IS EVOLUTION POSSIBLE?

[Twisted]

Or perhaps I am just smarter, wiser, and more informed that you and everyone on this forum ... and I am playing you for entertainment purposes only.

Like taking candy from a bay.

Or probably not.  LOL!  What a loon!

 

[Recovering IFB]

Well clearly, since God does not exist, no one gets "right or wrong" from God. 
[/quote]
Then why are you arguing  or continuing in the conversation? You are speaking as if there is a standard of right and wrong, donyou not see the futility of your position?

Or perhaps I am just smarter, wiser, and more informed that you and everyone on this forum ... and I am playing you for entertainment purposes only.

Like taking candy from a bay.

If you're smarter and wiser, that presupposes truth, and where do you get that without God?
I'm noticing you are not answering this, so your latter statement seems to be true which in fact makes you a troll, a troll that uses blasphemy to cause others grief  for his bemusement. Truly a sad individual.
How does it feel you wasted soooo many years at HAC to only go out into the world, get your butt handed to you and you gave up and quit? Did you foresee that at the outset?

 

[Route_70]

Then why are you arguing  or continuing in the conversation? You are speaking as if there is a standard of right and wrong, do you not see the futility of your position?

There is no standard of Right and Wrong.  Right and Wrong are relative.  I've said that over and over.  Don't you read?

If you're smarter and wiser, that presupposes truth, and where do you get that without God?

Read my fingers:  God is not necessary.  One does not need God to determine what is right or what is wrong, or how to be smarter and more informed than everyone else.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you ... (I Corinthians 11:14)?"

 

[Recovering IFB]

There is no standard of Right and Wrong.  Right and Wrong are relative.  I've said that over and over.  Don't your read?

Without God, you can't even make sense out of your statement. Even your claims of truth being "relative" need to meet a certain criteria for truth. Relativism still needs truthfor something to be right or wrong for certain parties. I have asked you to justify your truth, which you haven't been able to do.
FWIW, I do believe Romans 1, I really think you do know God, its inescapable. You are sinning by suppressing the knowledge of Him in unrighteousness.
If your claiming you don't need God for good or evil, why are you arguing your point then, it"s relative, right?
Now, who is the hypocrite?

 

[Route_70]

Now, who is the hypocrite?

 

[Tatterdemalion]

We have a bed here in the ward for Route 666.

Either he is a nut....or.... he is playing you all "for entertainment purposes only".

May I suggest the latter.

Or perhaps I am just smarter, wiser, and more informed that you and everyone on this forum ... and I am playing you for entertainment purposes only.

Like taking candy from a bay.

You forgot humble.

 

[Route_70]

We have a bed here in the ward for Route 666.

Either he is a nut....or.... he is playing you all "for entertainment purposes only".

May I suggest the latter.

Or perhaps I am just smarter, wiser, and more informed that you and everyone on this forum ... and I am playing you for entertainment purposes only.

Like taking candy from a bay.

You forgot humble.

No, I did not.  My humility is obvious to all.  No need to tell.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

There is no standard of Right and Wrong.  Right and Wrong are relative.  I've said that over and over.  Don't your read?

Without God, you can't even make sense out of your statement. Even your claims of truth being "relative" need to meet a certain criteria for truth. Relativism still needs truthfor something to be right or wrong for certain parties. I have asked you to justify your truth, which you haven't been able to do.

Right and wrong can be relative. I am allowed to go to our park's soccer fields and run across the yards. It is perfectly legal and acceptable. When kids are on the same field playing and my presence interferes with their free play, it is wrong, illegal and unacceptable. Same action, same field, different circumstances. On one hand it is right, on the other it is wrong.

In my house it is acceptable for one to wear shoes inside. To do the same thing in Japan with my Japanese brethren, it is an insult and culturally wrong. Why? The rule and potential violation thereof is relative.

Everyone of us would accept the fact that intentionally taking the life of another human being is wrong. There are those who believe intentionally taking the life of others via war or capital punishment is not only acceptable, but the right thing to do, even while believing it is immoral to intentionally take the life of another. Here is a MORAL principle with which different perspectives are viewed.

So though truth by nature has to be absolute (or it isn't truth), our perspectives of that ideal are relative. And that relativity can be caused by culture or tribe, not by the morality of God. So Route_70 does have a legitimate point.

 

[Route_70]

Right and wrong can be relative. I am allowed to go to our park's soccer fields and run across the yards. It is perfectly legal and acceptable. When kids are on the same field playing and my presence interferes with their free play, it is wrong, illegal and unacceptable. Same action, same field, different circumstances. On one hand it is right, on the other it is wrong.

In my house it is acceptable for one to wear shoes inside. To do the same thing in Japan with my Japanese brethren, it is an insult and culturally wrong. Why? The rule and potential violation thereof is relative.

