1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Creationism - Why it is valid.

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by kendemyer, Feb 4, 2004.

  1. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    To the past evolutionists posters:

    I would ask that you address Todd's post and the Bible Prophecy/God breathed argument for the benefit of future posters to the string.

    Sincerely,

    Ken
     
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ken, Todd

    You have posted a long list of links to creationist websites and a few quotes. Since that was the first post of the thread, I would like to keep it on that topic since it is the one you choose for the thread. But I will briefly address your questions.

    I honestly do not feel that allowing for an old earth timescale introduces any errors into the Bible. I was once YEC myself and I am just going where the evidence leads as far as all this goes. Now, admittedly, I do not know how it all fits together as far as rectifying what I am convinced is the truth from the world of science with what I am convinced is the Truth of the Bible. I think that the creation story is given to us by God to establish God as the Creator, man as sinful and in need of saving grace and man as having a special relationship with God by being given a soul in the image of God. I think that death means that the curse of man's sinful nature is spiritural death, eternal seperation from God.

    Sorry if I assumed wrong that you are "Ken."
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry, but I am just not that impressed with what an encyclopedia has to say. Maybe they are good for quick references or for grade school level material. I gave you a sampling of the actual animals that we have found with characteristics intermediate between that of birds and reptiles. I think that disproves the quote that we have not found any birdlike reptiles.
     
  4. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    873
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Simple statement, but totally accurate!!! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    As I see it, you can look at the evidence and come to 1 of 2 conclusions:
    1) The evidence appears to condone evolution and/or an old earth, so I accept this "evidence" in lieu of God's version, or

    2) The evidence appears to condone evolution and/or an old earth, but I accept God's word even though I don't understand it!

    Sorry, but as I see it you either believe man,(science-man's interpretation of evidence) or you are believe God, just as He told us. :confused:
     
  5. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Amen! Even if a person with faith in the theory of evolution could win all of the other arguments in this debate, this one fact alone proves fatal to the theory of
    evolution. [​IMG]
     
  6. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen! Even if a person with faith in the theory of evolution could win all of the other arguments in this debate, this one fact alone proves fatal to the theory of
    evolution. [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]It is merely an arbitrary assumption that the death Paul writes of in Romans 5 is anything but the death of MEN. It is a perfectly consistent view to say that the death of MEN is the only death of which Paul is there speaking.
     
  7. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That argument, Paul, is just too lame to stand. Have faith in God, not in the anti-God theory of evolution.
     
  8. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is good reason why I cringe whenever YECers begin quoting scientists as evidence against evolution. The quotes seem to always be out of context. Every such one I come across makes me that more skeptical the next quote I see. You have given me a new one tonight.

    Let's see what else Dr. Colin Patterson has to say.

    "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ." from Evolution by Dr. Patterson (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.).

    So I guess he believes in evolution after all. What he was actually saying is that it is not possible to assign a particular fossil as without a doubt the ancestor of some other creature. An example would be Archaeopteryx. We cannot know for sure whether it is directly ancestral to modern birds or whether it is actually a side branch that died out. This, however, in no way lessens its importance as a transitional fossil.

    In direct response to YECers using his quote he says

     
  9. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another out of context quote. Fun, I had not seen this one before either. You quoted

    Let's give back part of the quote without the excised part.

    This is a quote that tries to support punctuated equilibrium. That is the idea that species are generally stable with little change for periods of time until selective pressures force a move towards adaptation. What Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall are trying to say is that the fossil record does not show finely graded changes because the changes happen much too quickly. To turn this around as a quote against evolution is dishonest and denies the intent of the authors.
     
  10. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by TODD:

    Yes, as established by the scientifically validated dating methods; including the fact that no mammal fossils of any kind except very primitive mammals are ever found in the same layers with dinosaurs.

    The death spoken of by Paul is human death, not animal death. There is no compelling reason to accept that even men were naturally immortal. The plain teaching of scripture is that they had not yet reached physical immortality:

    First of all, it is false to assert that accepting reality such as the age of the earth and the common descent of life is atheistic. Many, including myself, believe in God as well as these other truths. It is well known that many people believe in God without even believing in our Bible at all. Evolution and Geology are no more atheistic than mathematics or chemistry.

    Some of even your own readers on your side will be able to see that. Are you sure you want to keep on saying evolution is atheistic, contrary to all logic?

