Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution?

We can figure this out when a scientist says or actually I believe it would be an anthropologist says carbon dating shows these bones to be 1 million years old we know that is based on bogus testing.
The testing method is this C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth. They start with the belief in the earth being 4.5 to 5 Billion years old and so they date these fossil findings with a bogus date, making it a bogus age. Taking the same formula C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth and using a 6000 year old we would have a tremendously younger fossil.
This has been done with some rock formation that were known to be only hundreds of years old, they knew the exact time of their formation it had been documented. Using C14/C12 x 1/2 the age of the earth as 4.5 to 5 billion years it was determined that those rocks were millions of years old when in fact it was documented when they formed. Bogus science leads to false claims and false dating. So Darwin evolution is based on false premises and is therefore a false religion so why would we as Christians accept a false religion or it teaching.[/QUOTE]

1. Your anthropologist was inept at best, Carbon dating would never be used on anything suspected of being as old as 1 million years, as carbon dating is only approximately accurate to values much less than 1 million years.
The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.

2. Who was around to witness rocks form? That I would be interested in knowing and seeing some record of that.
3. The dating of "very old" things in science is done not by any singular dating method, but rather a host of techniques, if a reasonable degree of agreement is not met, then back to the drawing board. (scientifc method)

 

1. Your anthropologist was inept at best, Carbon dating would never be used on anything suspected of being as old as 1 million years, as carbon dating is only approximately accurate to values much less than 1 million years.
The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.

2. Who was around to witness rocks form? That I would be interested in knowing and seeing some record of that.
3. The dating of "very old" things in science is done not by any singular dating method, but rather a host of techniques, if a reasonable degree of agreement is not met, then back to the drawing board. (scientifc method)[/QUOTE]


The basic problem involved in ANY dating today is that scientists assume that there is little to no difference from "back then" to now, but a Universal Flood does skew a lot the data. and that the Universe has operated by same exact laws of physics... Do we know How God created the Universe, and woudn't that make data hard to interprete, and can we even assume the laws have been constant? that light travels at same rate all areas in Space, that time itself as a constant never changed etc?

 

1. Your anthropologist was inept at best, Carbon dating would never be used on anything suspected of being as old as 1 million years, as carbon dating is only approximately accurate to values much less than 1 million years.
The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.

2. Who was around to witness rocks form? That I would be interested in knowing and seeing some record of that.
3. The dating of "very old" things in science is done not by any singular dating method, but rather a host of techniques, if a reasonable degree of agreement is not met, then back to the drawing board. (scientifc method)[/QUOTE]

1.This was an example but yet we have had them telling us bones have dated to millions of years old.

2. They knew when they were formed by historical data such as the last time the volcano had erupted and where the rocks were formed.

3. All dating concepts except one are based on the C14/C12 x 1/2 age of the earth method, again one must determine what the earths age is before one can use the formula correctly, so how is the age of the earth determined?

 

Yes, men lived with dinosaurs, and Sabre Toothed Tigers too!

 

While I generally agree with the position the author of this article holds regarding creation/evolution, I disagree with the main point of this article.

Many Christians believe that a young-earth stance is fundamental to the message of Christianity. They are wrong! The issue is peripheral to scripture.

The author compounds their common err by identifying Christianity by its traditions. But tradition doesn’t define what Christianity is! Christianity’s central theme, its power, is Christ: his death and resurrection.

I personally believe that those who believe in a young-earth betray a simple naïveté regarding science and its interaction with scripture.

This is shown here on the thread by the majority that can't seem to fathom that the author of the article is a creationist, albiet one that believes that God worked through the process of evolution.

I also believe that God cares little for the position one takes regarding this issue.

This will be an argument that will last until we are called into the heavenly kingdom. Those on both sides of the issue who believe that one’s stance is central to Christianity are mistakenly deceived.

Rob

 

except that IF one takes/holds the tenets of evolution to its logical end...

