- NEW!
by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on April 19th, 2007
Is hard cover or leather best for a bible?
by Answerbag Staff on April 8th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Which day is the correct biblical day for worship? Does the bible specify or was the day given by man as a means of controling the people?
by hope48 on April 24th, 2012
| 3 people like this
What really is 'speaking in tongues'?
http://genealogyreligion.net/cross-cultural-glossolalia-babeling
by aldonoir on April 15th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Why am i losing my faith in god? I had a strong faith but now it is going away and i am realizing that god seems outrageous.
by DaveyRay on April 23rd, 2012
| 3 people like this
My soul mate and I were reunited on Good Friday; after almost 5 years being kept apart. Do you consider it to be a miracle? Why/why not?
by katy2 on April 28th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Do you believe in evolution? Or do you believe God made the earth? Which one is more believable? Big Bang Theory or God creating man out of dust?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
VERY GOOD ANSWER! Thank you!!
by jesusfreak on April 19th, 2007
Nice!! +5
by Damiana on April 19th, 2007
unfortunately, the typical born again christian young earther won't but the different day length notion or the interpreted by man. It is curious that they tend to quote from the King James Version, which may be a nice poetic translation of the earlier Bibles, it is not the most accurate, esp in its treatment of women.
by james the first on January 29th, 2008
Great answer Cowboys. I've tried to convey the same message many times on different questions. Scientific and religious theories on creation need not be mutually exclusive. If you read religious writings with today's knowledge of science and medicine (not just the antiquated knowledge of biblical times) you might explain events differently. These new interpretations of the past may be more accurate than the accountings given at the time. Perhaps this 'dust' that was used to create man was really atomic or sub-atomic particles, but back in those days the smallest thing they could comprehend was mere dust.
by Little Miss Dangerous on February 8th, 2008
What a load of JUNK, John55!!
Why did you have to bring women into the discussion as if a passing fact of the topic at hand??!
We KNOW today's feminist/equal opportunity gripe is but nonsense, is totally destructive, in fact, and just unrealistic. [FULL STOP!] And all the preaching and 'engineering' in the world serves only to further confuse and destroy - especially families and economies.
Now, Cowboy, the bible might have been written by men, but men as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost - and the Holy Ghost is the 3rd member of the Godhead - in other words, God Himself.
I think the best we can scripturally do for your theory is to point out that there are 2 places in the Bible where the prophets refer to "a day in God's time is as a thousand years", but that seems to be the best we can scripturally find for you!!
Then the earth might be 13,000 years old!
Sorry.
by denidowi on May 29th, 2008
OF course if you view the bible as fiction, anything quoted from the bible will not help the cause of a young earth. All the evidence supports evolution and several billion years of history.
How does the theory of evolution destroying families?
by james the first on May 29th, 2008
No, John, more specifically, I was say that Feminism destroys family & Economy. Evolution's place in all of this has been to give further legitimacy to foolish concepts such as Feminism; it has given such more root.
I answered Darkling's Q on exactly how feminism had destroyed the economies of the world with quite a substantial entry.
Perhaps, you might like to find that - either through her profile or mine. She asked the Q; so hers might be more direct.
Feminism and economy.
by denidowi on June 1st, 2008
In holy Qur'an Allah said:
(22:47): And they ask you to hasten on the torment! and Allah fails not his promise. And verily, a day with your Lord is as thousand yers of what you reckon.
(70:4): The angels and the Rhu (Jabriel) ascend to him in a day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years.
That means the relative in feeling the time is true and god mentioned that to us...
but i don't know if he means that he created the earth and heavens in (7*1000years)= 7000years :) because it doesn't matter
god created the earth and heaven....how? why in 7 days? ...?? it actually doesn't matter.
by Ahmed_225 on January 15th, 2009
That's true Ahmed. It just doesn't matter the length of these days of God. We DO know, however, that they were different from what we experience now. That much we do know.
However, what we also know, as well, is that 'evolution of the species' was not the "scientific process" for making plants and animals, because these processes necessitate death; and God was not 'the author' of death.
Holy writ is most clear that the serpent [being the channel of the devil in physically speaking to Eve] tempted Adam and Eve. Man succumbed and death was thereby instituted by Man's choice.