    Secondly, the idea that a literal interpretation of scripture can be used to judge a scientific finding against all evidence has been tried and found wanting. All the clergy, Protestants, Catholics, whatever, opposed the discovery that the earth moves around the sun. They did this based on the literal interpretation of the scripture:

    It was plain to our fathers that the literal teaching is that it is the sun that goes around the earth, not visa-versa. When Gallileo went to his trial, convinced by the evidence, he felt surely that by marshalling enough evidence that the earth moves he would be accepted. Instead, the clerics dismissed all evidence that did not agree with what they felt was the literal interpretation of scripture - to their everlasting shame.

    I urge you to stop claiming such a large share of their shame. It is not helping the cause of Christ to claim that we must deny good science in order to have good religion.

    The science behind age of the earth and common descent of all life is so sound that those of us who have understood it are not psychologically capable of denying it. It would be like asking me to believe that the sky can't be blue or that water is an element instead of a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.

    Your words, taken literally would mean nobody could ever get away with a lawsuit based on plaigerism. How many teachers of logic 101 allow duplicate term papers to be turned into their classes? I submit that would, in fact, be an illogical thing to do, no matter what you say about how similiarities don't prove anything.

    Its not a sweeping deduction based on one fact, either. Nor is it a conclusion only lately reached.

    Proof in the ultimate sense is always impossible. You can't even prove the Bible is inerrant. But there are degrees of certainty. There are odds for and against given ideas. In the present state of uncertainty, I estimate the probability is about 90% now that no weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. The probability that the earth is over 100,000 years old is 99.99 per cent or more. There are many, many lines of evidence that converge on an earth age of 4.5 billion years and a common descent of all life. It's not JUST the viral infections that left their marks in the genome. Its also about hundreds of other chemically indicated relationships, including for example vitamin C synthesis failure amoung related species. Its about common morphology. Its about a deeply consistent nested hierachy of relationships, first discovered in anotomy and fossils, then verified in analysis of protein relationships, then verified in dna patterns. Its about vestiges, both subtle and flagrant. Its about plainly differing epochs in the history of life shown by vastly different fossil records for different epochs.

    I'm sorry for your interpretation of the Bible that the evidence is you've interpreted it incorrectly. That doesn't change the fact that it is possible to change the way the Bible is interpreted to be consistent with the known facts. It's not the first time in history that has happened.
     
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    As i look through thequotes, you begin to understand why I detest the quote mining of YECers so much. Here is another out of context quote that I had not seen before. You quoted

    Now, let's give a fuller quote.

    from pages 830-832 of the same book.

    So what was being said. It was not that the fossil record has problems as was being aledged by the quoter. It was that there are at least three better evidences for evolution than the fossil record and that those who build a good case tend to rely on these lines of evidence. Mark Ridley certainly accepts evolution and to quote him otherwise is to dishonestly quote him.
     
  12. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    There were several quotes in your first posting that have been shown to incorrect that you still left in your second posting. I think it would be nice to remove those quotes that are either shown to be false or that are shown to be misleading and out of context if you wish to maintain the integrity of the listing. I have been skipping the YECer quotes in your list because they require a different kind of response. I would need to know what the basis was for what they had to say. As it stands, their quotes are merely empty assertions without any backing evidence and therefore add nothing to the discussion. I think it would be less misleading to label the quotes from YECers as such since the list is presented as quotes from scientists. It could be confusing to the reader.

    On with the quotes. You quoted:

    I am not quite sure what this quote is supposed to be proving. It sounds like the old "How can we have evolved from monkeys if there are still monkeys?" Anyhow, Sciurus is the genus name for the squirrels. The genus arose during the Miocene (23.8 to 5.3 million years ago) and has not changed much since. So, in a way, squirrels could be considered living fossils since their genus has changed little in several million years. But I do not know what this quote is supposed to be telling against evolution. Squirrels are well adapted for their niche. What is wrong with that?
     
  13. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    UTEOTW,

    I will agree that a quote out of context and used in opposition to what it originally said is wrong, and should never be used. But, then again, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    We have had this shouting match before. You and Paul of Eugene are die-hard evolutionists, adn everyone who has been around the Board for a while know this. It is just that the vast majority of the rest of us are not. If you desire to deny what God has handed down to us in His word, that is your choice. Personally, I believe that the entire Bible is God's word, and that He knew what He was saying.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  14. kendemyer

    kendemyer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Sirs:

    I did not think the debate would still be going on. I thought Todd's comment would kill it. Along with God not inspiring error. As far as the quotes I clearly said they were of evolutionist in most cases. The YEC and certain brands of macroevolutionists do agree on some portions of the debate. Like the one quote of the evolutionist who said that evolutionists do not rely on the fosssil record in his opinion.

