What is Evangelism?

\ Cobbler Quote:

It is not impossible that chance has been the catalyst of life all along.
BJ quote:
. Awfully insistent of you. YOUVE been asserting that all life is but a solution through algorithms whereas Cobbler has mere proposed otherwise. Its just me but I think the burden is upon you to first provide proof, or at least some bit of evidence (that does not involve your much displayed sense of incredulity as your only evidence to date).

Comment:

The Bible does not say "fully formed creatures" it just says living creatures.

The implication is that these can be even single celled "living" creatures tiny bits of DNA replication after their own kind. The slight hitch is that they may be the same kind but with subtle and unique mutations that evolve over time.

When the Bible says this verse... in the Hebrew, it is as if God is a mother hen and the earth is her eggs and God at that point is given a figurative female personification. This feminine personification is lost in the English translation.

God is mother earth...

the term"after his kind" is a universal script. Translated verbatim from language to language.
"After his kind" presumes that all is already decided .Its anagenesis . The term "fully formed " has been the way the past churches have explained creation.
However, Ill go one step even farther back, The laws of chemistry are the "gods"

Why not rather say the loss of chemistry or invented and written by God as a code known as quantum mechanics.

because thats word salad.

After their kind means that a cat will not give birth to a dog. Otherwise we would have catty dogs...

But it does not mean that every cat is not unique and that dogs and cats do not occupy the same mammalian branch of a tree that once converged.

There is evolution within species and evolution outside species.

Evolution within species we call breeding and evolution outsides species, though rare, still does occur. Though it is gradual and often takes many thousands of years to occur.

Even though evolution outside of species does occur it is hard to not admit that the dominant rule is that most living creatures produce offspring after their own kind(species).

Nothing in that indicates that things evolved fully formed or the dust of the ground would not have been necessary to mention.

The dust is mentioned because it is the substrate of all physical bodies.

Creation in its purest form needs no substrate or dust for it implies that something came from "nothing"...

The genesis account clearly attributes dust as the substance from which we came so all that is missing is time.

In seven days something within the human anatomy "changed", a new mutation in human biology would take about that long to reveal itself.

Whether it be the adaptation of speech or tool making a kind of new consciousnesses and discovery that would be passed on to generations.

That would have made the first of a kind.

The history of agriculture, cities and advanced tool making all appeared, give or take a few thousand years, around the time the book of Genesis indicates it did.

Science does not dispute that.

The language that we were "formed" from the dust and not created from the dust, to form something indicated that that process of forming takes "time". That many forms were formed till the final one emerged. The first form started as a blob....

Within that seven days something was created, a mutation perhaps that gave way to a new breed of humans? No dust was needed for this mutation to occur and it happened in an instant. It signaled the beginning of consciousness (intelligence) also, though it is debatable whether if humans are really intelligent.

This new breed produced creatures after their kind passing on this new mutation.

Today "most" humans possess this mutation.

I believe a day is a day and not a thousand years like some may say. But the day we become aware of our surroundings becomes a new day where our potential was changed. This awareness did not have to begin at birth it could have begun during a later phase of life.

The potential for a new awareness would begin at birth but the realization of a new consciousness would happen during maturity.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature[creation]: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Comment:
Jesus is referred to as the second Adam. This verse above is describing the new birth or being born again.

This new Christian birth does not happen in the womb but it is realized through an enlightenment and awakening later in life, perhaps just like the first Adam.

At the moment of this new Christian birth the soul and spirit are theoretically transformed though creative process just as a mutation would reveal itself.

Romans 12:2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Comment:
The transformation from non Christian to a Christian takes about a week...

Was Adam's transformation (mutation) realized in a similar manner?

Language, astronomy, science were now a human possibility...

The only thing missing in Adam and his offspring was civility and charity as he gave birth to the first murderer... Christianity theoretically tries to address this (at least the lack of civility)...

Christianity implies that the mutation process is not complete and requires another transformation...

A transformation that "fake Christians" seem to have overlooked...

I see where you are going with "the laws of Chemistry are the God" but we have no proof either way that the laws of Chemistry are perhaps the vehicle with which Gods create consciousness.

And are we created in the image of God? That is still an unknown...

There is no indication that we are "formed" in the image of God but that we are "created" in the image of God is a different question altogether.

The implication is that the image of God is consciousness... that the laws of chemistry seems to on face value lack.

It can be argued whether if consciousnesses is still a product of chemistry as civility may also exist without the need for a creator or savior.

"after its kind" is still counter to what evolution even says. Its not impossible for dogs and cats to have arisen from a common ancestor. Maybe "defining its kind through time, and remaining for an undefined period of time" Carnivores, in the person of miacids appeared in the Eocene . True canids and felids appeared to be derived from the miacids with canids earliest fossils appeared in the Eocene and felids appeared in the late Eocene/early Oligocene(there i some disagreement on th stratigrphy) . " Cats and dogs came from the same mama order. Biblical talk presumes monolithic unrelated families that appeared all at once may I add.