Everyone of us would accept the fact that intentionally taking the life of another human being is wrong. There are those who believe intentionally taking the life of others via war or capital punishment is not only acceptable, but the right thing to do, even while believing it is immoral to intentionally take the life of another. Here is a MORAL principle with which different perspectives are viewed.

So though truth by nature has to be absolute (or it isn't truth), our perspectives of that ideal are relative. And that relativity can be caused by culture or tribe, not by the morality of God. So Route_70 does have a legitimate point.

It has been an interesting, relaxing, and pleasant few minutes with my coffee this morning, reading your comments on the Transgender thread, and on this one, SC (a.k.a. DB). 

 

[Tatterdemalion]

There is no standard of Right and Wrong.  Right and Wrong are relative.  I've said that over and over.  Don't your read?

Without God, you can't even make sense out of your statement. Even your claims of truth being "relative" need to meet a certain criteria for truth. Relativism still needs truthfor something to be right or wrong for certain parties. I have asked you to justify your truth, which you haven't been able to do.

Right and wrong can be relative. I am allowed to go to our park's soccer fields and run across the yards. It is perfectly legal and acceptable. When kids are on the same field playing and my presence interferes with their free play, it is wrong, illegal and unacceptable. Same action, same field, different circumstances. On one hand it is right, on the other it is wrong.

In my house it is acceptable for one to wear shoes inside. To do the same thing in Japan with my Japanese brethren, it is an insult and culturally wrong. Why? The rule and potential violation thereof is relative.

Everyone of us would accept the fact that intentionally taking the life of another human being is wrong. There are those who believe intentionally taking the life of others via war or capital punishment is not only acceptable, but the right thing to do, even while believing it is immoral to intentionally take the life of another. Here is a MORAL principle with which different perspectives are viewed.

So though truth by nature has to be absolute (or it isn't truth), our perspectives of that ideal are relative. And that relativity can be caused by culture or tribe, not by the morality of God. So Route_70 does have a legitimate point.

Good post. A sneeze is a sneeze, but the ancient Greeks believed it was a prophecy and the Japanese thought it meant that someone was talking about you.

 

[T-Bone]

We have a bed here in the ward for Route 666.

Either he is a nut....or.... he is playing you all "for entertainment purposes only".

May I suggest the latter.

Or perhaps I am just smarter, wiser, and more informed that you and everyone on this forum ... and I am playing you for entertainment purposes only.

Like taking candy from a bay.

You forgot humble.

No, I did not.  My humility is obvious to all.  No need to tell.

So does that mean your intelligence is not obvious to all...therefore your continued trumpeting?

 

[Recovering IFB]

Right and wrong can be relative. I am allowed to go to our park's soccer fields and run across the yards. It is perfectly legal and acceptable. When kids are on the same field playing and my presence interferes with their free play, it is wrong, illegal and unacceptable. Same action, same field, different circumstances. On one hand it is right, on the other it is wrong.

has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about

In my house it is acceptable for one to wear shoes inside. To do the same thing in Japan with my Japanese brethren, it is an insult and culturally wrong. Why? The rule and potential violation thereof is relative.

Cultural norms have nothing to do with the fact of what is right or wrong, i think the word you are looking for is "taste".

Everyone of us would accept the fact that intentionally taking the life of another human being is wrong.

Based on what standard? who made that rule up? you have abandoned Scripture for your truth, so what are you basing this on? What if another culture comes along and says it is right to rape, pillar and plunder. According to you, it is the cultural norm of that specific people.....

There are those who believe intentionally taking the life of others via war or capital punishment is not only acceptable, but the right thing to do, even while believing it is immoral to intentionally take the life of another. Here is a MORAL principle with which different perspectives are viewed.

Actually,this is easy...capital punishment is called "justice". Again the Bible,(the authority you have abandoned) speaks of justice as a punishment for evil doers. And there is Biblical precedence that God uses war as a tool of justice.....

So though truth by nature has to be absolute (or it isn't truth), our perspectives of that ideal are relative.

. God has spoken on what truth is, and it emanates from Him. Not from our "cultural norms"

And that relativity can be caused by culture or tribe, not by the morality of God. So Route_70 does have a legitimate point.

No, Rt 70 said "there was no God". So, he has abandoned knowledge, morality laws of logic and science. For him to make a truth statement, he has to justify how he has come to that knowledge. In Proverbs 9 the Scriptures tells us that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." the Hebrew word for "beginning" is reshyth, meaning foundation. same word as in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Without God, you cannot know anything. Think about it, How did we then come from nothing, evolve from nothing with a certain standard of right and wrong? Says who? By What Standard?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about

...

Cultural norms have nothing to do with the fact of what is right or wrong, i think the word you are looking for is "taste".