    Carry on. But I think you should have more faith in God's word. The Bible declares, Cursed is the man who trust in man (paraphrase)."

    Paul writes,"Where is the wise man? Where is the philosopher? where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

    The bible also warns of putting your trust in knowledge that is falsely called knowledge. There have been a lot of isms but they died and withered away. Christianity lives on.

    Let's take a look at the evolutionists. First there was darwinism. It failed. Then there was lamarkianism. It also failed. Then there was neo-darwinism. Another failure. We also had Goldschmidt's monster mechanism. Abysmal failure. Now we have Punctuated equilibrium which also is a failure. Using the inductive method of logic that science employs I predict the next macroevolutionary model will also fail.

    There is nothing wrong with bulding on your failure if you are going somewhere. But when you go against the word of God you are building your house on sand.
     
  15. Todd

    Todd New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul of Eugene, by asserting that Paul was only speaking of death entering the human race through the Fall of man (Romans 5), you demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding this portion of the Scripture. If you would read the first chapter of Romans, you would find that Paul said "all creation" was subjected to the effects of the Fall (death) and as such, all creation now awaits the redemption of all things. (please read Rom. 1:18-20) Besides, your interpretation of Romans 5 is clearly tainted by your view of creation. Sin and death entered into all of creation only through Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden - that is a fatal blow to any form of macroevolution.

    This leads me to a second and foundational thing that I want to address. As you and others have said throughout this string, it is not contradictory for a Christian to hold a macroevolutionary view of creation in which men are descendants of apes. I beg to differ though. Macroevolution is nothing more than an atheistic theory that has only gained any acclaim in the last 150 years since Darwin's "Origin of Species." If you don't believe me, do me a favor - look at all the great writings of men and women throughout Christian history and if you can find one renound theologian from yesteryear (before 1850) who will affirm any view of macroevolution, I will be much more receptive to your arguments. What I believe you will find though is that macroevolutionary arguments of creation were unheard of in Christian circles until the time of Darwin and others. As a result, some theologians attempted to make marcoevolution "fit" into a Christian worldview, but time and again they have failed because their attempts simply will not hold up to any trustworthy exegesis of Scripture.

    Another glaring problem for the macroevolutionist seeking to make his view fit into the Bible is that the biblical Hebrew used in Gen. 1 simply won't allow it. The word used for day in Genesis 1 in the Hebrew is yom and anytime that word appears in the OT with a numerical qualifier (as it does throughout the creation account of Gen. 1) then it is ALWAYS a reference to a 24 hour period of time - any trustworthy OT word study will tell you that.

    Further, how can macroevolution be true (apes to men) when the Bible clearly says that men were "created" (in Hebrew bara ) by God, created in His very "image?" (see Gen. 1:26) If men are descendants of apes, where along the way did men "pick up" the image of God? This is another glaring theological problem that the macroevolutionist must give an account for if he/she would seek to work their view of creation into the Scriptures. The way that macroevolutionists have been doing this for 150 years is by saying that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are allegorical or mythological. It's amazing how macroevolutionists will make that claim about the first 11 chapters of Genesis, yet I have never heard them make the same claims about the crucifixion or resurrection accounts!

    From this, it's very plain to see that macroevolutionists seek to twist the clear and exegetically sound meaning of Scripture to fit into their own worldviews. Can a Christian believe in macroevolution? I will leave judgment to God on that one, but I will say this - no Christian seeking to be honest to the Scriptures can believe in macroevolution. All the above examples clearly demonstrate that macroevolution is a violation of Scripture, so if a Christian wants to believe in macroevolution, they can only do so in violation of the Bible - end of discussion!
     
  16. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul of Eugene, by asserting that Paul was only speaking of death entering the human race through the Fall of man (Romans 5), you demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding this portion of the Scripture. If you would read the first chapter of Romans, you would find that Paul said "all creation" was subjected to the effects of the Fall (death) and as such, all creation now awaits the redemption of all things. (please read Rom. 1:18-20)
    </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for bringing our attention to Sripture. Let's actually check and see what it really says. Have you read 5:12?

    It plainly says that the sin and death of Adam was spread to MEN, and plainly ignores animals.

    And while Paul wrote that the creation participates in some sense in our pain, you will search in vain for a statement that animals did not die. You have to interpret that into the passage yourself. In view of the fact that the fossil record shows many whole species went extinct before the arrival of man, it is only reasonable to accept that for animals, death is not a curse in the same sense it is for mankind.

    ALL ASSERTIONS THAT PAUL WROTE DEATH FOR ANIMALS NEVER CAME UNTIL ADAM SINNED ARE MAN'S INTERPRETATION.

