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

No. Here is what Ham says in that quote you cherry picked:

They are not at all saying this stuff you keep saying:

 

I didn't provide a Morris quote, you did. I referred you to his book which I do not have with me atm....you are getting somewhat visibly angry I think you are not following me.

Whether God is forming animals in front of Adam in the garden or not (and no, I'm not alone in that)....(some suggest that's why Eve could be fooled by the serpent and not Adam).

Or whether as he suggests use the perfect "had formed"...Genesis 2 is still not a recounting of the entire creation from Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is about events on day six. That is still our fundamental disagreement.

 

No you ARE ABSOLUTELY ALONE.

You provided a bunch a quotes that have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with what you are contending.

Genesis 2, EVERY EVANGELICAL SCHOLAR ON EARTH AGREES, is a recounting of the creative acts in Genesis 1.

If Genesis 2 is ONLY a recounting of the events on day six then this weird mess you keep rolling out about God making some animals in front of Adam is true. But it is not true as has been proven. God made the birds on day five and Genesis 2 tells us how he made them- he formed them out of the ground.

NOBODY BUT YOU thinks this psycho, weirdo mess about God forming out of the ground in front of Adam some more of the animals God had already created in Genesis 1.

NOBODY.

Do you hear me?

NOBODY.

Your whole PREMISE rests on that ridiculous notion and you lied and misrepresented Answers in Genesis and Henry Morris by insinuating that they support such absurd assertions.

Now you owe everybody a retraction and an apology for being dishonest and not educated enough to take up our time in this debate.

 

This all started when you tried to say that I was wrong about birds being formed from the ground.

You ignorantly quoted Genesis 1:20 claiming they were formed from water. You were trying to show that YECers are really diligent students of the word.

Then I showed you that the next chapter reveals more detail as to how they were formed and says clearly that they WERE INDEED AS I HAD SAID, formed out of the ground.

Then you just went "bat-crap crazy" and made up this ridiculous mess about God forming some animals in front of Adam.

I said, "God formed every living creature from out of the ground."

Then you said...

Any retractions?

Was I right or not?

 

You are losing your head Luke:

 

It IS talking about the events of day six!!!

It is also talking about the events of day FIVE!!!

You are saying it is ONLY talking about the events of day six.

I am showing you that AIG and MORRIS disagree with you. They believe that the birds HAD ALREADY BEEN FORMED on day five and that Genesis 2:19 is speaking of that fact which means that they were indeed made from the GROUND!!!.... as I said to start with and you ignorantly denied.

Morris and AIG agree with me that birds were formed from the ground on day five. NOBODY agrees with you that some animals were formed on day six before Adam's eyes in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 2:19 is speaking of that fact which means that the birds were indeed made from the GROUND!

Why can you not GET that???

 

They seek the "imagine" of a god who meant to say "billlions and billions of years until finally all life on earth evolved" and said instead "SIX DAYS you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the Lord made".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Now Bob.... I did not know you were prone to "drive bys"

 

I have read Dr. Gish's article previously.

"Big Bang Theory Collapses" (Taken from)

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4218195/k.7AAB/The_Origin_of_the_Universe.htm

The banner headline in Nature magazine read "Down with the Big Bang."(6) Sounding more like a 60s chant about the Establishment, the editorial was, however, very serious. And Nature magazine is perhaps the most respected science publication in the world. Why was the editor so exercised about the leading cosmological theory? Because it was "philosophically unacceptable." "The origin of the Big Bang is not susceptible to discussion," fumed John Maddox. And besides that "Creationists . . . have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang." So, for Maddox, a scientific theory that is only rivaled in acceptance by evolution is "thoroughly unsatisfactory" because (1) it says that scientists cannot know everything and (2) the theory might encourage belief in a creator. But materialists like Maddox are not alone.

"Big Bang Theory Collapses" shouted the title of an article written in a creationist journal. It went on to make such remarks as "The Big Bang theory has received one body blow after another" and "A cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all." They reported the "death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory" as if this were the main theory cosmologists had developed. Remarks suggesting results from the COBE satellite "should really make them wish they had gone into some other field" came across as very unprofessional. The description of scientists as "smug in their assurance" about the cosmic background radiation seemed more descriptive of this article itself than the theory it was attempting to criticize.(7)

Young earth creationists find the Big Bang theory a failure primarily because it does not fit an interpretation of Genesis 1 that requires the universe be created less than 50,000 years ago. But what are the scientific problems with the Big Bang?

One continuing problem surrounding theories of the origin of the universe has been "How much matter is there in the universe?" It is generally agreed that there is indirect evidence of far more matter in the universe than we have been able to detect. But what form is this matter in? This so-called "missing mass" may, by some estimates, make up 90% of all the matter in the universe. But where is it? Several theories attempt to answer this question, but at the moment, there are not many ways to test competing theories.

Another continuing problem is finding out what caused the clumpiness of the universe? When we look out into the sea of galaxies that surrounds our own, we find that the swirling pools of stars are not evenly distributed in space but rather segregated into "walls" separated by "voids." It is not yet known what accounts for this foam-like structure, but any theory of galaxy formation needs to provide an answer.

So, while the Big Bang certainly has difficulties, and may be replaced some day, it has also been the basis for many correct predictions about the structure of the universe. Like any scientific theory, the Big Bang is not a static idea but a theory that is always open to new information that may change its basic form, or lead to its rejection, or merely confirm that it is indeed correct. But, especially for Christians, it's ironic that while most scientists have been searching for a naturalistic answer for the origin of the universe, they have instead, ended up with a theory that points strongly to a Creator.

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sin brought spiritual death.

 

Because it will take more than an exclamation point at the end of each of your statements to prove it.

No. God created the universe "ex nihilo"- out of nothing.

I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, Yesh.

I contend that you are embracing tradition more than the Bible. I contend that I am embracing the Bible to spite tradition.

I contend that I am the one between the two of us being most faithful to the Word of God.

 

You would have to ask each one. As for myself, yes I believe the fiat of God is the source of the Big Bang.