Evidence for God from Science

does not equate to skipping none direct descendant (grandchildren, etc).

does not equate to skipping non-direct descendants. In other words you cannot equate using a particular son's name to jumping ahead many generations into the future to find a name with the right meaning.

Jac3510, This debate is now almost pointless, because you are now only one step from my way of interpreting. You first said each verse must be interpreted on its own: Perhaps our difference is methodological, then (that is, hermeneutical). I believe that the meaning of each text is found within the ...

If you hold to 24-hour days then you should read Ps. 104:20-23. This is a commentary on the creation in which God is praised for what He did and how the creation still reveals His greatness. These verses show that if you take verses like Ex. 20:11 as exact analogies (as far as the length of a yom) t...

Try this

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=33474

This whole topic has moved here

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=33474

Jac3510, "And It was so" points back to the creation command (Gen. 1:26) as it does on every other day. The rest of the verses (27-30) may be included, but there is not a focus on the verses about plants as food. So, I do not understand your point. Animals were here before humans (Gen. 1:2...

These have been promoted by Carl Baugh and Kent Hovind. The Institute for Creation Research has said these footprints are not evidence for a young earth: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=255 Answers in Genesis has it on a list of arguments creationists should not u...

Jac3510, Show me how you deal with this: Genesis 11 seems to have no gaps in the genealogies. But, then I look at Luke 3:36 and find a guy named Cainan that is not in Genesis 11. What do you do? What conclusion did you come to from the Genesis text and what do you do with Luke? Show me the steps you...

Jac3510, I showed from the text why yours is a questionable understanding of Gen. 1:29-30: The text seems to make a distinction in what is said to man and then about animals: To man It starts - "Behold, I have given you..." It ends - " lachem ( to you ) yihyeh ( it shall be ) le (for)...

Jac3510, I lied. One more thing. If, then, that is true, we can go back to my main points in the other thread, as well as in this one. You don't take a wide variety of passages and bring them to bear on another to get its meaning. You take each passage according to its own context, and from THAT, yo...

Modulus, First I am not an expert on this, but: Endogenous retroviruses are assumed to be evidence for evolution. It is an unproven assumption that these fragments actually came from retroviruses. Evolutionists once considered them "junk" left over from our ancestors, but now scientists ar...

I am not ignoring it. I understand it differently than you do. Accepting that we interpret Scripture by Scripture doesn't answer the question of how we are to do so. "Your limited understanding of this type of interpretation causes problems: How many angels are at the tomb? 1 or 2 How many dem...

Jac3510, Please link me to a resource that limits (literal-historical-grammatical method of interpretation) as you do. You are ignoring a large part of this type of interpretation: "Using Scripture to interpret Scripture" Here is a link showing multiple articles http://www.simplythegospel....

Jac3510, I take this as instructive/informative. (God instructing/informing man) I will agree that it is an instruction to man, but it only informs him that animals too eat vegetation. Most land animals to this day eat vegetation to one degree or another and this would have been the case during Mose...

jlay, Most of the points you raised are dealt with in the research paper I linked to. You must not have read it. http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Green_Complete_Cell_2008.pdf Like I said, if the mtDNA of the father is part of the equation, that still has no bearing on neanderthals. This would lead...