Evolution is STUPID

[berachah]

Perhaps it is the clarity of the understanding you think you have that should make you think again, Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. For one thing you seem to be assuming that God's plan is to restore the earth to what it was in Genesis, the bible never says that, in fact Paul tells us in 1Cor 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him" How could Paul say no eye has seen this, if God's plan is to restore Eden that Adam and Eve saw?

And I could quote you the same scriptures.....
A lot has happened since the fall, a lot no doubt prepared... Does not the latter house have more glory than the former?

But let us shine a little light on your theory. If speaking figuratively, no doubt you have revelation for each of the events written in Genesis to be comfortable with your theory. For starters what do evening and morning and day mean? What is the figurative meaning of 'herbs'?

You seem to be referring to Romans 8 which makes no reference to the fall and doesn't say the world is under the curse of sin.

Yes you are right, the glory of God is manifesting in its fullness throughout this world.

No I simply read the next couple of verses where the writer describes this rest as one we are called to enter into today.

Heb 4:4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works."
5 And again in this passage he said, "They shall not enter my rest."
6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience...
11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.

Was God's rest on the seventh day over in 24 hours, or is the writer of Hebrews interpreting Gen 2:2 as a picture the rest we have in God through the gospel, an ongoing rest we can still enter today?

In this context it is irrrelevant what the meaning is, what is important is that in the NT he is speaking of the 7th day.

With the Exodus references, it isn't enough to take the verses in isolation and try to read them literally, you need to look at what Moses was doing with the references. Was he teaching the history of the earth and six day creationism, or was he using the reference to teach Sabbath observance? If you take a passage that is teaching Sabbath observance and use it to teach creationism, you are actually taking the verse out of context.

Thats convenient. Any scripture that doesnt agree with your doctrine becames figurative. Congratulations for a foolproof doctrine. Moses was referring to an actual event and stating why the 7th day was holy. It does not get clearer than this....

I am glad you referred to Exodus 31:17 as well, It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. If you want to take that literally, you not only have the Almighty God tired after a week's hard work creating, you have the unchangeable God refreshed after a day's rest.

But also means God rested from his works.. ie he ceased from His works which would tie in with other scripture. This is also a 'type' for Christian life as stated in Hebrews.. that is we should cease from acting on our own strength (rest from our works in the flesh) and live by the Spirit. The beauty of OT scripture is that there is always a parallel for life under the new covenant.

Shouldn't our understanding God as the Creator show us how amazingly and astoundingly great God is, instead of leaving you with a God who gets tired after a week's work and forgets to mention animal in Romans 5 (yes I realise you were just being sarcastic ). Death is an enemy to be defeated now, as Paul says the sting of death is sin. It's the problem of confusing what the bible says about the present and the future with what happened in the past. Just because death is now an enemy through man's sin, it doesn't mean death only existed since sin gave it its sting. If there was death before the fall it didn't have a sting and would have been a part of God's good creation rather than an enemy.

....you losing it...
Sin leads to death, end of story.

I am looking at the plain meaning of the text, which is what you need to understand before deciding if the passage is literal or figurative. In Gen 1:5 there was evening and there was morning one day, the plain meaning of the text tells me that what you think is the literal interpretation - this was the first day - isn't what the text is saying even if you take it literally. With Genesis 2 the plain meaning of the text, Adam's creation being described as happening before there were plants, tells me we cannot take both Genesis 1 which describe plants created before man and Genesis 2 as literal history. The plain meaning of the texts contradict each other. Now either God forgot the order he created the world in, and forgot what he said in Genesis 1, (like, as you suggest, he forgot to mention animals in Romans 5), or these texts were never meant to be read as literal history.

Moses give the account and order of creation and God's ceasing from His works in Gen 1.1-2.3. The emphasis of the story shifts to the Garden of Eden, Eve and the fall of mankind. The story is geographically specific and there is no reference to days or order of events. By incorrectly insisting that this is the same record as Gen 1 you have coveniently opened the door for your doctrine.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

*rolls eyes*

 

[berachah]

It is quite clear what living in the time of Emmanuel will be like, the eschatological passages are more descriptive of that time than Gen 1. In terms of the Hebrews verse, context is everything, the author is pointing to Christ, not to creation, his focus is on Christ and the Emmanuel period to come.

I'd prefer to read it as the original audience would have understood it, I think the Christology that comes from the passage is beautiful.

Look, everyone knows there the whole of the Word points forward to and back to Christ. The Bible was written after the fall and the plan for Christ was established in Gen 3, so that's all pretty obvious. But there are actual events that took place that are at question here. Actual events and times that declare or deny creation.

And then Christ took it back on the Cross

He did not. He made a way to remove the authority of the old man, to deal with sin and the effects thereof and to empower man to destroy the works & power of the devil and make manifest the glory of God.

