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!

Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Gup20, Jun 25, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Forget Easter Bunnies. As you learned earlier, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. You can pick how you'd like it to be, and evolutionary theory is not affected.

    However, Genesis directly contradicts the "Ex nihilo" claims of young Earth creationism, because it says that the earth and waters brought forth living things. But there are forms of creationism that are compatible with Scripture.

    You've confused atheism and science. They aren't the same thing.

    No. Science makes no claims about the origin of nature. It's beyond the scope of science. As you might know, science cannot approach the supernatural, or even say whether or not it exists. Fortunately, scientists can.

    When you read scripture, it's a good idea to let the text tell you what it says. As Augustine observed, it is absurd to believe that Genesis is literal when it has mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

    News to me. Never heard anyone say that before.

     
  2. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    By that definition, then the theory of Evolution is responsible for racism. I would refer you to Darwin's own work "The Origin of The Species: The Preservation of The Favored Races"

    ALL humans (both of them) thought it was ok to eat the apple (contradiction to God's word) at The Fall, but look where that belief got them. It is NEVER right to contradict God's word, regarless of how many people agree.


    In that case, we pick the Bible is true - that all life on earth formed in 6 literal days of each other approximately 6000 years ago.

    OOOOOOHHHH! So you said "you can pick how you'd like it to be" but what you really meant to say was that we can pick quite possibly anything EXCEPT for what the Bible actually says happened! That seems to be the only scenario that evolution says couldn't have happened.

    I differ in opinion.

    Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

    Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.
    Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    It seems to me that God commissioned science.
     
  3. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Barbarian observes:
    However, Darwin, who actually came up with the theory, did not include the origin of life in his. The only major reworking of the theory came about when geneticists added their part to it, but that didn't involve the origin of life, either.

    In science, a theory is responsible only for the claims it actually makes.

    By "races", biologists in that time meant what we would call "species." Some still use the term for ill-defined subspecies or species. He didn't mean humans.

    On the other hand, Darwin was, like most Europeans of his time, a racist. He was considererd a liberal in his thinking, because unlike most upper-class English and American people at the time, he thought that all races were fully human and had the right to their own dignity and freedom. His views were pretty much the same as Abraham Lincoln's. He thought that other races were inferior to Europeans, but that they were nevertheless entitled to all the rights and freedoms any human has. Modern evolutionists are not racists, because we have learned that there are no biological human races.

    Barbarian observes:
    I have no idea what "evolutionism" is, but most Christians admit that scripture and evolutionary theory are compatible.

    Fortunately, we accept God's word. And it is compatible with evolution. It is also compatible with some forms of creationism, although Genesis directly contradicts YE creationism.

    Barbarian on the origin of life:
    You can pick how you'd like it to be, and evolutionary theory is not affected.

    If God poofed the first living things into existance, that's not a problem.

    But we have human remains and artifacts much older than that, so we know it can't be like that.

    The poofing of life isn't a problem. But of course, the fact that there are human artifacts much older than 6000 years. We even have Egyptian hieroglyphics that are about 5400 years old.

    No, that's compatible, too, but of course, you have to accept what Genesis actually says. As you know, because a literal interpretation has logical contradictions, and because the evidence from reality shows that the Earth is much older, we know that this is allegory, not a literal history.

    Barbarian observes:
    I'm pretty sure God had no concern at all for science as a subject. That's not what He is telling us in the Bible.

    Which is O.K. It's not a salvation issue.

    I don't see any science.

    No science there.

    Still no science.

    If so, we have no support from the Scripture you cited.
     
  4. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I would submit that the evolutionists need to rethink their interpretation of any evidence that seems to indicate that the earth is older than 6000 years. Because the Bible is ultimate truth, and the Bible advocates 6000 years, we can guarantee that this information is accurate. We can judge the accuracy and validity of the dating methods used by how close to this known value they come.

    For example, I have gone toe-to-toe in debates with Dr. Joe Meert - a staunch evolutionist and expert in geomagnetism and geochronology. He had no answers for me when I posed him the question - if ALL rocks on the planet were less than 6000 years old as the Bible suggests, would radiometric dating work? Furthermore, I asked him if ANY radiometric dating methods would work on any rocks where we knew the date of their formation. The best answer that he could give is that there would be no need to do so if the formation of those rocks was recently observed, therefore they have never tested them. I asked him if it wouldn't be a good idea to test radiometric dating on rocks they KNEW the dates of to test and verify the accuracy and viability of the radiometric dating process - again, I got no response.

    In fact, most radiometric dating centers publicly advertise that they are not equipped to date young rocks - those less than 1 million years, for example. If the Bible is true, and I believe it is, then all rocks are a maximum of 6000 years old. That means all dates coming from those radiometric dating centers are admittedly inaccurate.

    This is just one example of how we can use the absolute truth found in scripture to help us to interpret evidences. Because, quite frankly, Creationists and Evolutionists have the same fossils... the same rocks... the same earth. All the 'evidence' for both sides is exactly the same evidence. The argument is not whether evidence exists, the argument is what the evidence means. We have a 'guide book' to interpreting the evidence called the Bible. It gives us the framework from which to interpret the evidence. Just as Eve could have seen the apple in the light of God's Word, but instead chose to see it 'appeared' to her eyes, evolution's evidence can be re-interpreted under the light of scripture so that the truth of Nature is revealed through the Bible.

    Science is not ultimate truth... it's our best guess at the truth given what we see. The Bible, on the other hand is ultimate and absolute truth. It is true in both the things we can see (the natural) and the things we can't see (the supernatural).

    Because Science only measures what is observable, it cannot be used to measure the 'unseeable' things of God. You cannot use a strictly natural discipline to verify events that involve both natural and supernatural occurrences.

    Moreover, no man was there to observe God creating the universe and the earth. Therefore, his Word is the only eye witness account. His observation is the only one with truth.