One finds that the genesis account is little more than Jewish Myth/fable, not a literally Adam/Eve, no real Fall, and basically the doctrine of Sin, evil, atonemnt, Gospel etc get blown up sky high!

 

Evolution and OE places death before the fall. That is a major theological problem.

 

Yes, I agree it's a problem but not an insurmountable problem.

Rob

 

In fact it is a death blow

 

He is wrong. We do not feel we are defending Christian "Tradition" we are defending the gospel, we are defending actual history, we are defending the truth of scripture that has not been interpreted through the lense of man made science that is ever changing unlike scripture.

 

I'm sorry, I was not trying to remind you. I did not assume you did not already know that I was just commenting on your post. And it is a tactic and not all that believable.

 

And you have to see this, BOTH YOU AND THE AUTHOR ARE WRONG!

• He's wrong to say the message of 'Christianity is its tradition'.
  
• You've wrong because you say the gospel means 'death couldn't occur before sin'.

Look a little deeper into your doctrinal beliefs, read up on why so many others belief so differently than you. Find out why conservative Baptist theologians can make statements that support old-earth creationism
You don't need to defend the gospel by adding doctrine.

The message of the gospel is Christ crucified - and that's its power.

Rob

 

To those in the world they see creation belief as a defense of Christian tradition, and offer the evolutional belief as truth, for which they cannot prove but say it is fact. He is infact defending his evolutionary religion by saying we are defending our Christian tradition.

The heart of the Gospel is that Christ came as the promised saviour and who was He promised too? Adam and Eve after the fall. So creation of man is at the heart of the Gospel. We first need to see that man fell in the Garden and because of the fall a Savior was needed. So creation is a part of the Gospel, if we say man evolved or as Theism says man evolved with God helping him along then man didn't fall in the garden but sin would have reigned in him from the begining of his evolutionary journey, the once they developed into humans and God came and gave them his commend then they fell in disobedience. Now if evolution is true that would mena the creation story of Gensis is not quite correct as evolutionary teaching says the animals and man evolved as male and female.
Gensis says God created the animals after their kind, that would be both male and female so they could reproduce.
God took a rib from Adam and created Eve, here we have the biggest seperation from evolution, the skeletal remains that are being found are said to be male and female, but God it says didn't form woman until He had created Adam. Either the bible is wrong or evolution is here, I tend to say it would be evolution.
As for death the only death that occured in the Garden was that of plant life as man and animals consumed them, no flesh died in the garden. Again now we have yet another problem with evolution they say these pre-historic animals were flesh eaters but everything prior to the flood ate only plant life man did not consume flesh and neither did the animals.
The promise of the lion laying with the lamb is carrying us back to the way Eden was, so death of flesh did not occur in Eden until God created coats of skin from animals from God.
Genesis 1: 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Here in Genesis 1 it says that the herbs and fruit of trees was the diet of man and every creature.

Then after the flood God commanded Noah in Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

This verse explains a lot to us pre-flood the animals had no reason to fear mankind and so they readily came with Noah into the Ark. Pre-flood man had no fear of the animals for they ate the herbs and fruit form trees and plants. After the judgement of sin at the flood this changed. The only animals that died pre-flood were those offered in sacrifice to God as we see in Genesis 4:3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

So when you say "You've wrong because you say the gospel means 'death couldn't occur before sin'." When did the death of flesh occur, prior to the creation story in Genesis because until the offering of the animals for man to be clothed no animal had died not in the Garden, at least not at the hands of man or other animals.

 

Correct!
Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.”

If evolution were true in any sense, than it makes Jesus a Liar and the Bible worthless. Evolution has no place in the Bible. While the central message of the Bible is one of hope and salvation through Jesus Christ, the reason Jesus is here is because of man being cursed for breaking God's law in the beginning, and our need of someone to atone for our sins. However, if you believe there was death before the fall, than Jesus coming and dieing for us is irrelevant.

 

FWIW,

An excellent read from my personal favorite weekly publication.

http://www.tothesource.org/6_22_2011/6_22_2011.htm