A literal 6 24-hr days?

First, I'm not a Roman Catholic.

Second, I believe when Jesus gave bread and wine they transubstantiated (?) to his blood and flesh.

Third, I'm not a Roman Catholic.

Fourth, what does this have to do with my previous post?

 

The idea that the Bible specifically presents against evolution is an interpretation of the Biblical point of view. </font>[/QUOTE]No it's not. It is simply taking what the Bible says at face value. Creation by kind and the order to reproduce by kind are pretty clearly anti-evolution.

OK, if you want it literal in that way, fine. Just remember it also happened in a literal day. So if you want a day's worth of evolution on day 3, have at it!

Amazing! An evolutionist relying on a literal reading of Genesis 1! If that is what pleases you, it pleases me. Just remember that all that happened in two literal days, as well.

Now that is really adding to the Bible! That's quite an interpretation, especially since there is absolutely nothing in genetics or extant evidence to support the possibility of common ancestry! However, in addition to all this happening in two literal days, I do suggest that the order to reproduce after their kind be considered. I would also suggest that the idea of kind being an actual taxonomic classification is supported by the fact that animals were taken by kind onto the Ark.

You are doing what I see all evolutionists do who are trying to combine the Bible with evolution: picking and choosing what you want for support. Don't you think it would be wiser, as a Christian, to abandon ALL preconceptions and see what God is saying instead?

I think your Ark is more allegorically crowded than Noah's Ark ever needed to be!

No, there are other words for those. Morning and evening are morning and evening.

Well, you just wiped out even an allegorical use of morning and evening with your overlapping periods, didn't you? Maybe it's harder than you realize to shut out what the Bible is actually saying in favor of what evolutionists have taught.

OK, so please tell me, what were the morning stars of Job 38?

And that is why it's great to have the Alexandrian LXX, which was translated BY HEBREWS from paleo-Hebrew into classical Greek. That is an excellent check on meaning as the Hebrews themselves understood it from their own history and Scriptures.

Aside from that, I do think God is powerful enough to keep His Word intact. Copyist errors almost always had to do with numbers and name spellings. Actual concepts were not mistaken.

I would like evidence that an entire concept was changed due to a copyist error.

Well, actually, I'm guessing you haven't read much about what some of their other comments have involved.

"It will be some time before we see 'slime, protoplasm, &c.'
generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled
to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by
which I really meant 'appeared ' by some wholly unknown process.
It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might
as well think of the origin of matter." (Darwin C.R., letter to J.D.
Hooker, 29 March 1863, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life of Charles
Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.257)

=============

in a private letter from Darwin to Edward Aveling, dated Oct 13, 1880. Aveling was a freethinker/atheist who had written quite a number of articles on Darwin (sometimes under his own name, sometimes not). He was proposing to republish some of them in a collection in the International Library of Science and Freethought. The purpose of the library was to "spread heresy". Aveling asked Darwin for permission to dedicate the work to him. Darwin's reply follows :


Dear Sir

I am obliged by your kind letter and the enclosure. -- the
publication in any form of your remarks on my writings really requires no consent on my part, and it would be ridiculous in me to give consent to what requires none. I should prefer the part of volume not be dedicated to me (though I thank you for the intended honour) as this implies to a certain extent my approval of the general publication, about which I know nothing. -- Moreover though I am a strong advocate
for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, and I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion. - I am sorry to refuse you any request, but I am old and have very little strength, and looking over proof-sheets (as I know by present experience) fatigues me much. -

I remain Dear Sir
yours faithfully
Ch. Darwin

====================

Regarding a couple of your other points above:

1. The fossil record is a matter of speculation and wild jumps when it comes to evolution. Here, from an editor of Nature, Henry Gee, is a bit to give you something from a fellow evolutionist:

In the end, we never see fossils as they are, but only imperfectly, in the light of models that are more or less approximate. Given this constraint, it is surely hard enough to make progress understanding the evidence we have without leaping way beyond it, with presupposiitions about chains of ancestry and descent, and about missing links. Such presuppositions are exposed as vacuous once the evidence finally catches up.
"In Search of Deep Time", p. 85

2. The entire concept of vestigal organs being evidence of evolution is ludicrous. First of all, the definition of 'vestigal' changed as soon as it was realized that most of these 'vestiges' had very adequate purposes in their present state. Secondly, the point that must be shown by evolution is how those organs got there originally, not that an organism may have lost them over time.