    This is why our observations must be interpreted through the lens of what the Bible tells us to be true.

    Another actual example of this concept in action is the Grand Canyon. Scientists have always thought that it takes millions of years for canyons to form. However, science has since had the ability to see canyons that are hundreds of feet deep, with layers closely resembling the size and structure of the Grand Canyon, form in several days and weeks... not years! Had geologists approached the Grand Canyon with the truth that the World is only 6000 years old, rather than the belief that it is millions of years old, they would have come to a greater understanding of our world much faster in understanding that great canyons can form quickly.

    I don't see any science.

    No science there.

    Still no science.

    If so, we have no support from the Scripture you cited.

    </font>[/QUOTE]bi·ol·o·gy n.
    1. The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.
    2. The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms: the biology of viruses.
    3. The plant and animal life of a specific area or region.

    zo·ol·o·gy n.
    1. The branch of biology that deals with animals and animal life, including the study of the structure, physiology, development, and classification of animals.

    bot·a·ny n.
    1. The science or study of plants.

    Clearly these verses have Biology, zoology, and botany referenced, and therefore there is INDEED science in these verses.

    Additionally, The Flood is the single greatest geological event the world has ever known going all the way back to it's creation, and moving all the way forward to the present.

    I have noticed, however, that you have ignored entirely one of my previous posts which responded to your statements. Would you care to discuss those things ... did you simply miss it... or did you avoid it intentionally and wish to move on?

    -Gup
     
  5. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    AAH, at last somebody is actually trying to address the entropy issue, albeit mistakenly.

    I'm terribly sorry I have been on vacation an not joining the fray for the past week but I managed to get to a motel that has free high speed internet access so I can post a little right now.

    Recall, danrusdad, that evolution depends on organisms surviving and breeding and doing it better than the competition. Therefore, the energy for evolution's decrease in entropy (such as it is) comes from the food eaten by the organisms as they live and breed. No problem.

    By the way, both sides already agree that organisms live and die generation after generation. This involves a large amount of energy usage, with or without evolution occurring. But consider a slightly better gene. Just how much energy is involved in getting that slightly better gene established in the population? It takes a few hundred generations per gene to get a slightly better gene into the population . . . and that represents such a little bit of increased order . . . it is quite clear that no big energy problem exists, the energy comes from the life energy of all the creatures of all the generations involved.
     
  6. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    PoE - we have been discussing several verses that cast doubt on the ToE being possible, specifically with regard to natural selection and the death/survival aspect.

    In Romans 5:12 it says:

    Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    From this verse, we can see that death did not enter the world until the sin of Adam. Evolution is predicated upon millions of years of death and natural selection leading up to man. If death did not enter the world until Adam's sin, then it is not possible for natural selection to occur - and evolution has no mechanism.

    Furthermore, we discussed how God called each stage of creation leading up to man on the 6th day was declared Good. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. The Bible gives us a clear indication that death is evil. Therefore, we can know that there was no death - according to the scriptures - before Adam's sin ... because God calls all of creation - including man - Good.

    Furthermore, we have discussed that there is no known mechanism - observed or theoretical - that can cause an eternal being to result from a biological process of non-eternal beings. What I mean is, there is no stated manner in which animals who die can yeild offspring that are eternal. Part of God's curse on humanity after the fall is that they would 'return to the dust from which they were taken'. The implication being that this was not so up to this point.

    I showed many scripture references to support my position. You can go back through this thread if you wish to view them. In fact, my entire position is supported by direct scripture.

    -

    As to the issue of Entropy - I did search the scriptures to see if there was anything it had to say on the issue. The Lord lead me to Isaiah -

    Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

    Not only does the Bible give details of the cosmos and the earth increasing in entropy, but it also indicates that this entropy also occurs in the same manner to biological entities.

    The Bible is our source of Truth - it is ultimate and absolute. Not one part of it is false. While it is not a book of science, where it touches on science and history it is absolutely true and accurate.

    Consider:

    Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

    So "the Law" cannot fail - well what is 'the law'. Aren't the 10 commandments part of 'the law', for example?

    Exodus 20 verses 1-17 are the 10 commandments:

    Exd 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
    Exd 20:2 I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
    Exd 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
    Exd 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:
    Exd 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
    Exd 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
    Exd 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
    Exd 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
    Exd 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
    Exd 20:10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
    Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    Exd 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
    Exd 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
    Exd 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    Exd 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
    Exd 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
    Exd 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.

    Moreover, this thread topic started because Jesus quoted Genesis as literal in the Gospels:

    Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
    Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

    Jesus was quoting Genesis as if it was literal:

    Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
     
  7. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Barbarian on a magical creation of life:
    The poofing of life isn't a problem. But of course, the fact that there are human artifacts much older than 6000 years. We even have Egyptian hieroglyphics that are about 5400 years old.

    That would be pointless. The people who dated the artifacts in question wre archaeologists and physicists, not "evolutionists."

    But the Bible does not advocate 6000 years. That is a rather odd misinterpretation of Scripture.

    On what authority do you think that the Bible is an accurate science book?

    Knowing Dr. Meert, I suggest that he had an answer, but you didn't like it. Let's take a look and see if we can find a way to test your idea of 6000 years.

    How does a 6000 year creationist explain coral atolls, some of which have been growing many times longer than that. We know this, because coral leaves both daily and annual rings, and cores of nearly a mile deep have been found.

    Hmmm... odd. I thought I had discussed this one with him some time ago...

    http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html

    In spite of the very short timeline (in geologic terms, Argon/argon analysis got the date of the destruction of Pompeii right.

    You sure he didn't tell you about that?

    Well, the answer is, they've done it and it works.

    Most methods depend on older rocks. But it turns out at least one works just fine one recent ones.

    I don't see that as much of an example. You depended on what you didn't know. And it turned out that you were wrong.