You seem to be searching for something to latch onto. I really dont bother with Biblical claptrap and having to "explain" what the writers means when it appears that its counter to what science says.

Perhaps you buy common ancestry but the bulk of others do not (gunga , (and who can ever forget Real Life)BJ, Earth, Wind and Fire, Medved, et etc. I dont have to "define" my corner because science is fairly together in this. The religious folks apparently are not. In the past year Ive read about 5 different themes and interpretations in Creationism/ID. Pardon me if I just lah out at allof you, since the entire bag , to me, seems a bit contrived for the masses .
I can stick with my story and dont have to even be worried about validating terms like ,"after his kind", or "fully formed'.

I can give you examples of just that from a rather tight arena in the fossil record. WE DID ONCE HAVE DOGGY CATS OR CATTY DOGS. Just as we had LIZARDY BIRDS , and FISHY FROGGIES. or FROGGY FISH. We had FLOWERING PINEY TREES.
Ive kept away from the obvious though.
Ya gotta gimme a better accounting of "after its own kind" I dislike anagenetics , even in talky writing.

The dominant rule is that species reproduce "after their own kind" the exception is catty dogs and fishy frogs. Even millions of years ago dinosaurs still reproduced after their own kind while mutations diverged even more species.

The species who once converged drifted and became isolated it is not incorrect to point that out.

Was there a time on earth when all species could intermingle reproductively? Maybe way back when we were all still pollen. Though even plants reproduce after their own kind while mutations lie as a sub dominant underlying catalyst of change.

FM you seem to discredit the science thinkers that observed their world and wrote the book of Genesis... The religious people misinterpret and others who claim science simply discredit it without even studying it. So it is a double blind dilemma.

A true scientist differentiates between words like kind, species, family etc...

Yet, words like made, formed and created are used interchangeably by scientists while the Bible cautions one as to doing this....

Body, soul and spirit... people also use soul and spirit interchangeably

They do not consider that the soul may be the life force that all living creatures exhibit while spirit may be an even higher form of life... A form of life that cannot be seen or observed with eyes just like many other forms of energy/matter which have evaded our ability to detect them. We can only theorize about their existence.

What is the human spirit? What is love? Can love be placed in a test tube heated with a Bunsen burner and one gets hot love?

Why can't money buy love? Why isn't psychiatry a pure science?

Science can only go as far as it can observe.

As for black holes and quantum sub atomic light particles, they are not observable and the only way to understand them is to speculate and learn about them by measuring the effects of them.

There are parts of the human biology that "may" also not be observable and only understood by speculation and measuring the effects of our demonstrations and manifestations. After all, we are also mater which is energy.

Like many sub atomic particles, our spirit (if there even is one) may never be understood...

There is a difference between educated speculation and mere speculation.

Educated speculation does not usually occur by closing off sources of understanding.

Educated speculation does not occur by impugning ones own speculations over others merely for the political gain.

If one does not know for sure if there is a human spirit then simply admit it.

It is apparent there is a soul because, we would not be alive if there was not a soul. What exactly is soul life? Some say breath, wind, electricity, etc... but is there a spirit realm above and beyond the question of soul life?

If you have no proof to the contrary of spirit then admit it. Admitting that spirit cannot be observed neither proves it or disproves it.

Science can only speculate so far and then they are just making stuff up just like any other soap box theotician...

. Its such a say nothing phrase that it's almost a tautology. I get annoyed with biblical crap trying to convince me that there is actual scientific "meat" in these kind of phrases. Like "Evolution is the way god decided that life must proceed"

My main annoyance is that its(at least to me), lazy thinking and free of any actual analyses.

When was the last universal common ancestor? I like Lynn Margulis thoughts on this, but Im sure there are others equally convincing but all mostly fact-free.

we are entering a new age when "mutation" is slowly losing cred. We see evolution occuring without our genomes involvement.evolution precedes what Stephen Gould said about it all, "DNA is merely the bookkeeping of evolution"
As non coding DNA seems to be playing more of a key role in natural selection response , we shall just have to wait and see what the plot -line is.

Yes, mother earth has been replaced by a microprocessor...

what I meant to say was, "Why not say the laws of chemistry were invented by God and written using a code known as quantum mechanics."

The laws of chemistry are not invented they just are... that is why they are called laws.

Who invented round or square things?

Who invented angles, lines and up and down, inside and outside?

Who invented love?

Did they not have love before they invented it?

Some things just are... they are part of the infinite continuum of isness.

Hate group leader is the first member of Trump’s ‘religious liberty’ task force
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/08/hate-group-leader-first-member-trumps-religious-liberty-task-force/

Wolves in sheep's clothing disguising hate for religious liberty.

Trump is an abomination.

You are basing this assumption on what data? Are you assuming the laws and the underlying order that reveals them always existed?

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg

Who created circles?

I know your brain will go 'round and 'round trying to figure that 0ut.

...as for a perfect circle?

Is there really such a thing?

In the beginning was God and before that was God's father.

Can a God be lawless if he/she has not created them yet?

What kind of God has no laws?

Can God break the law?

A lawless God cannot be holy...