Man was the instrument of introducing death. Therefore, evolution of the species is an impossible process for the institution of life.
Of course, my recent 10 year study and book re the opposition between Man and the snake totally supports this Biblical writing.
by denidowi on January 16th, 2009
10 years of study. Impressive. And I thought the story of the snake was just a parable.
by james the first on January 16th, 2009
Of course to believe all of this you have ignore several major branchs of science. Astronomy, biology, geology, chemistry, etc, since they all refute most of the literal interpretations of the bible and the quran.
by james the first on January 16th, 2009
I don't know about astronomy, since it is based mostly in physics, but certainly, you are correct that you would have to "ignore" certain aspects within contemporary biology and interpretations in geology: Yes; according to the mere theorists in those fields today, you probably would have to disregard their interpretations of the evidence. That's true.
How chemistry would bother the Biblical reading I currently have no idea.
Perhaps you could enlighten us, John!
Certainly in the absolutely "provable" sciences, such as most of physics and mathematics, you will find, as I have found, that they much more clearly support, or allow for, the Heavenly Creation and the subsequent dealinsg of the serpent with Man than the theory of evolution could genuinely evidence.
Oh ... we ALL know they are quite adept at "manufacture" and fabrication, shall we say, but not very good at admitting truth, I'm afraid.
They leave truth out of it ... well, not in everything; after all, satan can only get away with confusing some of the facts of life; can't he??
I mean, people are rarely blind enough to just fabricate ALL of science, or all of what they see! Nevertheless, for those who ARE prepared to admit most falsehoods, evolution has become, basically, fairytale belief and pure fabrication of the evidence.
by denidowi on January 16th, 2009
Mere theorists? Its like calling thiests, mere mythologists.
Actually thiests are.
Chemistry is working on the connection between step between certain chemical reactions and the start of self replicating reactions. ie life. You are getting behind in your research. 10 years huh.
Its so clever to ignore a vast amount of useful biological research as works of the devil. I would be more inclined to see the blindness in your eyes as works of the devil. That is if I believed the devil was more than a religious notion.
by james the first on January 16th, 2009
I'd like to see you explain how the miracles we see every day came from nothing. A very basic principle of science is that something cannot come out of nothing. Kind of blows that whole atheist thingy out of the water it seems.
by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on January 16th, 2009
Oh, John .. John ... per usual, Mate; you've actually said nothing here but just blow-hard hot air!
Where is even 'THE LEAST' substance in your last entry?
Why did you even bother putting finger to keyboard??!! Just to mouth off, I suppose ... or was it basically Bravado on your part, to make it seem you were not a losing cause?
What was it this time, John?
What a waste of energy and time, John.
Now, Ronaldus the Magnificent, you make assumption, Young fella.
If I am believing correctly here, that is, you are coming from some notion re Big Bang ... which has to be acknowledged as Quite a different proposal and notion altogether from that of Evolution of the species.
I would never even attempt to lump both of those different topics and concepts in the same arena.
Firstly, Biblically, I see nothing about Big bang that is necessarily anti-Biblical.
I see it differing from the way many people INTERPRET the Biblical account, but in the cold hard reality of the actual Biblical account taken on face value, Big bang could still be possible: Yes.
In fact, a modern day prophet, of nearly 200 years ago, taught that "the elements are eternal".
Joseph Smith taught that the translation of the Bible in certain languages used the word "created" as meaning "organized" or built from the materials that were already there. So, the standing concept that God made things appear out of thin air: I don't think so!
One thing we have learnt about God is that we are here to learn obedience to the laws He already has learned to obey.
So He doesn't perform magic, as such ... No.
by denidowi on January 16th, 2009
On the other hand, evolution flies in the face of the Bible ... because evolution teaches a process of Creation that feasts upon death after death after death for millions of years.
And we know that God is not the author of death.
No!
Satan acted through the serpent, as my discovery [recorded in the book, TWO BIRDS ... ONE STONE!] that Man and the snake are precise opposites in both, behaviour and anatomy, tends to support, also.
The serpent persuaded Man to oppose God.
So God cursed the serpent making changes to it, as recorded.