    And your interpretation of Romans 5 is clearly tainted by your rejection of the scientific evidence. This is a fatal blow to any YEC and anti-evolutionary view; the evidence is against it.

    There you go again, asserting that evolution is atheistic. I have shown repeatedly how this is logically an error. I can only ask the readers to note how often illogical reasoning comes up when the reasoner is opposing science.

    That's just silly. Why would anyone even comment on a theory that had not yet even been developed?


    I have always understood the language of Genesis One to refer to single days for the week. I also believe we must understand that language in a non-literal fashion. Even the DAY = AGE theory is, actually, a non-literal interpretation. The statement "A day with the Lord is as a thousand years" actually ENCOURAGES non-literal interpretation.

    Nobody thinks God is flesh and blood and resembles us in the physical! Jesus Himself said God is Spirit. The image of God in man is in the spiritual aspects, not the physique. Next, you'll be saying God has a right arm, or a mouth which blows the wind!

    It is a blessed truth that God condescended to become one of us and take on our flesh, as a necessary step in our redemption. This does not affect the fact that our flesh is not patterned after Him, but rather it is our spirit that reflects the image of God.


    Those are very fine words and sway many. But there is a simple problem with this method of avoiding the findings of science - and that is every interpreter who utter these words fails to follow through and adopt this method consistently in every interpretation. Bear with me while I show what I mean.

    Once upon a time, the universal standard of interpretation was that it was the Sun that moved around the earth, and not the earth that rotated. Scripture was quoted to prove it was so. This is a historical fact you cannot deny. The new scientific findings reported by Copornicus and Gallileo and Kepler was falsely oppossed on the basis of that interpretation.

    Then as evidence after evidence came in that this was a false interpretation, most gave way to the new findings of astronomy and conceded that the Bible was no longer to be interpreted literally as far as solar system dynamics is concerned.

    But the scripture has not changed. Who among you is willing to join those few who are consistent enough to hold that the earth is truly flat and the sun goes around the earth?

    If you believe as I do that the earth's rotation accounts for day and night, may I point out that you yourself are guilty of exactly the thing you accuse me of - reinterpreting literal scripture to accomodate new scientific knowledge. I merely point out it is manifestedly unfair for you to insist you get to do this when you choose and I can't do it when you choose to say I can't.

    My friends, the light from a million galaxies testifies to the great ages of the stars. It is wrong to shut you eyes against the light, and call Him a liar who posted the stars as signs attesting to His truth.
     
  17. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you saying that you believe that animals evolved but that man did not evolve but that God created man as he physically is today and with a soul?
     
  18. Todd

    Todd New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul, I'll take all your replies one at a time:

    Let's see, I think I may have found one little passage of Scripture that completely destroys your theory that animals were not also subjected to death with the fall of man - "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Rom. 8:20-21). Now, you may call that a vain search Paul, but I (and the majority of the church's great theologians) call that clear evidence that sin and death entered creation (and everything that ever was has been created - including animals) ONLY through the fall of man.

    As for the appearance of dinosaur fossils in some lower levels of the earth than human remains (though you provided no examples), that could be explained any number of ways. As you know, the catastrophic effects of a global flood could have much to do with that. Unlike you though, I don't sense any great need to try and offer some type of great rebuttal to that objection because I already have the clear teaching of God's Word (which is what this whole issue is about anyway - you either accept the literal testimony of the Bible, or you don't).

    Let me ask you this question: How many scientists do you know who are YEC? Further, how many evangelical theologians do you know who are macro-evolutionists? The huge disparity is testimony in and of itself that macroevolution is an athestic worldview. Why do you think scientists are always so eager to try and find any forms of life (or former life) on other planets? The answer is clear - the scientific community, many of whom are atheists, are searching for anything that will give credence to their worldview! If we can prove that life came from another planet, then that will prove that Christianity is all one big hoax! I wish they'd send their millions of dollars to me and just take my word for it - God's Word says that the only thing they're going to find up there is further testimony of His existence. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork" (Ps. 19:1). Whether you admit it or not, the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory, and all other "Christian" macroevolutionary theories of creation were not seen until the release of Origin of Species . Within those theories, God is simply a bookend placed upon an atheistic worldview.

