face of the waters, there must have been some heavy duty water molecules swirling around! It was chaos in the beginning, and this chaos eventually gained organization through division and firmaments, BUT life began in water.
The Middle East is the cradle of civilization and they have found fossils to back up this theory. The SOURCE doesn't just happen or create at the snap of a finger...BANG, maybe. There is an order. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 479477
9/21/2008 4:21 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Do you understand that evolution is in point and fact, a theory?
If you do not understand simple basic facts, or word definitions, there is no way you can even begin to match wits with me.
Are you very young? Or just ignorant?
Here is the definition of theory....
Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Quoting: Oh, I see.
There is NO denying evolution, but I do believe there was interference. Where have you been? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 479477
9/21/2008 4:23 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Science and spirituality will merge. |
|
Oh, I see.
User ID: 491539
9/21/2008 4:27 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Okay, Oh, I see. YOU DON'T SEE. I thought you had a valid point, until now. Genesis makes no sense as far as chronological order, but do you really think God reached down and shaped man from clay with his two hands? If that's true, why don't we see that now? Where is he? Why no new creations!!!!
Scientists DO have proof of evolution, but there are missing links! Everything is constantly changing and evolving. It's a process called life!
I believe in intelligent creation. I believe there is an intelligence that moves through all and in Genesis we read: God's spirit moved over the face of the waters." I believe scientists are calling it the "God particle".
If God's spirit moved over the face of the waters, there must have been some heavy duty water molecules swirling around! It was chaos in the beginning, and this chaos eventually gained organization through division and firmaments, BUT life began in water.
The Middle East is the cradle of civilization and they have found fossils to back up this theory. The SOURCE doesn't just happen or create at the snap of a finger...BANG, maybe. There is an order. Quoting: Fusion 479477
If this works for you, great.
But, evolution is still a theory no matter how you attempt to twist and contort that known fact.
Until these "missing links" you speak of are in place, it remains a theory.
Why don't you come on back when science finds those "missing links"?
I won't hold my breath.
Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
"Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful." -Ben Franklin |
|
Oh, I see.
User ID: 491539
9/21/2008 4:38 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
God's spirit moved over the face of the waters." I believe scientists are calling it the "God particle". Quoting: Fusion 479477
Did you know this "God particle" is nothing more than a nickname and has absolutely nothing to do with actually finding a magic God particle.
Scientists are calling it this to get press and make the CERN experiment more dramatic.
The scientists freely admit that this experiment will no sooner render the particle of creation than Santa Claus will appear on his sleigh.
I'm sorry, but it is difficult to dialogue with one who is simply not educated in basic facts, or research into said matters of concern to themselves or others.
Therefore, I bid you farewell.
Have a good day.
"Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful." -Ben Franklin |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 479477
9/21/2008 4:50 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Sure, from someone who belives only in creationism and denies evolution. You're right. There is no debating with you. |
|
Fusion
User ID: 479477
9/21/2008 4:54 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Lol, I was going to ask you if you believe in Santa Clause.
What do you thing the Large Hadron Collider is for! As I stated, I do believe there is an intelligence, but I can't deny evolution.
[link to www.wired.com] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 479477
9/21/2008 4:55 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Okay, Oh, I see. YOU DON'T SEE. I thought you had a valid point, until now. Genesis makes no sense as far as chronological order, but do you really think God reached down and shaped man from clay with his two hands? If that's true, why don't we see that now? Where is he? Why no new creations!!!!
Scientists DO have proof of evolution, but there are missing links! Everything is constantly changing and evolving. It's a process called life!
I believe in intelligent creation. I believe there is an intelligence that moves through all and in Genesis we read: God's spirit moved over the face of the waters." I believe scientists are calling it the "God particle".
If God's spirit moved over the face of the waters, there must have been some heavy duty water molecules swirling around! It was chaos in the beginning, and this chaos eventually gained organization through division and firmaments, BUT life began in water.
The Middle East is the cradle of civilization and they have found fossils to back up this theory. The SOURCE doesn't just happen or create at the snap of a finger...BANG, maybe. There is an order.
If this works for you, great.
But, evolution is still a theory no matter how you attempt to twist and contort that known fact.
Until these "missing links" you speak of are in place, it remains a theory.
Why don't you come on back when science finds those "missing links"?
I won't hold my breath.
Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Quoting: Oh, I see.
That theory has already been discussed on this forum. Do your own research.
You'll always be holding your breath, because your too narrow minded and won't let go of the BIBle. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 404866
9/21/2008 4:57 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Not silly - it is truth.
You better study some more. This time - ask for God's guidance, as I did.
Have you ever read the Hebrew Bible? I have.
It will shed new light on your experience.
No I have not but I do use a Strong's concordance for meanings of words.
If you will read chapter 1 and 2 of Gen. and compare you will find differences in th accounts of creation.
One in Point:
In this first account of animals being created on the 5th day:
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
BUT in the chapter two it says this:
Gen 2:7 And the LORD 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 the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
You will notice that in the 2nd account Adam was created FIRST then the plants and animals. (he even named them)
This is a different creation than the first account in chapter one. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 249919
not at all.the second part as you call it was god creating adam first then the animals for the purpose of eden.he made the animals etc in the "first part"as you call it for the rest of the world. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 479477
9/21/2008 4:59 PM | |
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 479477
9/21/2008 5:00 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
The earth existed prior to Genesis 1:2, as did the sun.
I find that highly unlikely. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 404866
9/21/2008 5:03 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Also, according to Genesis, birds were created before land creatures. Birds created on the 5th day, land creatures created on the 6th day.
This model goes entirely against evolution.
According to the evolutionary model, birds evolved from land dwelling creatures.
That is a weak argument. But, one that some scientists ascribe to.
Birds did not evolve from land animals.
Evolution has recently been for the most part, disproven.
You are talking about "weak argument"
"Birds did not evolve from land animals."
"Evolution has recently been for the most part, disproven."
Umm where?? Did they tell you this in Sunday school?
actually science,physics,archeology and chemistry does not the sunday school. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/21/2008 5:14 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
That theory has already been discussed on this forum. Do your own research.
You'll always be holding your breath, because your too narrow minded and won't let go of the BIBle. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 479477
( Oh, I see ) Suffers from Confirmation bias
If he would take at least half the time to learn about Science as he did about the bible, he would probably learn something. I wonder if he questions his beliefs the same way he questions Evolution.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored
[link to en.wikipedia.org] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
9/21/2008 5:23 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
This is a different creation than the first account in chapter one. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 249919
Genesis is full of contradictions.
[link to members.aol.com] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 479477
9/21/2008 5:24 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I'm sure it has a lot to do with his upbringing, but as I stated, I do believe there is an intelligence and I have studied Genesis for an idea of how creation first began through evolution. There are some contradictions in Genesis.
Life seems to all begin in or of water and there are clues in the Enuma Elish. There are two kinds of water also and a battle among the gods.
Here are the contradictions of Genesis.
[link to web.cn.edu] |
|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