    Some creationists tend to "adjust" it a little. One who does not is Dr. Harold Coffin. In McClean vs. Arkansas, he very frankly admitted:

    ""No, creation science is not testable scientifically."

    He further asserted that if he went only with the evidence, he would believe that the Earth was extremely old. Although he is a convinced YE creationist, one of his students was able to convincingly debunk the Paluxy "man tracks."

    Like Kurt Wise, he's an honest creationist, who refuses to deny that the evidence is against him. His faith in his interpretation of Scripture simply trumps any evidence that could be collected.

    Since there is considerable disagreement about much of the Bible among Bible-believing Christians, and since the YE doctrine is only one relatively minor variety of all the others, you can see why that isn't going to be very useful.

    Good example. What makes you think it was an apple? This is the sort of addition to scripture that might seem harmless, but enough of those will take you down the path of YE creationism, where you no longer accept God's word on His creation.

    All science is inference based on evidence. You might think that's a rather shaky way to do things, but few things humans do works better. Science has been amazingly successful at understanding the physical universe.

    On what authority? What makes you think that the compilation of men is more accurate than the means by which they compiled it?

    First, He doesn't say what you think He does. The "apple" is just a small example. Second, we are quite capable of accurately inferring things that have happened, but which we did not see.

    That's not a bald assertion; people have shown that this is true in many different disciplines. Some years ago, I had to learn about fire investigation for a client. I was astonished at the things a good investigator and lab could discover about what appeared to be a charred ruin.

    A friend of mine is the forensics expert for a large city. He has, on several occasions freed innocent people, and has put a few guilty ones away, based on the science he does.

    So, I'm not very likely to be persuaded by "the evidence can mean whatever you want it to."

    Given the fact that there's no consensus that the Bible even says anything about an age for the Earth, it would seem that anyone trying to do it, would run the risk of assuming his particular interpretation was God's Word, and then denying God's actual creation.

    Never heard that. There was an incident many thousands of years ago, when a glacial lake suddenly emptied ,and scoured out huge canyons, but they are very different than the Grand Canyon.

    For example, in the Colorado River, we see entrenched meanders, that cannot be formed suddenly. Here's an example:
    http://www.hasd.org/hhs/RRWebQuest/entrenched%20meander.jpg

    There's no way that this can form in a human lifetime, or even many human lifetimes.

    One person tried to convince me that the gullies eroded in soft ash at Mt. St. Helens were canyons hundreds of feet deep, just like the Grand Canyon. I've been there, and I've had a chance to look at them. He was lied to.

    Here's a photo of some of the bigger ones:
    http://gallery.photo.net/photo/915132-md.jpg

    I took this one from Johnson's Ridge, roughly in the path of the eruption. The valley is quite wide, and the gullies are deep, although not hundreds of feet deep. Notice that they are sloped, and when they get too deep, the edge slumps and falls away. There are no features of the kind you see at the Grand Canyon. If the walls get anything like 100 feet deep, they just fall in, as all soft sediments do. It takes a lot of time to do this.

    Reality won't go with that. For example, in the middle of the sediments, we see cross-bedded dunes which indicate deserts had formed in the middle of the process of laying down sediment. We know that they are desert dunes, because the grains are polished as all wind-driven grains are, but water-carried grains are not.

    The physics won't work for a sudden canyon, either. Soft sediment is not going to pile up a mile or so deep, and have a nearly vertical wall cut into it. As you see at Mt. St. Helens, it merely slumps.

    And we know how entrenched meanders happen. And they certainly don't happen suddenly. We can watch them in the process of formation in many places.

    Barbarian observes:
    I don't see any science.

    (other verses, with no science)

    bi·ol·o·gy n.
    1. The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.
    2. The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms: the biology of viruses.
    3. The plant and animal life of a specific area or region.

    zo·ol·o·gy n.
    1. The branch of biology that deals with animals and animal life, including the study of the structure, physiology, development, and classification of animals.

    bot·a·ny n.
    1. The science or study of plants.

    No. They have trees, animals, and other living things mentioned. However, one can reference living things, and do no science at all. Science is not cows and flowers and horses, and weeds; it's a process and a method of finding out about the physical universe. And there's no sign of that process or method here.

    Can't be. The evidence is not consistent with a worldwide flood.

    I'll go back and look.
     
  8. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    That is "secular humanism". Humanism, as you know, is a Christian movement. Let's use "secular humanism" when we mean "secular humanism", and "humanism" when we mean "humanism."

    Barbarian observes:
    You may be pleased to know that evolutionary theory does not say we arrived here by a random process, or that we are accountable to nature rather than God. Most of us accept God as the Creator of nature and of each of us, albeit by natural means.

    You get a soul directly from God. Your physical body, however, is entirely natural. That's how He does most things, here.

    Barbarian observes:
    No, that's a common misconception. In fact, most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with God's creation.

    No. Information was never part of evolutionary theory. Sometimes, evolution results in an increase in information. Sometimes, it results in a decrease.

     
  9. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a perfectly legitimate use of the word "world" to refer to mankind instead of the physical planet. I refer you to the following verses that show this use of the word "world":

    Isa 13:11
    1 Thus I will punish the world for its evil
    And the wicked for their iniquity;
    NASU

    John 1:29
    9 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
    NASU

    John 7:7
    "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
    NASU

    John 16:20
    0 "Truly, truly, I say to you, that you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice; you will grieve, but your grief will be turned into joy.
    NASU

    Rom 12:2
    2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
    NASU

    Well, I suppose we Christians had better turn for our hope in eternal life to our religion instead of to science. This is news?

    I take that as a blatant confession you are interpreting the scriptures to conform to your point of view.

    As interpreted by you.

    There is nothing in that verse that is contrary to anything I believe. It is perfectly consistent with both our views. Why do you even bother to cite it as evidence for your view over mine?

