Red Lake, MN shooting a result of evolutionary thinking?

Such tripe.

Sin existed at least a few years before Darwin.

...the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5 NAS

Rob

 

While sin did exist before Darwin, I believe Darwin's antichrist theory of evolution was born out of sin as a lie straight from the pits of Hell, that has led to a lack of respect for life which has given us violence, murder, abortion, euthenasia, etc. What's even more shocking is that there are many who claim to be Christians who support and preach the antichrist teachings of evolution!

 

Either thinking that we're no more than animals or no more than dust can lead to a lack of respect about human life...

...if one ignores that God made humans in his image with a mandate to rule the rest of creation (Genesis 1:26-28). If one accepts that, then humans can no longer be viewed as merely biped mammals or merely animated dust.

Rejecting what we are made to be is more likely to lead to atrocities than various ideas about what we're made out of.

 

What caused all of the murders before 1859?

 

The same thing that caused all of the murders after 1859, SIN!!

 

In other words, science had nothing to do with it after all.

Racism and genocide has been committed with all sorts of ideological premises, including religious ones.

I will not mention which religions, but as Christians, we have a lot to answer for just as others do.

 

This argument, like everything else inYE, is built upon a false premise.

Quoting from Mein Kampf.

"Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproductionof our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purityof our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that ourpeople may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe."

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"The folkish-minded man, in particular has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

"Then, from the child's story-book to the last newspaper in the country, and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and every free space on the hoardings should be utilized in the service of this one great mission, until the faint-hearted cry, "Lord, deliver us," which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven to-day would be transformed into an ardent prayer: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. ' "

So are you advocating that we should all give up our beliefs because Hitler was a creationists? You did try and advocate that we should consider evolution evil because of your false assertion of its association with the Nazis!

How pathetic it is that YE is such an unsupportable idea on the facts that YEers must resort to such tactics as mounting a slander campaign based on a false premise. Can YE not stand on the observations? Does it really need to resort to such?

 

I never said it had anything to do with science, I was talking about the antichrist teaching of the theory of evolution, a theory that has no business being taught as factual science!

 

When ya ain't got nothin', ya got nothin' to lose.

 

It should be taught as factual science because IT IS factual science. It underlies everything in biology. It is supported by dozens of separate lines of evidence from biology and from paleontology. It is the only theory that can give a coherent explanation of our observations of the creation.

Something that is so well demonstrated should not be opposed by those who claim they only seek the truth. But I am sure that Satan delights in the trouble caused by those who insist that Christianity is at odds with reality, who say that to believe the Bible that you must reject the best supported theories of the major scientific disciplines and who consistently doubt the salvation of those who dare to disagree with them.

 

Why are you bringing Scripture into the discussion, evolutionist don't need Scripture when they have the teachings of Darwin and other athiests to promote their beliefs. Besides, the Bible doesn't make sense to our feeble human minds like the teachings of evolution.

One think I have learned is that you can never win a debate with one who believes that the theory of evolution is based on facts. They have choosen to believe humanism over God.

 

Why did you have to switch from "based on facts" to "believe humanism"? That is not a logical switch. After all, if evolution isn't a fact, then the facts should be sufficient to cite in opposition. Of course, the facts SUPPORT evolution, which makes it necessary to ignore the facts to be against evolution. Hence the strident insistence that we get our ideas "only from the Bible", which is actually an unbiblical point of view.

 

Choose: To select one thing over another; to pick one option from all other options.

1) God says: "6 days,-----", "So God created man in his own image--"
2) Man says: "X billion years,---", "So God caused man to evolve until He indwelled man with His own image---"

Two choices; which is your choice?

In spite of all the scientific blathering, the same "evidence" is available to all, and the ONLY difference is the conclusion/interpretation of that evidence.

We, (YE, Creationist) can no more PROVE what we believe than the OE/Evolutionist can PROVE what they believe. There is NO rock solid cornerstone that is undisputable for either side from a scientific standpoint.

The difference is that the YE/Creationists ADMIT this up front, and openly and proudly declare that we simply believe the word of God as written!!

The OE/Evolutionists refuse to admit that their beliefs are just as much a product of faith as ours, only that their faith is in science, rather than the word of God!

I would prefer to tell God that I just took Him at His word, and be found wrong, than that I took the "proofs (Ha!)" of man & decided that He really didn't mean what He said!!!

