Inconsistency of literalists vs science

So in Genesis 1-2:3 we "do NOT find an account of ORIGINS"?????

So then you are wrong when you say...

Here you ADMIT this is the account of the creation of earth and its life forms - but at the top you deny that it is the account for origins and claim God is NOT teaching Creation in the Creation ACCOUNT!!

How fantastically wrong.

In this case "the inconvenient facts" seem to have swallowed up your "story".

In Christ,

Bob

[ August 28, 2004, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

Speaking of the Gen 1-2:3 text where we find "IN the beiginning God CREATED"..

And "And God said... and God MADE ... and evening and morning where the 5th day" etc

Mecury contradicts the text as follows in order to defend evolutionsm...

As astounding as that is - Mercury you seem to be clinging to darkness on this one. What a direct contradiction of the clear text.

In scripture - the CORE point of Gen 1-2:3 is that GOD is MAKING EACH element AS described in the TIMELINE that GOD gives. Do we believe Him? (I guess some of us do).

Mercury seeks to equivocate BETWEEN core teachings where the VERY POINT is the creative Act of God AS He describes and -- vs some other obscure reference - that he is apparently not willing to subject to exegesis.

Ok here is the "simple point" repeated again. Please respond to the point that is opposing you instead of trying to "Spin it into something else".

(On the other hand -- IF you are just trying to offer opportunity after opportunity for me to post the point that opposes your views - I am happy to be of service.)

#1. Evoutionists claim God is NOT teaching evolutionism when HE teaches ORIGINS. YET you believe evolutionism IS THE truth about origins.

#2. WE ALL know that evolutionism's myths simply appeal to the EASY concepts of disease, starvation, predation, carnage, extinction and survival ALREADY well known to the peoples of Bible times.

#3. YOUR claim that God is condenscending in NOT telling them the TRUTH about origins combined with YOUR confessoin that God is NOT teaching them evolutionsms and YOUR confession that God IS teaching them the creaetion story with LITERAL days eliminates all doubt and leaves no doubt that it is creationism.

You know "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM" - as God says it.

#4. So when you ADMIT that this is NOT evolutionism and IS real literal DAYS in God's 7 day creation week - it is "obvious" that you think He "condescended" to tell them the Gen 1 "Story" INSTEAD of the TRUTH of evolutionism.

#5. HOW then can you bash creationists who are reading the VERY STORY that you say is NOT evolutionism as they say "THIS is NOT evolutionism"???

How can you blame them for saying that it is what you already ADMIT that it is ...

You know "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM" - as God says it.

Instead of dealing with this point - you simply obfuscate as in ...

That is not the point. The problem for you view is that once you admit that the origins account God gives - uses literal days and DOES NOT teach evolutionism... you have lost all grounds for bashing creationists who say "God is using real days and is not teaching evolutionism in His ORIGINS account " -- you know -- "creationism".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, creationism is far more than believing that Genesis 1 contains an account of six days of creation. Creationism is about micro-evolution and no animal death before the fall and a vapour canopy prior to the flood and a number of other things that creationists postulate to explain their literal interpretation. Creationism is about changing the order of Genesis 2 events to line them up with Genesis 1, or adjusting the Genesis 2 events so they are re-creations of certain types of life that already exist elsewhere in the world. That is what makes creationism, and that is not what the text teaches.

What I have said consistently is that the days of Genesis 1 are literal within the framework of the account the same way sheep are literal within the framework of Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats. Within the parable, it is real sheep Jesus is talking about, but outside of the parable these sheep represent people. As for the days, I think Hebrews 4 shows conclusively that the God's rest on the seventh day after creation is far more than a 24-hour time period that ended about 6,000 years ago.

Bob, I haven't bashed your view. I haven't ridiculed it as you've ridiculed mine. Instead I've tried to get you to clarify it (remember all the times I asked you to state when you believe the stars were created?), and when I thought I understood it, I explained from Scripture why I disagree with it. Whenever I've stated your view, I've tried to do so accurately instead of making a caricature of it.

 

Oops, I should have said the parable of the lost sheep. The sheep and the goats from Matthew 25 is a simile, not a parable; I had it on my mind from another thread.

 

I wish I could help you there, but in fact once we accept the EACH of those "evenings and mornings" in the 7 day sequence in Gen 1-2:3 is in fact 1 DAY ( you know, "the obvious") and we also admit that God is NOT teaching "evolutionism" (as you have already admited)... THEN when We read God's own summary of that 7 day week in the words we all know so well "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM Exodus 20:8-11" - (as God says it), then creation - origins and the Creator's account of creation does in fact lead us to the obvious conclusion "creationism".

Micro-evolution -- (as in variation WITHIN kinds) "yes" for the text SAYS "after its kind" speaking of the offspring of each kind.