    It would seem to me that a REFERENCE to THINGS GETTING OLDER is not a DETAILED DISCUSSION OF ENTROPY.

    Your allegation would require me to believe that the cause of day and night is the Sun moving around the earth and that all flying insects have four legs. It is the earth that rotates and flying insects have six legs.


    Just because God took advantage of the Hebrew's belief that the world was created in six days and that He rested on the Seventh (And we know that God is beyond time and space and never needs rest on a particular day) does not mean we have to assume He is being literal at this point.

    God was unable to give men what He really wanted to give them in the law - for example, Moses delivered at God's command regulations concerning divorce, but God's will is that divorce not exist. In the same way, God was not able to literally describe the way the universe and the earth and life came about to men; they were not yet ready for that truth.

    And as I stated at the beginning of the topic, all evolutionists, theistic and non-theistic alike, believe that from the beginning of mankind we were always male and female and I wonder why you think this verse is a telling blow in your favor at all . . .

    it is only your personal interpretation that makes the creation word refer to all of creation instead of the creation of mankind.
     
  10. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    We've hit 20 pages.
    Time to wrap it up folks and folksesses. You have 24 hours to post your final answer. [​IMG]
    Gina
     
  11. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I would categorize any and all humanism as anything that exalts man above God. Be that secular humanism, or otherwise. If man is the focus, rather than God it's probably not good.

    2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Barbarian observes:
    No, that's a common misconception. In fact, most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with God's creation.</font>[/QUOTE]Read Genesis Chapters 1 & 2. Tell me if this sounds remotely like evolution. Genesis 1 & 2 (regardless of whether you think so or not) DIRECTLY and irrefutably says that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour (solar) days. It says on the 3rd literal day, God created the first life in the form of plants - grass and trees etc - and that life only creates more of itself ... it does not turn into other kinds of life.

    It says that the next literal day, God created the Sun, moon, and stars.

    It says that the next literal day, God created all life living within the waters, and all birds. He made these creatures reproducing able only to re-produce themselves, but not turn into other kinds of creatures.

    The next literal day, God created all animals on the earth ... made them reproduce after their own kind... and then as an entirely separate creation, God made man as the only creation on earth made in his own image.

    So on the 3rd literal 24 hour day of creation God made the first life, and on the 6th literal 24 hour day, man was created. This is DIRECT and IRREFUTABLE evidence that there was not millinons of years before the first reproducing cell and man.

    We all know and agree that the days of creation are literal. The word for day used in the Old Testament Hebrew is YOM. EVERY time in the Bible the word YOM is used in conjuction with Evening, it means an ordinary day. Every time YOM is used in conjuction with the word Morning, it means an ordianry day. Every time YOM is used with a number, it means an ordianry day. Every time the Bible switches literal days in the account of creation, it says "and the evening and the morning were the [number] day".

    These are the irrefutable facts of creation. The Bible clearly, plainly, and literaly states these facts. There is no where in the Bible where evolution is even remotely supported - furthermore because the Bible clearly states all of these facts of creation, we know that evolution did not happen. There was only 72 hours between the first life and man. To my knowledge there are no evolutionary models, mechanisms, etc for transforming single cells into man in 3 literal days. Yet the Bible is Absolute in this timetable. There is simply no way to deny this unless you say that the Bible is not true.

    However, if you say that ANY portion of the Bible is not true, you have opened the door to the possibility that the WHOLE Bible is not true. IF you can say that any part of Genesis did not happen as the Bible describes, then you can also say that any part of any book of the Bible did not happen as the Bible describes. For example, Jesus quotes Genesis. Pual quotes Genesis. If Genesis didn't happen exactly as Genesis says - if Genesis in un-true or non-literal then anything that quotes it can be seen as untrue or non-literal. Therefore if you say that Genesis is ... in ANY WISE... not entirely and 100% real and accurate, then it can be shown also that Jesus is not 100% real and accurate, and that christianity is not 100% real and accurate. And that Salvation and calvary is not 100% real and accurate. If you dismiss ANY part of Genesis, you can then dismiss any part of scripture you want.

    That is humanism. The presumption that the idea of man is greater than the Word of God.

    While I have already discussed with you the extensive evidence - nay proof - that the days of Genesis were literal, ordinary days... let me try to also give you an explaination for the sun, mornings, evenings statement.

    While the Sun was not created until literal day 4 of creation, this does not mean that TIME was not created. In fact, we can see that time was created on Day 1.

    Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    God creates light. Note that just about all our calculations for energy and matter come from the 'speed of light'. Speed is nothing more than distance over time. So in creating light and separating it from darkness, God actually creates time. He also creates a means by which evening and morning can be determined. Evening and morning are caused by the rotation of the earth. If there is a difference between light and darkness, then evening and morning - via the rotation of the earth - can be determined and therefore we can see time passing by the oscillations of light and dark ... evening and morning.

    Notice that this is exactly what the bible says - God called the light day, and the dark he called night and IMMEDIATELY we have the passing of time by evening, morning, first day.

    Note that according to Romans 5 and Genesis 3, death did not enter the world until the Sin of Adam. Therefore, all life on earth was eternal life. You see... the plants - a life form - were created on day 3, while there was no sun. The concept that the Sun provided energy to the world system (proventing entropy) when the first cells were created is DIRECTLY PROVEN FALSE by these verses. The first living cells were created in the complete abcense of our Sun. They managed to come to full grass and full trees bearing fruit in the complete abcense of our sun! Tell me how this is possible with natural evolution?

    The only reason to say Solar days is because there are those out there who would try to continue to argue stating that a literal day is not mathematically precisely 24.000 hours. Solar day is used because that is the 'current equivelant measure of time'. To avoid this idiotic digression from the point, we often say 'solar day' so that the quantity of time we are referring to is known.