3. Predictions of fossils to be found? Almost any fossil fits someone's prediction! And almost any imagined line of descent can be altered with a little more imagination to fit into the 'evidence' on hand.

4. Protein 'relationships' are purely suppositional. We see similarities. We do not see 'relationships' in terms of one leading to another.

5. "vestiges" in embryos is a fairy-tale started many years ago and debunked just about every year since then.

So I repeat: evolution has no foundation in biology; but its foundation is rather in rebellion against God.

Because the two things are entirely different!

There are two kinds of wisdom in Scripture: that which is from the world and that which is from God. God GIVES wisdom to those who ask for it (James 1). In the meantime, it is not the scientific data which is being rejected, but the worldly way of interpreting it as part of an anti-God paradigm which is.

 

First off, please refrain from ad-homing evolutionists. Evolutionists are concerned with evolution, they can be Christian, Atheist, or another religion.

Also, do you have an answer for the meteor craters we find?

 

Quoting evolutionists is not ad hominem.

Meteor craters are from meteors.

 

Please list the evolutionary scientific papers about Genesis.

 

So how did mankind survive the life ending mega meteor Vredefort?

 

probably barely. Of course, most meteors don't affect the ENTIRE earth in one hit, do they?

 

Actually meteors the size of the Vredefort do effect the entire earth in one hit.

 

Ah, you mean like perhaps setting off a series of volcanoes? (Babel)

Or possibly triggering the crustal plates of the earth to start sliding across a super-heated, low viscosity asthenosphere? (Peleg)

I see!

 

No, I mean the type of life ending events as I qouted here:

Keep in mind Helen that while this is the biggest, it isn't the only big one that hit the earth.

 

Keep in mind Helen that while this is the biggest, it isn't the only big one that hit the earth. </font>[/QUOTE]This is the one that is associated with Peleg. The catastrophes mentioned in the above are exactly those listed in the book of Job. And yes, I know it is not the only big one to hit the earth. At any rate, here are some quotes from Job which correspond with what you have referred to in terms of effects. Job was probably Jobab, nephew of Lot.

While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The fire of God fell from the sky and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!" 1:16

...yet another messenger came and said, "Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!" (1:18-19)

He[God] moves mountains wihtout their knowing it and overturns them in his anger.
He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.
(6:5-7)

The breath of God produces ice, and the broad waters become frozen.
(37:10)

(There is more, but I started this a few hours ago and then sat down with my daughter to look at her yearbook with her and now it's time to start dinner.)

What I am trying to say is that there is mention in the Bible of the devastating effects of that time. Please read Psalm 18, vv 7-15 for a poetic description of something far beyond the normal which men remembered.

Yes, there were massive hits, and massive catastrophes. And they were not forgotten by the survivors.

 

Looks like a good few verses for a meteor strike, not one of the magnitude I suggest, but a meteor strike none the less.

Keep in mind that the effects of this particular meteor would be felt for centuries.

 

There is no question that atheists start with the premise "There is not God" and/or "OR if there is - He can't be seen to have done anything". Then starting from that point of "freedom from God" they then look at what God "created" to fabricate their world view about HOW living system of almost infinite complexity "popped into being" given enough hand waving and references to "billions and billions and billions" to cover for any lack of credibility.

However - the question has to be asked in connection with the subject title of this thread HOW WOULD that atheist - evolutionist - EXPECT to find "proof" of a literal 7 day week at creation?

What "evidence" would they "Accept"? What "Evidence" would they hope to find?

If we go to the atheist to find our story of "origins" instead of God's infallible word - SHOULD we be surprised that they rely simply on "guesswork"? Should we be surprised that they care nothing for the damage that evolution does to the Gospel of Jesus Christ regarding the FALL of mankind from sinless perfection and fellowship with God DOWN to the brute level of depraved fallen humanity?