    The reason they didn't comment is not because of a lack of theory, but because macroevolution can't be found in the Bible without its being read into the Bible. You used the ever popular example of the Sun revolving around the Earth as evidence that the Bible can't be interpreted literally, but where does the Bible say that the Sun revolves around the Earth? The only thing the Bible says about that is in Joshua 10:13 - "So the sun stood still...". Let me ask you, if the Earth were to stop revolving around the sun, wouldn't the above statement be correct from man's perspective? Just because the wicked Popes of the RCC used the Bible to try and substantiate their own ignorance doesn't mean that the Bible can't be interpreted literally. Further, the Bible never says that the Earth is flat. References to the four corners of the Earth are regional and meterological in the Bible.

    Your statement is contradictory at best. In one breath you say the days are single days for the week and in the next you say they can't be understood literally - which is it? The only biblical argument you attempted to make was false for several reasons. First, the passage you quoted is not even found in the Creation account. Further, you took that text out of its context - the worst of all hermeneutical errors for the preacher. Do you know where the passage you referred to is even found? If not, I'll tell you - 2 Peter 3:8. Do you even know what the content of that passage is - it is an explanation of the longsuffering nature of God, not of creation. It is an explanation of time from God's perspective, not from man's. To say that 2 Pet. 3:8 is an encouragement for believers to avoid the literally interpretation of the Bible is nothing more than a grasping for straws from a macroevolutionist.

    When did I say that the image of God had to do with physical features? What I believe is that the imago dei is what makes us the crown of all God's creation, set apart from the animals. Regardless of what one thinks about the image of God though, you still didn't answer my question. Where along the way did we pick up what you called this "spirit" if we are descended from apes? Did man just automatically pick up the image of God when he transitioned from Homo erectus to Homo sapien ? Of course it is an unanswerable question for you, clearly because there is no answer - it is a spiritually bankrupt position.

    First of all, you and I both know that the ages of stars can't be proven. Yet, even if they could prove that those stars were "billions of years old," could God not have created them at that age when He created the world some 6,000 years ago? Again, your reasoning demonstrates a lack of logic in that you have arrived at a premature conclusion. The only thing that your argument proves is that the stars appear to be billions of years old according to man's scientific reasoning, but what man was there when they were created?

    Paul, I pray that you will give attention to these words of the Apostle Paul - "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). If you really do believe in Christ, then you must believe His Word that clearly states time and again that macroevolution is an impossibility. If you want to continue to argue biblical theology, you will not win that argument as our discussions have shown. You may be able to make some persuasive scientific arguments, but you must answer this question for yourself - "Am I going to believe all the tenets of secular science or am I going to believe in a reasonable faith that is grounded in the Word of God?" Only you can answer that question.
     
  19. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you saying that you believe that animals evolved but that man did not evolve but that God created man as he physically is today and with a soul? </font>[/QUOTE]Hi, KenH! As I read the scriptures and seek to find my own accomodation with what God said in both scripture and in nature, I see the development of Man's Body through evolution but at the appropriate time and place of God's choosing, the graduation of man to a spiritual being took place; Adam was then placed in the garden, Eve taken from his side, and so forth.
     
  20. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    There you go again. Inserting the word "death" where the word "death" does not appear. That is intepretation, plain and simple.

    Every dinosaur fossil is an example! The sorting by epochs is 100 per cent perfect! Floods do not sort carcases out, floods mix them up.


    And as I have pointed out, you avoid the literal interpretation of the Bible when you don't believe it on other grounds yourself.

    You raise an important point here. God's word declares we should not just learn from the Bible, but also from the stars. Yet you choose to close you mind to the fact that light from most stars takes millions and millions of years to travel from there to here, proving the universe and the stars are far older than your time scales would allow.

    There you go again, illogically linking atheism with scientific theory. Why do you keep committing that elementary faulty logic?

    In other words, the theory wasn't around yet. Just what I said.

    Yes, but isn't taking it to be from man's perspective a non-literal approach to the scripture? Of course it is. And you are taking it, and the only reason you take that non-literal approach to scripture is, because you know the literal approach to that verse isn't true. You are letting your knowledge of science overrule the literal verse of Scripture. And that is NOT THE ONLY bible verse along that line.

    It wasn't just the "wicked Popes" of the RCC. Martin Luthor himself, the hero of the protestant revolution, famously railed against the teachings of Copernicus. All the clerics of those times spoke against the new knowledge. This is the fact of history. You would have done so yourself, had you lived then, simply because the new knowledge would have been as difficult for you then as the knowledge of the age of the universe and of evolution is for you now.

    Your statement is contradictory at best. In one breath you say the days are single days for the week and in the next you say they can't be understood literally - which is it?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Come, come, I'm merely saying that although I do not take them literally, what they literally say is indeed one day. When Christ said the kingdom of heaven is like leaven hid in dough, do you look for your church to be made from flour?


     
Loading...