    As Genesis 3:19 and Romans 5:12 shows us, death did enter Adam in that day. Both physical and spiritual.

    However, could there be any reason for the delay?

    Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
    Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    That's not scriptural, either. Even if a worldwide flood were true, plants would have to survive somehow. And fish would have to have somehow survived the blending of salt and fresh water, and so on.
    </font>[/QUOTE]I am not really sure what you are arguing here...
    I said all animals ON EARTH... not all living things in the world. The fish are not land animals. But to show the scriptural basis for what I say -


    Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
    Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
    Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
    Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

    Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
    Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
    Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

    Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
    Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
    Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
    Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.

    Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.

    Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
    Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.
    Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

    So all that I have said about the flood is directly from scripture and true.

    This is entirely false, even without the Bible. However, since the Bible removes all possibility of evolution being true, we can rest assured that it is not. The Biblical evidence FAR OUTWEIGHS any misinterpreted observation by man. God's Word is far more trustworthy than that of any human scientist. It is back to the drawing board for evolutionists... clearly and irrefutably the Bible declares the truth that evolution did not happen. I have definitively and decisively shown you this in Genesis 1 & 2. There is no other interpretation... there is no other alternative but to believe Genesis 1 & 2 as it is written.

    If you can show me where Genesis 1 & 2 is not literal, then I will show you how that makes Jesus not literal. I will show you that if Genesis 1 & 2 didn't happen, then salvation didn't happen either. You guys try to get by saying these things don't matter in inerrancy as long as we get the Big Things right... in fact, the Big Things can only be true if the rest of it is true.

    Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
    Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
    Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
    Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
    Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
    Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. If Genesis is wrong, then so is Jesus. On the other hand, if Genesis is right and true, then so also is Jesus.

    Moreover, humanists and atheists have a reason now to dismiss the whole of scripture if you tell them that Genesis is wrong... or that it's science and history are wrong... what reason do they have to believe anything else. If the Bible can't get the earthly things right, how can it be trusted with the things of God - the sprititual things. I assert that it can be fully trusted... literally as written in both arenas.

    Luk 16:11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true [riches]?


    No, that's wrong. In fact, God shows that the YE creationism docrine of ex nihilo is false. He says that living things were brought forth from the Earth.</font>[/QUOTE]I showed you how the days in Genesis cannot mean anything other than literal, ordianry days. You say this is wrong. Do you realize you are calling God and His Word a Liar? We can see that this is the only possible meaning.

    He says that living things were brought forth from the Earth. I believe you are referring to Genesis 2:7.

    Genesis 2:7
    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 soul.

    However, if this is to somehow advocate that evolution happened because man came 'from the earth', then you have proven all statements on this thread from evolutionists regarding evolution and entropy false.

    If Genesis 2:7 means evolution, then so does Genesis 3:19.

    Genesis 3:19
    In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

    According to your logic, you have just admitted that we are actually de-evolving. This, then, cancels out any evidence for evolution. If THAT is the case... that we are de-evolving... then that means all this 'evidence' and observation you guys claim shows evolution is dead wrong!

    So once again... either Genesis is correct as it is plainly and literally written... that all life was created on earth within the span of 4 literal days from first life to man... or evolution is correct. To choose evolution is to reject the Bible's version of events, and ultimatly leads to the ability to dismiss Christ.

    Unfortuneately for you, and for the other evolutionists here, the Bible only gives you a few literal days... and not millions of years. There is no other way to say this - Evolution is wrong. Evolution is of Satan. Evolution is evil. Evolution is a "high thing that exhaults itself against the knowlege of God". Evolution completely contradicts scripture.
     
  12. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    PoE, it takes the intellect of a 3 year old to understand evolution. The gooey mud turns into a fishy, then into salamander, then into a kitty, then into a monkey then into a person. Tell a kid that, and he understands it and believes it because he trusts you... even if he doesn't have the slightest clue what genetics is... or what mutation is... or what death is. You would assert that God didn't think we were ready or able to know the 'truth'. I might buy into this story if God didn't give a completely different account that contradicts evolution entirely. So as it is, I choose to believe what God says over what humanists and atheists have drummed up to replace God with.

    Does it not bother you evolutionists that the permission most people have to walk away from the Bible is evolution? Does it not bother you that since the Bible and creation teaching was removed from our public high schools, crime has skyrocketed and the number of public school educated kids that profess a belief in Christ is at the lowest point in our Nation's history?

    Did you guys know that the same guys who wrote the constitution and supposedly wrote the 'separation of church and state' into the constitution (which is a part of the constitution that only exists in the minds of bad judges) also were the same men who, as a congressional act, ordered that thousands upon thousands of Bibles be written using federal dollars to be used in public schools?

    Because Jesus is quoting verses of the Bible as true and literal that you evolutionists continually claim is neither true nor literal. Therefore, either Jesus is wrong or Genesis is literally true. Either Jesus is a liar or Genesis is literally true. Either Jesus was NOT God and didn't know what he was talking about, or Genesis is literally true.

    BTW, it's not just Jesus, it's Paul too.

    In the same chapter where Paul describes Salvation, he re-affirms the Truth of Genesis and demolishes the possibility of evolution:

    1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

    1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

    Paul speaks of creation and salvation in the same breath, and literally just as Christ did. If indeed Genesis is false, so is christ's death - by your own logic!

    1 Chor 15:39 alone dispells the myth of evolution. But when you add it to the rest of the scripture as a whole, we really see there is abolutely no room whatsoever for any belief in evolution.
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "My mistake. I forgot to post the link at the end of the quote. However, notice that I did set the entire thing off in italics."

    That's OK. No big deal, I did notice the italics.

    I just get tired of big cut and paste jobs. It is sort of a habit of mine when I see a long post to Google a few phrases to see if it is lifted from somewhere. There are some here who will argue with large cut and pastes mixed in with their own stuff and you cannot tell which is which. There are also some who always seem to refuse to give references. I. personally, would rather see someone whittle it down to a few paragraphs in their own words to both make it easier to read and to show that they actually understand what they are copying and then give the reference for those that are interested. But I am digressing so far here...