Should we be suprised that instead of FALLING DOWN - the atheist sees us RISING UP from beastly blood thirsty carnivorous savage animals?

Should we be surprised that EVEN when their "myths" are seen to have flaws and no "Explanation" can cover - they respond with "WELL we are HERE so we KNOW it HAD to happen something like this story says".

You pick your gods - atheists all pick evolutionism - and it is obvious as to why they do it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Darwin was not an atheist when he developed his theory of evolution and he developed it based on the evidence. The reason it survives to this day is because it is credible.

Well, if we were only now seeing stars come into view from 6000 to 10,000 light years out, we wouldn't know about other galaxies yet, but we would have a clue that the earth was only that old. If radiometric decay series hadn't formed but for 6 to 10 thousand years worth yet, or if the sea only had 6 to 10 thousand years of salt accumulation, or if there were only enough coal in the earth to have been formed by a just a few generations of plants, or if the Hawiian Island chain were not yet formed, or if the continents hadn't drifted so far apart, or if there weren't a hundred thousand annual layers of ice and more in Greenland and at the South Pole, or . . .

The list goes on and on.

I'm very sorry your particular interpretation of religious truth is in such conflict with the facts. Christianity will survive this problem just as Christianity survived the earlier crisis over the fact that the earth moves.

The beasts are innocent in their dumb ignorance, however blood thirsty some of them may be. It is when we acquire knowledge of good and evil that we become responsible and guilty, an insight that comes directly from scripture.

I think you've got the situation backwards here. The denial of the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth and kinship through common descent of all life is a flawed response to the truth about creation as it is being more and more discerned by patient, honest, hard working, knowledgeable scientists.

I continue to serve the Christ who is my salvation and my hope. I deplore the barriers put in the way of thinking and educated people when they are told they must give up their knowledge of the truth about evolution and deep time in order to find true religion.

 

Would you like a shot at trying to explain the amounts of big meteors that have hit the earth, Bobryan?

How does anyone believe in a literal 7 day creation/Young Earth? As I've outlined the amount of meteors that have hit the earth pretty much rule it out, especially when you take into consideration the amount of damage they've done.

Can you debunk their 'guess work'? All you've done is try to attack the credibility of Christians, which is something you don't have the authority to do. You claim it's only atheists who do this scientific work-but you can't prove it. In fact their are many Christians who are working toward the goal of discovery.

Strawman, unless you can prove this-which we already know you can't.

Do you actually know their 'myths'? Can you give us any flaws to their arguments?

Prove this, or else you are bearing false witness. I'm tired of your unsubstantiated rants, provide some proof not inflammatory assertions. One big flaw in your argument is Darwin, he wasn't an atheist.

 

Paul,
We don’t know if Darwin was a full-fledged atheist when he was working on his evolutionary ideas (he never developed them –his grandfather did) – but we know the men in the family were not believers, and that Darwin slid easily away from even a nominal belief rapidly as an adult. So whether you want to fight about the term ‘atheist’ or not is moot. He was not a believer.

And because light traveled faster in the past, the light from out own quasar on day one only took a few seconds to get here. The light from the distant stars was also seen in plenty of time to support a young creation. Nor could any of the stars have shone without radiodecay reactions going on! The sea salt is primarily due to the material the bursting waters of the flood brought up with them and has settled down to today’s rate. Coal seams are the results of catastrophic wave action primarily during the times of Babel and Peleg which washed vast amounts of vegetation into gullies, cracks, and the like. The Hawaiian chain formed rapidly and has settled down. The ice layers are the results of heating and cooling cycles associated with storms which are NOW associated with seasons….and the list goes on and on of things you have been told, Paul, which you refuse to even consider. However in order to stick to your constant repetition of ‘evidences’ for long ages, you have to deny a number of passages in the Bible and their clear implications. Yet you say you believe and follow in the One whose Word it is. That would be fine if you were ignorant of the truth, but you are not. You are rejecting of it. Consider Romans 1, please.

Your particular interpretation of the facts – or the interpretation you have been conned into believing – is in clear contradiction to the truth God has presented in His Word. However, Christianity will survive evolution just as it has survived other attacks in the past.