 

So you do not believe God can call a world with animal death good? Do you consider the Psalms to be inspired Scripture?

Psalm 104:20-30:

20 You make darkness, and it is night,
when all the beasts of the forest creep about.
21 The young lions roar for their prey,
seeking their food from God.
22 When the sun rises, they steal away
and lie down in their dens.
23 Man goes out to his work
and to his labor until the evening.

24 O LORD, how manifold are your works!
In wisdom have you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 Here is the sea, great and wide,
which teems with creatures innumerable,
living things both small and great.
26 There go the ships,
and Leviathan, which you formed to play in it.

27 These all look to you,
to give them their food in due season.
28 When you give it to them, they gather it up;
when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.
29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed;
when you take away their breath, they die
and return to their dust.
30 When you send forth your Spirit, they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground.

The God described in this Psalm is responsible for carnivorous activity (v.21); made all things, including carnivorous lions, in his wisdom (v.24); gives food and sustenance to his creatures, whether they're carnivorous or not (v.27); and calls the food and prey he provides them with "good things" from his hand (v.28).

To claim that God couldn't look over a creation where animals prey on each other and declare it "very good" simply shows that one sees things differently than God.

Animals don't sin. That verse is speaking about human death. There is a very big difference between humans and animals (humans share the image of God, for one thing), and it is best to not apply everything said about humans to animals as well. I don't think Jesus died to give animals eternal life, which is what your reading of Romans 6:23 seems to indicate.

Do you believe what Psalm 104 tells us about God?

 

False dilemma. There's far more than two choices. I believe God's full revelation which shows he created the world a long time ago, and that humans share the image of the invisible God while still having a physical body that is related to other living things.

If you don't think your choices are a false dilemma, perhaps you'd like to make some of the following choices:

The Lord's Supper:
1) Jesus says: "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink" (John 6:55).
2) Man says: "It's no different than any other meal."

Baptism:
1) The Bible says: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21).
2) Man says: "All it does is get you wet."

Two questions, two choices each; which are your choices?

 

The Fall did not affect God's morality. Sin is still sin. If God calls something "good" now, there is no reason to believe he couldn't call it "good" before. God does not change with creation.

Let's take a closer look.

Isaiah 11:6: The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them.

Isaiah 65:25: "The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

These are the two passages that use this imagery. However, there's problems right away for a literal reading because Isaiah 65 is describing a time when "No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed" (v.20). So, this is a time when people still die, but they don't die young. Does this mean that God will remove predation before God does away with death?

A more likely interpretation can be found by comparing other verses where biblical prophecies include lions. Perhaps most instructive is the following passage that describes when "the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion":

Isaiah 35:9-10: No lion shall be there, nor shall any ravenous beast come up on it; they shall not be found there, but the redeemed shall walk there.

What is interesting is that this passage seems to be describing the same thing as Isaiah 11:6. In one passage, the security of this paradise is illustrated by how the calf and lion graze together. In the other passage, the security is illustrated by how lions and other ravenous beasts will be banished. Same idea. Different imagery.

You asked earlier how I decide when to take something literally or figuratively. When the same thing (in this case shalom, or peace and security) is described by two illustrations that both convey the same idea in spite of being literally contradictory, that is a good sign that the imagery is not meant to be taken literally.

But, if it is literal, there's one more thing you have to explain. In a time when God has banished death, both for humans and animals, why does God do this:

Isaiah 25:6-8: On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken.

At a time when death is being swallowed up forever, God prepares a feast -- of meat!

This is just one more piece of evidence that it is human death that is being swallowed up, not animal death. Or, perhaps the details such as the lions, lambs and contents of the feasts in these prophecies are symbolic and just paint a picture of something beyond our comprehension. Perhaps both. In any case, a literalistic reading just leads to contradiction and nonsense. Would you also take the personification of nature literally in Isaiah 33:9, 35:1, 44:23 and 55:12?

 

God did not lie by placing starlight in the sky that shows a dynamic, real universe going back millions and billions of years.

Let God be true!

God did not lie by placing evidence of ancient age and evolution of life in the rocks of our earth.

Let God be true!

However, it is true that men have sometimes misinterpreted His word to say it requires they avoid the knowledge He foretold would arise in the latter days. To bad those men are unwilling to take that which God himself caused to be prophesied would come to pass.

Dan 12:4
4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."
NASU