    I think you attempt at devil's advocate is just another example of a slippery slope fallacy. There is no reason to suspect that those of us who do not believe in a literal creation week do not believe the Gospels, for example, outside of your own mind. BTW, you said "I expected you to say something to the effect of "the bible says xyz". But you never did. The closest you come to referring to the Bible is by saying that you believe the Gospels and the OT prophecies." I think your last sentence here gives you your answer to the complaint in the first sentence. I do not see how i could have been more clear, at 3 AM, than saying I believe the NT accounts of Jesus and that He fulfilled the OT prophecies of the Messiah.

    "How much have you personally contributed to the observation and formation of the Theory of Evolution?

    No, as I have mentioned before, my work is in coal gasification research. But, I do at least have a good, fundamental education in the basic sciences wich I think gives me the ability to evaluate the claims of each side. Remember, for all your talk of bias, I came to this table with a YE bias and was convinced by the YECers themselves that they could not possibly be right. If it was not for their own junk science and blatent misrepresentation, I would have never explored any old earth theories. Your humanist attacks on me just do not fit the pattern of what shaped my thoughts on the matter.

    "Evolution describes a process whereby single cell organisms increased in information, changing form and evolving into higher creatures from lower creatures via mutation. Natural selection directionally forced the mutative changes upward through the tree of life molding organisms into simple animals, then complex animals and ultimately into man. It did this by killing off creatures containing non-beneficial mutations, so that only those with good mutations survived to breed and mutate."

    Well, close. I would not use "lower" and "higher" creatures. Most of the life on earth is as it has always been, rather simple. And I would point out that all members of all generations of all species die. It is just those with better adaptations are a little more likely to reproduce first. So it is not so much the killing off of the bad as it is the success of the good. That does put a bit of a dent of the red tooth and claw analogy that YECers like to use.

    Also since you are still talking information, do you have any response to my claims of new "information" http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2710/18.html#000263 . I think that it gives a reasonable proposal to where all the new genetic codes came from with a few short examples and a bunch of abstracts where others have traced such evolution? Do you have a response, too, to the problems I found with your "source" for information only coming from intelligent sources? http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2710/18.html#000259

    "AiG has an article on Techtonics that is very interesting."

    Baumgardner again I see. Any answers to the objections I have raised to you earlier about this model? One specifically is that his own numbers indicate a heat release sufficient to boil the oceans completely away three times over. Another is his calculation of incredible water velocities (130 to 260 ft/s) over the continents and how could the geology and fossils that we see possibly have been the product of this.

    "For example, I have gone toe-to-toe in debates with Dr. Joe Meert - a staunch evolutionist and expert in geomagnetism and geochronology. He had no answers for me when I posed him the question - if ALL rocks on the planet were less than 6000 years old as the Bible suggests, would radiometric dating work? Furthermore, I asked him if ANY radiometric dating methods would work on any rocks where we knew the date of their formation. The best answer that he could give is that there would be no need to do so if the formation of those rocks was recently observed, therefore they have never tested them. I asked him if it wouldn't be a good idea to test radiometric dating on rocks they KNEW the dates of to test and verify the accuracy and viability of the radiometric dating process - again, I got no response."

    I believe that Meert is a geologist, but that may be swatting at gnats.

    I had my doubts about him being unable to answer such a question. I am no geologist, but even I could tell you that if the world was only 6000 years old then the simple answer is that dating the rocks would give nonsense answers. For instance, with isocron dating you would never actually get an isocron. It would just be random points. You would also not see the pattern of ratios by position in the geologic column that we actually see. You are mentioning godd evidence here, but good evidence for an old earth. Otherwise, just how did those rocks get sorted by the ratios of radioactive isotopes?

    Anyhow, I went and found his response. "JM: Nope, the rocks would answer the questions for us. We would not get self consistent ages for the rocks as they appear in the geologic column." Basically what I said but he has the gift of succinctness. http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=2563&page=2

    "In fact, most radiometric dating centers publicly advertise that they are not equipped to date young rocks - those less than 1 million years, for example. If the Bible is true, and I believe it is, then all rocks are a maximum of 6000 years old. That means all dates coming from those radiometric dating centers are admittedly inaccurate."

    Your statement tells me that you have no concept of using the appropriate ruler when making a measurement nor of proper sample selection. You seem to have a problem that a ruler meant to measure billions of years is a bit off when you ask it to measure less than one hundred years. Yet I doubt that if you are cutting a board to build with that you would use your car's odometer to do the measuring. Nor would you use a yard stick to measure how far it is from your house to the nearest national park. YOu have to use tools appropriate to the scale. Over on the other board you also got caught by the ability of disingenuous YECers to deliberately choose samples they know will date wrong. Snelling is one of the best. I do not know he can sleep at night. I guess he thinks a lie for God is a good lie. Well it was this kind of [] that drove me from YEC. Anyhow, you gave an example of Mt. St. Helens ash dating incorrectly when he deliberately had grains that did not melt tested instead of actual melt products that would have had their ages reset. Of course he does this all the time and no one on your side seems to have a problem with it. This is why I find the YEC leaders morally bankrupt.

    "Another actual example of this concept in action is the Grand Canyon. Scientists have always thought that it takes millions of years for canyons to form."

    Is this the same claim you made here? http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2710/5.html#000061

    You have never responded to my refutation of your claim here. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2710/5.html#000073

    At least you were wise enough to remove the direct reference to Burlingame Canyon from this most recent post. Or is that because you want to make the same claim but you know the basis is faulty so you leave that part out?

    "Does it not bother you evolutionists that the permission most people have to walk away from the Bible is evolution?"