What my discovery shows is that those changes must have been 'throughout', probably not just the 3 or 4 mentioned in holy writ.
Nevertheless, Man introduced death, not God.
If you think about it logically, (God being eternal, I mean):
How can someone who is Forever possibly create something that is only temporary??
He made all things to last as He had created them.
And they would have ... but He gave Man the choice for death.
God did not force Adam to stay there forever.
He gave him choice to continue in life, or to choose death.
Satan came along in the form of a serpent, and persuaded them do choose opposite God'
Hence, the symbolic changes ... hence my discovery.
by denidowi on January 16th, 2009
for the guy who said that something cant come from nothing when a human and every other life form is born it comes from close to nothing
by MT53191 on April 12th, 2009
Only 'close to', MT ... only close to...
A seed is next to nothing too. We have a tree.
If you look at God's laws at the opening of holy writ, you will see some of God's view on life and creation. He is a firm believer in the power of the exponential.
Check His very opening words to Man: "Be fruitful, multiply...". Perhaps they did not understand the term, "Exponentiality"!
Things grow as they are fed, MT. But it appears that if you do just a little of the right kind of work, you reap a Multiplied reward.
That seems to be the way of God.
The elements themselves, however, are eternal. Creation did not arise from nothing ... materials were there; the earth was "without form or void".
by denidowi on April 13th, 2009
Science show us gods not necessary, word "day" at Genesis mean 24 hour day, not millions of years, any how, eart is 4,540,000,000 years old, is billions not millions, apologists just confuse you.
by Kobayashi-san on February 6th, 2011
Kobayashi, I tried to follow you...but got lost in some assumptions you made as fact. Science may indeed show God is not necessary, but it also does not show Him/It as impossible. Why do you claim that the word 'day' in the biblical writing of Genesis means 24 hour day? NO person alive todays knows for certain what they may have been *trying* to convey by 'day'. And IF these less scientifically enlightened peoples were trying to convey a message supposedly conveyed to them by others (whether passed by word of mouth and retelling or some 'God'), there is no denying that a misinterpretations could have been made in terminology used both in retelling and translations. I believe that is what the original answer was trying to communicate.
by Little Miss Dangerous on February 6th, 2011
I just love the assumption here that the authors of the scripture didn't know what 'day' mean't when they wrote it.
Someone has got this all badly wrong for so many people to need to try and run it's maze just to justify themselves.
If in the original language the word mean't 'period' as well as 'day' then was there a better word the authors could have used?
Either way. It is not hard to imagine what those periods were like because we live in one now. None of the rules of the universe or of geology have changed since the natural formation of the earth from the material that originally constituted the solar system - as was left over from billion of years of earlier processes of exploding stars. There is absolutely nothing different about today than there was about 1 billion years ago except for rolling back the clock on evolution and the surface of the earth looking very different.
As a geologist I would break the main events for the formation of the planet into at least several hundred periods. There is no definition where you could break them into 7 'key' events or periods.
There is absolutely no reason in science to break it down into day/periods or anything to do with the number 7. That is simply a fiction. The past is a continuous line of molecular events occurring just as they do today. I think if you look deep into yourselves as honestly as you can you will see you are trying to make your beliefs fit the evidence, not the other way around.
I agree with Little Miss Dangerous though. If we assume it's full of inaccuracies and mistranslations then we can see why it is why it is, and it also helps explain our cultures and mistakes we have made. So if we just think that it carries some hint of truth instead - that it is on the rough lines of truth. Again though my problem is that there are no periods - no way to separate out one thing from the other.
As for God being possible/impossible I don't think that really matter's anymore. God used to be something we used to explain unanswered questions. So much has been removed from God the only educated positions that remain regard the creation of the universe and the fixing of the cosmological constants. I think that we have to honestly look at the fact that the claims about god, with reference to the evidence, have shifted the nature of God in exactly the same way the New Testament shifted it. The evidence changes the character of God away from New Testament theology. Basically, they got it wrong.
God still remains as a possibility and something people can believe in, and who know's maybe it's still the God-Head, but we got it very wrong on alot of details, which means alot of people suffered in the past because of that and I think that should be the lesson. People before theology - all people. The chances are we are still very wrong about God.
by BenUK78 on September 21st, 2011