You’re taking what I said out of context. I don’t appreciate it.
I provided the context by using the direct quote. That’s the very definition of context. You even used the same quote while insisting you didn’t say what you did. 
What you ‘appreciate’ or don’t isn’t parcel to the conversation.
Aren’t you the same guy that posted a list of debate terminology? 10 Common Logical Fallacies.
Let me rephrase. I don’t like how you’re taking what I said out of context. Amos 4:4 records God saying, “Go into Bethel and sin all you want.” He wasn’t condoning sin; He was saying that that’s what they were already doing. You have to read what came before that to realize it. That’s my definition of context. Historyprof was the OP of that picture. I just copied & pasted it.
Your definition of ‘context’ is wrong. Click the link: Context Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. I’m serious: click it. And read what I wrote; don’t just scan, skim, or glance at it. Read it.
Read Genesis 1 & 2. It doesn’t get any plainer than that.
There is only one (historical) creation account in Genesis. Chapter 2 goes into more detail with how God made man. That’s the only one there is to defend. Belief in evolution actually removes man’s need for God, which removes the necessity of Jesus dying on the cross, which removes our accountability to Him. It also makes us worthless and takes away our free-will. If you want me to explain that in-depth, just ask me. I’ll be happy to.
There are two accounts. Separate inoroginal language, squeezed to look like one continuous story by early translators.
It’s not a continuous story; it’s a further explanation of part of the first chapter.
This is one of the first things you learn in a college level Old Testament class. Understanding how Hebrew grammar and style work is important to understanding scripture. But not you, huh? YOU without even a high school diploma know better. I guess God told you directly but didn’t bother to inform anyone else.
I am done attempting to discuss this with you.
1 Like
No He didn’t. I just read the first two chapters of His book. It’s called ‘The Bible.’ It’s available to anyone who would read it (I’m not saying you don’t). I know enough about Hebrew grammar and style to know when it’s poetic and when it’s historical.
I agree with you. But having the Holy Spirit is even more important. I’m not saying that I’m the only one with Him; that be the most blasphemous thing I could ever say.
No, I don’t. I just read the book.
Evolution claims that one species can and does change into another. A dog can become a cat. There certainly is change, but Answers In Genesis says there is change, but not across the boundary between kinds. There would have to be some addition of information on DNA for there to be a change across kinds. For instance a dog kind includes many kinds of dog, but does not include a cat.
Your definition is skewed. Evolution states that humans and great apes (not monkeys) share a common genetic ancestor. This definition is applied to other species as well. The dog becoming a cat scenario is not from evolution, but from anti-evolutionist propaganda.
Jesus referenced Adam as if he was a real historical person and not symbolic of mankind.
Science does assume there is no God and all things came into being through physical and chemical processes that we may someday be able to repeat as scientists. They cannot assume there is a God, because that would allow to be some explanation that they cannot countenance, because it would be unscientific to assume there is.
Even a basic college biology textbook states that science can’t prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science does not attempt to reinforce a non proven belief. Ken Hamm and his ilk of pseudo science does exactly that- and make a laughing stock of Christians by doing so.
All Ham does is assume there is a God and that He is in creation as it’s cause. Don’t all Christians make the same assumption? Without it, we can go no further to make the scriptures relevant. We can’t prove God, but most people who get anything good from the scriptures do make that assumption. Once a person has real faith, he does not need proof unless it is to discus the issue with a non-believer. One’s faith in his own personal experience is proof enough that not only does God exist, but He loves him/her and has worked throughout history to make a way for them and the world to know Him personally and to be saved from the sin that kills him/her.
I misspoke. God is assumed to be in creation and outside of it. He is assumed to be in nature using natural laws, but also beyond nature and independant from nature.
No not all Christians assume it.
How can you be a Christian and not assume the existence of the God who saved you?
If God used evolution to create man, why does man have "eternity in his heart? I.e. Why does man consistently search for Someone more than just some process to explain his existence? Why is the object of man’s search Something that is beyond nature and its laws? Why does he already know that God is personal and yearn to find and know him? Why is he discontent with impersonal explanations and lack of meaning and purpose in the universe. Why are most believers unable to live with the meaninglessness of a Neitzsche?
Genetics.
Faith does not require a literal interpretation of scripture.
Hi,
Evolution is not scientifically possible if we apply scientific law to it.
WHAT???
That’s right.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, evolution is not possible.
The Law:
Natural processes tend to go only one way, toward less usable energy and more disorder. (Google)
Evolution is chaos becoming order; from chimps or apes to man.
The second law says every change produces more disorder.
Or, it is from order to chaos as energy is permanently lost.
So, according to the science we know is true, we are not evolving.
We are devolving.
How many species have gone extinct?
Lots, probably in the thousands over time.
How many new species have replaced them?
None that we know of.
If evolution is occurring, we should see many new species replacing the old.
That just stands to reason.
We don’t see this.
That is the reality of the topic
Evolution is not possible.
From nothing something is not scientific reasoning.
It is faith in an unprovable process.
Think about it.
I have faith in God’s creation account.
My faith is in an unprovable being, God.
Both belief systems require faith.
It takes faith to believe that from nothing, this whole universe, with laws, and definable processes like time, force, energy, and mass just showed up.
That is the greatest miracle of all time.
It takes faith to believe in that miracle.
Either way!
Blessings