    It bothers me greatly. That is why I continually point out the problems with YEC. Eventually when we can get people to realize that evolution is not at odds with CHristianity, this problem will go away. In the mean time, IMHO the YECers lay the groundwork for such tragedy by their insistence on their own interpretive abilities to say that the two are inconsistent. Any serious look at the facts of the case will convince most people that evolution happen(s)ed. Once you have already laid the groundwork for these people that the two are incompatible, you make it easy for them to reject God over it. But, like geocentrism, this way of thinking shall too pass.
     
  14. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    It is startling to anyone else here that, not once, has any evolutionist here been able to take their eyes off the physical evidence and show me any scripture whatsoever that might back up their claims?

    Where I have posted scripture after scripture after scripture that has refuted and soundly dismissed the whole of evolution - yet they have no scriptural evidence for their position. From the evolutionist camp, it's a constant "we know what God said... but look at this apple - why would God make this apple unless he intended us to eat it".

    In my posts I have done my best to argue from a purely Biblical perspective, and show that ULTIMATE TRUTH declares a very different story than does fallible man. Continuously, I have shown and upheld the Bible as true 100% of the time - and I have shown where the Bible contradicts evolution, thereby proving evolution false.

    Continuously, those who oppose my view have argued only from physical evidence - which quite litterally means nothing outside the truth of God's word. Continuously those who oppose my view have agreed that the Bible in no way supports evolution, yet they continue to support it - EVEN THOUGH i have shown them how the Bible defeats the notion of evolution time after time after time.

    I believe that I have successfully demonstrated that the Christians here who believe evolution do so out of a heart that is more ready to believe the word of man above the Word of God. I believe that I have successfully demonstrated that the YEC position is DIRECTLY from scripture, while the Old Earth position has absolutely no basis, foundation, or truth in scripture whatsoever.

    Again, read back through this thread and notice the verbose ammont of scripture I have posted which verifies my position, and then look at the scripture used by the Evolutionists here to back up or verify their claim - I tell you the truth now, they have NONE!

    Truely, to profess belief in Christ and to profess a simultaneous belief in evolution is to disbelieve what the scripture tells us clearly and plainly - that all life was created on earth within 6 literal days. To throw out this truth is to throw out the foundation upon which ALL CHRISTIAN FAITH rests! I, for one, am proud to have stood against such mutany from within.

    This is my last post in this thread, per Gina's direction. I will give you guys the last word in response to this.

    Please... all who have posted or read this thread, feel free to leave your remarks in answer to this final summery/synopsis.

    -Gup
     
  15. Brett

    Brett New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gup, you act as if the physical evidence contradicsts God's word, but that is impossible, because God is the author of not only the bible, but also this physical evidence. Thus, while evolutionists do their best to reconcile the bible and the physical evidence, Creationists like you do your best to look at one 'thing' that God has authored (the Bible) while completely ignoring the other (physical evidence).

    Physical evidence doesn't "lie", unless you call God a liar by placing it there.
     
  16. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Physical evidence doesn't lie? That's a VERY silly and invalid argument. Evidence can be misunderstood, altered, or able to be understood only partially, as so clearly evidenced by changing technology that shows how much we don't know.
    Gina
     
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

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

    You must remember, we feel that it is important to look at both the special revelation of creation God gave us in the Bible and the general relevation He has given us through the creation itself. A correct interpretation of the Bible and a correct interpretation of the physical evidence will never be in conflict.

    I came to this debate with a strong bias towards a young earth. But I was ultimately convinced otherwise. And there was a whole lot of praying and studying (spiritual and scientifically) involved in that. And I ultimately decided that when everything was put together that the only option that was viable was OEC / TE. I felt that anything else was not intellectually or religiously honest. A young earth was ruled out by the physical evidence. Complete naturalism was ruled out by experiencing God in my live personally and believing the Bible.

    You say that we have not ever provided you with any scriptural support. Not true, I did so and The Galatian repeated it recently. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass... And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good... And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

    You have also been pointed out many indications that the creation account was not meant to be literal. The reference to the "evening and the morning" for three days before there was a sun to give us an evening and a morning. The different order of the creation presented in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. There are many areas where no concern was given to the physical realities. The long discussion on the Jewish geography, for instance. (Which you never refuted. You instead showed where other people believed other things or were wrong about things. You never addressed the issue of the Jews and the other people of the Middle East at the time.) It seemed like it would be unproductive with you to delve into some of the other such areas like the four legged insects and classifying bats as birds.

    And I have explained the reason for going to the physical evidence. We both claim to have the right Biblical interpretation. Since the Bible properly interpreted will not conflict with the physical evidence correctly interpreted, the physical evidence can be used to find who is right.

    You compound this problem by repeatedly asserting that the physical evidence is in agreement with a young earth. Now, if you were to tell me that you interpret the Bible to mean a young earth based on faith and that you do not care what the physical evidence says, then this becomes a non-issue. I do not think the problem is people who hold young earth views. My problem, is with people who claim that the evidence is for a young earth. In my experience, those at leadership levels have been quite dishonest with presenting the evidence to the masses about this subject. Look at just the example I gave above about Snelling. How many references do I need to give you about him purposefully making dating mistakes so that he can claim that it does not work? Give me a number? 3? 5? And this is what I think is very harmful. First to the believers who are taught for so long that the Bible is incompatible with an old earth and that the evidence supports a young earth. When these people are exposed to the truth, as you said, we lose a lot of them. This is needless. Second, there are the unbelievers who are hard pressed to see how we can have the "Truth" if we must stick our collective fingers in our ears when it comes to the nature of the world.

