Featured How Do Thestic Evolutionist Chrsitians Account for man and species transformation?

I guess I'll have to forgive you for not seeing it, but I can hardly see how you could miss it.

YEC is no more taught by the Bible than geocentricity. Now, before Galileo, one could be a geocentric Christian and be a pure genius. He had only the information available to him at the time to come to certain conclusions.

But today, geocentricity is utterly laughable. Why? Because as more and more information came out to prove heliocentricity, those who stubbornly clung to geocentricity looked more and more ignorant.

Fifty years after Galileo died, you might could understand some people holding on cautiously to geocentricity. 400 years later when people still cling to it you just have to say- well these people are morons.

Intelligent unbelievers cannot bring themselves to attend snake handler churches. They just can't.

The longer people cling to YEC as more and more facts reveal the universe to be very old the more on par with snake handlers they become in the eyes of intelligent people.

Now, we may not be there yet. It may not be utterly ridiculous to hang on to YEC just yet. But it is getting there fast.

But for the time being there are still people who are very intelligent who cling to YEC. They do so, in my opinion, for emotional, not exegetical reasons. But they are not necessarily dumb to do so- not yet any way.

 

That's exactly right. It substantiated the claim that the universe had a beginning and that matter was not eternal.

These are two huge Christian claims that the Big Bang Theory substantiates over against old atheism which claimed the contrary.

 

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. Genesis 2:19

Yea, really close...

 

You have GOT to be kidding!!!

The Bible says in NO uncertain terms that God FORMED...

Got that? FORMED..

FORMED...

the birds from the ground.

God formed the birds from the ground.

All this lengthy mess above of yours is nothing more than a desperate attempt to save face after you were made to look like a fool.

God formed the birds out of the ground. That's what the Bible teaches.

You think Genesis 1:20 identifies how God FORMED them. It doesn't. It just speaks of where they come from not what they were made out of.

Evolutionary scientists agree that living breathing creatures began in the sea. They were formed, obviously, from the soil in the sea bed.

It is not a dichotomy to say that birds came forth from the sea and were made of soil.

 

I would also ask you to observe that the "earth" was engineered to bring forth life. God commanded the seas and the land to bring forth life....and it did. The elements of life were engineered into our planet by our God and it obeyed His dictates to "bring forth life".

 

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

 

It is not, if it is a repeat of the Genesis 1 account, than they are blatantly contradictory because the order is completely different. There are numerous differences between what occured in chapter 1 and 2. It is practically impossible that they be. This is a more detailed account of what occured on day six more specifically.

He is not "continuing the creative process"...he is forming the animals which are to inhabit the garden with him......and I assure you, I am absolutely not alone in this. These are events which occur specifically on day six.

You need to get out more.

No, he isn't "creating" them......he did all acts of "creation" in Genesis 1.....He's "forming" now. Didn't you harp on this in the last post? He is now forming animals and plants in front of him from the earth in the garden.

You have not explained anything.

The accounts in Genesis 2 are post the events out-lined in Genesis 1...specifically they cover the events of day 6. God is forming animals in front of Adam, in the garden, and having him name them.

 

Name one other person on Earth who purports that Genesis 2 is God forming what he created in Genesis 1.

It is weird psycho mess!

You are KILLING any hopes that anybody who ever reads this could ever take you seriously as an exegete again.

Genesis 2 is not ABOUT order. It is like the book of revelation which bounces around and repeats things in no uncertain order.

Millions of pieces of literature still use this paradigm today.

Books begin in the middle and jump to the start and tell the story in unordered pieces. It makes for a very interesting story and interesting way to unfold it.

If you don't know this, you are not fit for debate on these matters. And I am not attacking you or trying to demean you. I am saying that you are not ready to debate such matters.

Now, name ONE REPUTABLE SCHOLAR ON EARTH WHO THINKS THAT GENESIS 2 IS TALKING ABOUT THIS WEIRD BUSINESS OF GOD FORMING WHAT HE ALREADY MADE IN GENESIS 1 IN FRONT OF ADAM IN THE GARDEN.

Just one.

I'll wait right here.

 

Henry Morris.
The entire staff at Answers in Genesis off the top of my head.

You seriously need to get out more if you think I am alone on this one.

 

Provide the QUOTE!!!!

As far as I know, you are lying.

Provide a single QUOTE from them. One single quote.

Can you do it?

 

When I provide the following quote by Henry Morris which agrees with me that Genesis 2 is just a more detailed account of the creation account given in Genesis 1, I think the honorable thing for you to do is say something like, "Luke, you are right and I am wrong. The fact is that I am full of crap and I try to sound like I know what I am talking about when I really don't. Please forgive me for wasting your time and the time of anybody who has been following this. I lied about ICR and Henry Morris and I am sorry. Until I get some education I will not try to debate these kinds of things again."

Here is Henry Morris writing for ICR:

 

From the AIG website:

..."in their plain sense. However, the argument is based on a misunderstanding of Genesis 2.

Genesis 1:1–2:3 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during the creation week. Genesis 2:4–25 zooms in on day six and shows some of the events of that day.1 Let’s take a look at what happened on day six, according to Genesis 2, and we’ll see there is no discrepancy here.

■Adam is created (Genesis 2:7)
■Garden of Eden created (Genesis 2:8–9)
■Description of river system in Eden (Genesis 2:10–14)
■Adam put in Garden and given instructions (Genesis 2:15–17)
■Adam names some of the kinds of animals (Genesis 2:18–20)
■God creates Eve (Genesis 2:21–22)
■Description of Adam, Eve, and marriage (Genesis 2:23–25)
The particular issue that people have with Genesis 2 is that the order of the creation of man, animals, and trees seems to be contrary to the order stated in Genesis 1.

Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of man.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)
Following the creation of man, Genesis 2:9 mentions that God created trees, including the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

“And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” (Genesis 2:9)
Then Genesis 2:19 mentions the creation of certain land animals.

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. (Genesis 2:19)"http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/03/feedback-genesis-1-and-2

Henry Morris outlines this position in his Book The Genesis Record:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0890510261/?tag=baptis04-20

I am sorry you think me lying, but, frankly, I am surprised you have a hard time believing that I am not flying alone on this. It's really quite a common explanation of those passages. I don't doubt many people here on B.B. understand Genesis 1 and 2 that way.

 

Nothing, not one thing, not one single word IN THE ABOVE QUOTE SAYS anything remotely close to what you HAVE BEEN SAYING.

Here is a quote from Ken Ham:

Read that quot Javert and tell us how that supports this mess you have saying.

Tell us.

Enter the Jeopardy theme song...

 

It is a more detailed account Luke.......of day six, not the entire creation story. This article does not contradict what I am saying. I did not mention ICR BTW....I mentioned AIG (two different groups and what-not).....I said nothing about ICR. Henry Morris outlines that position in his book The Genesis Record.

 

Ummm.....that's what I was saying Luke...Here's what you bolded Actually,

That's from you:
Here was my previous statement:

That's what I've been saying. Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying...but that's what I've been saying Luke.

 

No he doesn't. I showed you that Henry Morris says what I have been saying to you.

That Genesis 2 is a more detailed account of Genesis 1.

Nobody, not even the most RABID YEC's like Ham and Morris are stupid enough to say anything close to what you say here:

They think the proper translation is "HAD FORMED."

NOBODY believes this crud you are saying here. NOBODY!!

I want to know what you think the Morris quote you provided does to support this ridiculous notion!