Oh, it absolutely does.

Based on what standard? who made that rule up? you have abandoned Scripture for your truth, so what are you basing this on? What if another culture comes along and says it is right to rape, pillar and plunder. According to you, it is the cultural norm of that specific people.....

Yet people have and still DO use your "standard" to rape, pillar and plunder. (Hello, Middle East!) So obviously the Scripture itself is insufficient evidence.

  Actually,this is easy...capital punishment is called "justice". Again the Bible,(the authority you have abandoned) speaks of justice as a punishment for evil doers. And there is Biblical precedence that God uses war as a tool of justice.....

My point wasn't to bring debate to capital punishment. My point is to show a moral code which is not upheld, except on biblical perspective. There are those who would totally disagree and use the Bible as evidence God has rejected the capital punishment system. So this is a peeing match between who has the most acceptable hermeneutic and not really about truth at all. So are you for executing homosexuals, witches and CEO types who make money on people's loan interest charges? The Bible teaches IN CONTEXT, these are to be executed. So you pick and choose which part of the "authority" to abandon, as do I. So the moral code of "it is wrong to intentionally take the life of another" is still relative so how YOU choose to interpret the Scriptures.

God has spoken on what truth is, and it emanates from Him. Not from our "cultural norms"

And yet there are those who don't believe in God or who believe in other gods who still have pretty much the same moral code.

No, Rt 70 said "there was no God". So, he has abandoned knowledge, morality laws of logic and science. For him to make a truth statement, he has to justify how he has come to that knowledge. In Proverbs 9 the Scriptures tells us that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." the Hebrew word for "beginning" is reshyth, meaning foundation. same word as in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Without God, you cannot know anything. Think about it, How did we then come from nothing, evolve from nothing with a certain standard of right and wrong? Says who? By What Standard?

And that is Route_70s issue, not mine, so I can't answer for him. Personally, I believe in a Creator and whether that creative process were sudden or evolutionary, I believe there is a moral code inside mankind. I personally believe it to be by design. But whether or not I am right or wrong, it doesn't change the fact that culture does dictate rules of engagement/civility/conduct along with moral codes, regardless of one's belief in a creator or any particular god.

 

[Jo]

You believe there is a "moral code" inside mankind? That is an interesting thought.  So, when someone lies or cheats, even beats their wife, what do you think causes that? 

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You believe there is a "moral code" inside mankind? That is an interesting thought.  So, when someone lies or cheats, even beats their wife, what do you think causes that? 

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

Upon first offense, did it violate their conscience? Over time, conscience can be seared and calloused and we can force that voice away so as to keep dabbling in our wrong actions. But any twinge of guilt when the behavior was first performed, I believe it is because of a moral code defaulted in a person, knowing that what he/she just did was wrong. Route_70 would disagree with me, but I believe it is by the design of our Creator. But in essence, it means one need not believe in God to be a moral person.

 

[S.T.Ranger]

.....You don't agree with atheism....

No, evolution is not possible. Either Gen. 1:1 is true or "nothing" exploded {the big bang} and the universe formed. Which one takes more faith to believe? Only a fool would believe the latter.

What is wrong in exercising faith to believe?

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God (Hebrews 11:3)?"

The only way that you can believe Genesis is to do so by faith.  There is no other way.  You cannot verify the Genesis account scientifically.

The question I pose is not DID evolution happen; but is it possible that evolution could happen.  Can you demonstrate scientifically that evolution is not possible?

Not in a context that places it in conflict with the Creation account. That has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with speculation on something that conflicts with what God has declared.

But, as far as "evolution," sure, it is possible. Probably better to view "devolution" as a more apt description, though. This world is under the curse, and we should not overlook the effects it has on all of Creation. If we want to call man's cranial capacity shrinking as evolution, hey, no problem. If we want to look at man's length of life shrinking as evolution, hey, no problem. If we want to look at man's ability to kill more effectively as evolution, hey...no problem.

But we can't view Creation as the result of a single cell organism becoming the building blocks we have in existence today. Genesis seems to say God created that which exists, then formed those building blocks.

And I don't view belief in the Creation Account as simply a matter of faith, but we also consider it is a matter of obedience. Man's first problem was that he came into conflict with what GOd told him, and that has not changed. It has, in fact, gotten worse.

Could we call that evolution?


God bless.

 

[Bo]

I don't see it.  Animals have adapted and changed throughout their own species.....but have never went from one species slam to another.

and humans....well....we were Created in the image of God....immediately and in His image from day one....never had to evolve into it....

 

[FSSL]

I don't see it.  Animals have adapted and changed throughout their own species.....but have never went from one species slam to another.

and humans....well....we were Created in the image of God....immediately and in His image from day one....never had to evolve into it....

Right on!