But... that is IN the text, so "no problem".

No death -- As we see in Romans 8 - futility, and death IN CREATION were a result of the fall. DEATH spread to all as a result of the fall -

So - just believing the Gospel writers tell us that God did not use the methods of evil - of sin - of rebellion (disease, predation, carnage, extinction, violent deaths) as God's "way of saying LET THERE be birds)

And as you already admit - Gen 1 does NOT teach that this death and carnage process SEEN EVERY DAY by peoples of Bible times - was the process God used CREATION.

In your comments below you conveniently "leave the Gen 1-2:3 text" and the problems it causes you when you accept evolutionism - and you focus instead on the "solutions" that creationists have come up with to answer questions outside of the text.

Interesting - but just guesswork.

You are simply obfuscating in an effort to avoid the point raised.

The point remains - your own position requires that you not attack the Creationists for SEEING creation in the very text that you admit is NOT teaching evolutionism AND IS teaching an ORIGINS account in a literal 7 day week.

In fact -- adding your sidetrack point above to this that you have already admitted to -- the BEST you could do is to say "YES the text IS teaching creationism and NOT evolutionism BUT regarding the water canopy solution -- I think there is an even BETTER physical mechanism that would explain the paradise conditions God describes and the dew that waters the entire earth without using rain"

However this is NOT how you frame your argument. Amazingly and self-conflictingly you argue BOTH sides against the middle. You argue that Creationists are WRONG to accept the Creation account AS Creation WHILE at the same time claiming that it IS a literal 7 day sequence for origins and IS NOT evolutionism, AND that this non-evolution literal 7 day sequence is God condescending NOT to teach the facts of evolutionism.

Basically you are trying to have it both ways - and it is not working.

Indeed.

AND that this it NOT evolutionism (any more than it is electromagnetism).

AND that God is using the literal 7 day week SEQUENCE for ORIGINS (something that is NEVER used as a symbol or type for evolutionism BY evolutionists) -- as a condescension - NOT telling the truth which you claim is evolutionism.

Gen 1-2:3 is neither parable NOR symbol FOR EVOLUTIONISM. NO atheist evolutionist today describes evolutionism in those terms sayin in summary "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM Exodus 20:8-11" - as God says it.

Just stating the obvious - that this is obviously "creationism" - the very thing evolutionists reject and that Bible believing Christian creationists promote.

This "again" is failure.

#1. Jesus is NOT talking about REAL sheep in His REAL sheepfold AND all readily admit that NONE of His hearers TOOK it that way.

#2. Jesus is NOT making a Gospel point that REQUIRES you to see people as REAL sheep or to believe that instead of a carpenter - He was a shepherd of sheep - not people.

#3. In Gen 1-2:3 (and in Exodus 20:8-11) God DOES require that we REALLY accept Him as the REAL creator REALLY creating all life on earth, REALLY speaking and then having creation REALLY happen.

#4. In Exodus 20:8-11 God NEEDS THE reader to REALLY accept that there are REALLY 7 REAL days in a REAL week. And the way He PROVES it is by using the REAL week of Creation.

In other words, the VERY DETAILS that you would have us MOST distrust -- are the VERY details upon which God's law demands a literal acceptance to get to the Creator's day of rest, and 7 day weekly cycle.

Christ said in Mark 2:27 that the day was "MADE FOR MANKIND".

In Isaiah 66 in the new heavens and the new earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship".

God is placing a lot of weight on REALLY believing that the REAL 7 days of Creation are REAL.

You have claimed that the account is symbolic and a parable meant to teach the truth about origins - the truth that you claim is evolutionism.

But at the same time you confess that this is NOT teaching evolutionism and is "something else" other than evolutionism given in condescention because the saints could not be told that "truth".

And when pressed on the point you admit that this "other account of origins" is in fact comprised of a literal 7 day week.

The VERY thing creationists maintain.

Indeed you did. The Bible says that on the 4th day God created TWO great lights in the heavens.

You insist that I must reject that Bible truth - and I must think that God created ZILLIONS of lights ON the fourth day.

The Bible says that God created the stars but does not say that they were created ON the fourth day. It merely notes that He is the creator of the stars when addressing the day when He created the TWO great lights.

You insist that I ingore that point and pretend that the Bible really says "AND on the Fourth Day God says let there be stars in the sky and behold God made zillions of lights"

I have never been able to insert the views you seem to want to find for the 4th day into the text, and you seem to object to that fact.

However it does not lessen your problem with admitting that the sequence is a real 7 day sequence (and would have been read as such by Moses' readers) combined with the fact that you already admit that this is NOT an origins account that is teaching evolutionism.

Your problem remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This statement only demonstrates you don't really understand creationism, or that you are more willing to hear about creation from evolutionists (who understand it even less) rather than from Christians.