    But you do assert that the evidence shows a young earth. Yet you refuse to lay that evidence out. You assert that there are better interpretations for the data that indicate a young earth. Yet you do not bother to tell us what the problems are with the mainstream interpretations and what the better interpretations are. The few areas in which you do at least mention physical evidence have been easily refuted. You generally do not even bother to support your original assertions once the problems are pointed out. ALthough you will wait until the refutation is stale and then make the same assertion. And you certainly will not allow yourself to lose control of the thread by responding to issues brought up by the OEers.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2710/12.html#000171
    This is just a partial listing of the topics you have avoided in this thread. Look above ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2710/20.html#000292 and http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2710/18.html#000263 ) for a few specific more. The overwhelming evidence from God's own creation indicates an old earth. We do not find anything in scripture that contradicts this.

    You expect us to believe the Biblical interpretation of a "fallible man" even when it conflicts with the realities of what we can see around us.

    Does that count as a summary?
     
  18. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Good point Gina,
    It has often been pointed out that the many of the theories of evolutionism (and even creationism for that matter) can't be reproduced, and therefore can't be proved scientificly. That is true: we can not duplicate historic events.

    What we really are looking at is "legal" proofs. This means looking at the preponderance of evidences. Legal proofs can be manipulated and skewed by our limited understanding, our personal presupositions and by unscrupulous people.

    Lord keep us far from liars and deceivers. (Proverbs 30:7)

    Nice ending on this thread guys! You have ALL done good work.

    Rob
     
  19. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Barbarian observes:
    That is "secular humanism". Humanism, as you know, is a Christian movement. Let's use "secular humanism" when we mean "secular humanism", and "humanism" when we mean "humanism."

    It's O.K. to have a private definition, if you make it clear you are using it. You would do better to make the distinction.

    "There can be no humanism without the Gospels."
    Protestant theologian Karl Barth

    Barbarian observes:
    No, that's a common misconception. In fact, most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with God's creation.

    It sounds like aboigenesis. What it does, is completely reject the notion of YE creationism, since it explicitly rules out ex nihilo creation.

    Evolution, biochemistry, etc. are nowhere to be found. As you know, it's not a science text, and these things are not discussed.

    Fact is, it nowhere says six literal 24 hour (solar) days. You've been misled. Go and look. Not there.

    I just looked. It doesn't say that "life only creates more of itself", and it doesn't say that life doesn't turn into other kinds of life. In fact, it refers to life as a "kind", not kinds.

    In fact, most Christians know that they are not.

    In fact, Strong's say:

    "3117 yowm yome from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term)..."

    You've been misled, again.

    As you can see above, many of the things you think are in the Bible aren't there at all. They were added by men to make God's creation more acceptable to them.

    Of course, it is possible that some portions of the Bible are literal and others figurative or allegorical. Indeed, I know of no theologian who denies this.

    Barbarian on misunderstanding "yom":
    Doesn't say "literal days". In fact, a litereal reading would rule out literal days, because there would be no sun, no mornings and no evenings.

    Sorry, even Strong's points out that the Hebrew word can mean day, or any stretch of time.

    Actually, we don't have a statement that time was created. But you can't have mornings without a sun. By definition.

    No, that's wrong. We know that even Adam was mortal, since God says so, expressing concern that Adam might become so:

    Gen. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

    They are, of course allegorical, since the text tells you so. Anytime a literal translation leads to logical contradictions, we know it can't be literal.

    Barbarian observes:
    "Solar days" is a non-scriptural addition. Not a good idea.

    No matter what the motive, it is never good to add to scripture.

    Barbarian observes:
    And the "death" as the serpent showed, was not physical, but spiritual. Otherwise Adam would have literally died that day, as God had told him. He did die, of course, but that was a figurative spiritual death.

    That's not what God said. God said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree. He did. But not physically. So we know it's not about physical death, because God would otherwise have told Adam a falsehood, which is absurd.

    If God is truth, there could be no delay. It would happen as He said. And it did.

    Barbarian observes:
    That's not scriptural, either. Even if a worldwide flood were true, plants would have to survive somehow. And fish would have to have somehow survived the blending of salt and fresh water, and so on.

    I'm pointing out that not all living things died if they didn't go on the Ark, even if you take the allegory as literal history.

    But they are animals and living things.

    Barbarian observes:
    Since we have directly observed the process, any consideration of life on Earth mush account for evolution.

    Nope. It's very true. Speciations have been directly observed, the first one in the early 1900s. Would you like to learn about some of them?

    I think so, too. But the word of every person who has a personal interpretation of Scripture is less compelling.

    I tell them it's right. You just don't like everything in it, and have added a few things to make it more acceptable to you.

    Nope. There is no "de-evolving". Devo was a 1970s new wavish band, not a scientific theory. What makes you think of that?

    I have no idea what you're talking about...
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    If that response was "supposed to have had substance" I missed it.

    Posturing is a good substitute for "proof" in the halls of evolutionism - but it does not work as well in an open discussion forum like this.

    You might want to rethink it.

    You seem to already have missed 'the detail'. Dawkings is already quotd as "Claiming" that evolutionism claims for itself the "complete explanation for everything...starting with nothing..every step is explained".

    I can keep posting it - but if you keep ignoring that detail -- it only increases my opportunity to "Show" that evolutionist (icons) themselves admit that the "Claim" of evolutionism is to start with nothing and then explain away life in such a way that the evolutionist (Dawkings in this case) has no need of inserting a "Creator" into the "story".

    Keep reading the thread then. We have a few faithful devotees to that system of belief that will gladly share their faith with you.

    And they also worship at Mary's altars and pray to the dead - but as it turns out - they are wrong on all three counts.

    However I do agree - that the "majority" seek to marry humanist-beliefs in evolutionism to the Gospel - they are simply "unsuccessful" as this thread points out.

    The fact is clear, when the believers in evolutionism are confronted with the glaring contradictions between Christianity and evolutionism they... "change the subject".

    In UTEOTW's case - they want to talk about "chalk" instead.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...