As far as your history of blood-thirsty animals is concerned, that is also in direct contradiction to Genesis 1:29-30 – another section of Scripture you have to deny in order to hold on to your evolutionary, long-ages position.

You are accepting as fact an interpretation of data in terms of long ages and common descent. And, in accepting the evolutionary ideas and interpretations as fact instead of the interpretations and ideas that they are, you have to necessarily deny other actual data, such as the measurements of c, h, and atomic mass, which have all been charted as changing in the past. You have to deny the fact that there is no way for a cell to produce, let alone know how to use, a de novo protein. You have to deny the fact that all natural selection can do is reduce the genetic pool of any population. You have to deny the fact that the result, eventually, is over-speciation and subsequent endangered species. You have to deny the fact that the vast majority of mutations which are expressed are somewhere from harmful to lethal. And the list goes on and on and on….

And yet still you prefer to put your faith in the limited knowledge of your patient, etc., scientists rather than God Himself. And yet you say you continue to serve Christ, the Creator of all this. The same Christ who told us how He did it in Genesis 1.

Meatros: the material I posted from the first parts of Job may have been a meteorite hit, as you finally acknowledged, but they were not the big one. On that you and I agree. The big one, or series, of Peleg’s time was absolutely devastating and there was a real population bottleneck there. The possible hits during Job’s time were leftovers as we passed through the meteorite belt again which was established by the explosion of the planet and its moon that used to be there.

How does one believe in a six day creation in the recent past? In part because of what God has told us, and we figure He is the One who ought to know, and in part because of the evidence. And yes, it is guesswork on the part of people who are trying to figure out cosmology without reference to the Creator. That this is guesswork is evidenced by the constant changes and competing theories.

Nor was it a straw man for BobRyan to refer to the Bible. When you signed on to Baptist Board you agreed to the rules which stated that the Bible is held in high regard here among Christians. As such, it is a perfectly adequate and acceptable reference and your reference to a biblical argument as a ‘straw man’ only goes to show in what little regard you hold the Bible, not that Bob’s argument was a straw man at all.

And yes, people do pick what they will worship and believe in. That is a gift of free choice God gave people. That is not false witness. The fact that atheists all pick evolution as the interpretation of data, or partial data, to believe in is not slander but the simple truth. What else are they to believe in when they reject their own Creator? And again, in response to your last sentence, Darwin was no believer!

 

This is the strawman I was referring to.

 

You are making an assumption that all atheists accept evolution. That is bearing false witness unless you can prove it. Can you?

How do you explain atheists that were around prior to Darwin?

Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist; and I would hardly call his switch an easy transition.

 

You are making an assumption that all atheists accept evolution. That is bearing false witness unless you can prove it. Can you?

How do you explain atheists that were around prior to Darwin?

Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist; and I would hardly call his switch an easy transition. </font>[/QUOTE]1. What else would an atheist accept? Sudden creation? By whom?

2. Why shouldn't atheists be around prior to Darwin? Darwin provided something handy for them, but they definitely predate him! On the other hand, forms of evolution have been in existence for many thousands of years, as evidenced by some of the Greek writings. We also have Indian totems, claiming descent from animals, etc.

3. Darwin found his slide away from Christianity was quite easy, actually:

"Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct" (Barlow 1958, 87). Darwin was at one time visited by Dr. Aveling, Karl Marx's son-in-law, who claimed that Darwin's religious views were essentially the same as his own, that is, atheistic. Darwin objected on the grounds that his own views were in no way aggressive, and that, therefore, he had a preference for the views of the agnostic (F. Darwin 1887, 1:317).
as quoted from
Chapter 5 of "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order" by Ian T. Taylor (TFE Publishing, Toronto, Ontario pp. 115-137)

 

They don't 'have' to 'accept' anything. I've argued with a few atheists who believe that the world was always here and that there was no big bang. It was all a glitch.

You certainly are stretching it.

Perhaps it's just our differing opinions. I view a very slow rate as not being easy.

Also my argument stemmed from this falsehood:

By your own quote, Darwin was an agnostic, not an atheist.

What I am objecting to is the stereotyping that is going on here.