 

Paul:

What is literal. The Bible does not lie. If the sun remains at a fixed point in the sky, what difference does it make to suggest that the earth stopped spinning and the solar system stopped moving and the sun stopped spinning and the entire universe came to a sudden halt. The Scripture is about mans relationship with GOD and his need of salvation.

GOD isn't going to spell out every detail to suit your vanity, but what GOD says is understandable. The Sun didn't set until GOD allowed it to. Animals didn't die until Adam sinned. It didn't rain on the earth until GOD allowed the FLOOD to happen. You don't see these facts because you are
trapped by your conformity to the things of this world order. Satan presently is in control of that. Unless you are willing to trust GOD you are going to cling to what only science allows you to see. God wants you to see so much more.

 

The problem is that you don't believe that there was a battle and that the sun was prevented from setting. The problem is that you don't believe that there was an Adam and an Eve. The problem is you don't believe that there was a Flood.

I wonder if you have heard anything from the evolution scientific group about the following:

htto://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/doc/v14n3_dino.asp

 

AIG says they cannot find the page. What was it about? This is not their little ruse about "dino blood" is it? If it is, you know that what the actual scientific paper says is that well preserved bones were found that had heme compounds in it. Not fresh bone with blood.

 

Paul of Eugene:

Do you believe that man shares a common ancestor with apes? Yes or no.

Sorry, the address above has a typo....
Try the following:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/docs/v4n3_dino.asp

Then go to the search block and type: Fresh dinosaur bones found

 

It still does not work. But you gave me enough to know you are talking about their claims of finding fresh dino bones. The story just is not true. They found very well preserved dinosaur bones. The AIG author uses some claims from journalists to advance his claim, but the actual scientific papers make it clear that well preserved bones that had some trace heme compounds included were found. I recently addressed this claim here. If you follow the link there is another link to one of the actual scientific abstracts. A working link to the AIG article is also there.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/3.html#000037

You asked Paul but I'll answer. Yes, humans share a common ancestor with the other apes. Do you want to discuss how we know this?

 

Well see. The Bible is very clear that humans are a UNIQUE creation. Everything the Bible says indicates that man was created alittle lower than the angels. Adam was formed independently of all the other creatures directly from the dust and was GOD breathed. This is totally contrary to everything evolution has to offer on this matter.

I believe that there were ape like creatures created from man's enjoyment and perhaps for man to lord over; however, these are totally separated from man in terms of lineage. Now, since it is likely that ALL the animals were in some way made from the dust, I can imagine that we all share simularities. Dust is dust; however, man isn't moving upward----he is not even holding his own.
God is allowing man to survive by providing the tools.

 

But there are similarities between the humans and other apes that are best explained only through common descent.

One of the most classic of these is the vitamin C mutation. Most animals make vitamin C through the use of four specific enzymes. In humans, the other apes, and the primates, one of these enzymes does not work. In fact, all of these various animals share a very specific mutation that prevent the enzyme from forming correctly. It is inconceivable that all the different "kinds" of apes, primates and humans would have the exact same mutation while no other animals have it.

There are other such pseudogenes, this is just the best example.

Sometimes a virus can insert a bit of its DNA into the genome of its host. If this cell happens to be a germ line cell, it is possible for this insertion to get passed on to the animals decendents. Humans and the other apes share several of these retroviral insertions right down to the exact same viral sequence. It is inconceivable that all the various ape "kinds" would have been infected with the same series of viruses, that they would have all managed to insert the same sequence of DNA into all the "kinds" and that all of these specific sequences would then have been spread to all members of the populations.

There is a muscle, the subclavius, that goes from the first rib to the collarbone. In other animals this muscle is used in moving the front legs for walking. Humans have not completely lost this relic. Some people maintain both of these on each arm, some only one, and some people none. They serve us no purpose except to tie us to our four legged ancestors.

Another muscle we no longer use is the plantaris muscle. This is used by other primates to grasp with their feet. We have no use for it and it has shrunk to the size of a nerve fiber.

There is a similar muscle in the lower arm called the palmaris. It is used by primates for hanging and climbing. In humans it has no function and is often taken by surgeons in need of a muscle elsewhere for reconstructive surgery.

There is also that series of ancestors going back through Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo habilis, and Homo rudolfensis. You also have to find a place to put Homo neanderthalensis. DNA testing has shown that this is not a modern human. That agrees with the physical evidence. So what were they? While you are coming up with an answer for that, tell which of the other species listed above, and add Homo erectus to the list, were humans, which were non-human apes, and why.

 

Do you believe that Jesus Christ will catch away the Church? Do you believe that Satan will be in bondage for 1000 years? Do you believe that GOD will create a New Heaven and a New Earth? Do you believe that eternal damnation is a reality? Do you believe Jesus Christ was God in human form?