 

[Keachian]

Look, everyone knows there the whole of the Word points forward to and back to Christ. The Bible was written after the fall and the plan for Christ was established in Gen 3, so that's all pretty obvious. But there are actual events that took place that are at question here. Actual events and times that declare or deny creation.

Creation declares and is testimony to God as creator (Rom 1:18-23), you deny that creation does this, you also deny that those who will be saved, who are saved have been chosen before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8)

He did not. He made a way to remove the authority of the old man, to deal with sin and the effects thereof and to empower man to destroy the works & power of the devil and make manifest the glory of God.

While you were dead in your sins... God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins -- Col 2:13

You have no power to remove the authority of the old man

You are not able to deal with sin or the effects thereof.

You are not able to destroy the works or power of the devil.

You are not able to manifest the Glory of God.

But God in His Grace through the Cross of Christ has;

Removed the authority of the old man.

Dealt with our sins, dealt with the effects of sin.

Destroyed the work and power of the devil.

And through bringing whom He wills unto Himself has manifested His Glory, transforming us into the likeness of His Son thereby proclaiming His Glory.

 

[Assyrian]

And I could quote you the same scriptures.....
A lot has happened since the fall, a lot no doubt prepared... Does not the latter house have more glory than the former?

Then you cannot you cannot use what God has in store for us in the future to try to work out what Eden was like.

But let us shine a little light on your theory. If speaking figuratively, no doubt you have revelation for each of the events written in Genesis to be comfortable with your theory. For starters what do evening and morning and day mean? What is the figurative meaning of 'herbs'?

Do you know what the husks represent in the parable of the Prodigal son? Who are the pigs? What about the Labourers in the Vineyard, what do the hours represent when it talks about the third hour, sixth hour and so on? Are we meant to find specific symbolic meaning to each part of the story, or is that missing the point?

Yes you are right, the glory of God is manifesting in its fullness throughout this world.

If you have a serious point to make, go ahead and make it.

In this context it is irrrelevant what the meaning is, what is important is that in the NT he is speaking of the 7th day.

Context is relevant if it shows us the writer didn't take the 7th day as a literal 24 hour day.

Thats convenient. Any scripture that doesnt agree with your doctrine becames figurative. Congratulations for a foolproof doctrine. Moses was referring to an actual event and stating why the 7th day was holy. It does not get clearer than this....

Why not address my actual argument? You wanted to show the Moses took the days of creation literally, but the passage you quoted showed him using the days to teach something else, Sabbath Observance. Jesus use parables to teach his message, he also used David eating the bread in the temple. The fact that Jesus used a story to teach doesn't tell you if the story is literal or not. In the same way Moses using the creation days to teach Sabbath observance does not tell if the creation account is literal or not either.

Notice I am not presenting any evidence here that the days of creation are figurative or that Moses took them figuratively, simply that you cannot use Moses' reference to show they are literal. It was in the next paragraph I gave you some evidence Moses was not interpreting them literally.

But also means God rested from his works.. ie he ceased from His works which would tie in with other scripture. This is also a 'type' for Christian life as stated in Hebrews.. that is we should cease from acting on our own strength (rest from our works in the flesh) and live by the Spirit. The beauty of OT scripture is that there is always a parallel for life under the new covenant.

Sorry you are not dealing with the fact that God being refreshed after a day's rest does not fit what we now of the nature of the Almighty, not if you want to take it literally. It says rested as well, but the problem is rested and was refreshed.

I am glad you recognise non literal meanings to the rest too, that are confirmed by the NT. What you need to realise is that sometimes it is only the figurative meaning that is the real meaning of the passage. Jesus is the good shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep - metaphorically. Jesus never worked minding literal sheep. Jesus never stepped on a snake's head, yet he is the promised seed who fulfilled that figurative prophecy when he defeated Satan on the cross.

....you losing it...
Sin leads to death, end of story.

Paul told the Ephesians that they were dead in their trespasses and sins before they were saved. Was Ephesus full of Zombies? Paul says the same about himself Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Was Paul a corpse propped up beside the coats while people stoned Stephen? Or was Paul talking about dying spiritually when he sinned?

Moses give the account and order of creation and God's ceasing from His works in Gen 1.1-2.3. The emphasis of the story shifts to the Garden of Eden, Eve and the fall of mankind. The story is geographically specific and there is no reference to days or order of events. By incorrectly insisting that this is the same record as Gen 1 you have coveniently opened the door for your doctrine.

The fact that it is a story in Genesis 2 tells you it is describing a series of events, the order of events in the narrative tells you the time sequence. It tells you what happened, when it happened and what happened next. Yet this account of the creation of man and woman, of plants and animals, birds and livestock, describes them being created in a completely different order to their creation in Genesis 1. Sound to me you find the plain meaning of the text very inconvenient and are doing you best to avoid what it actually says.

 

[berachah]

Creation declares and is testimony to God as creator (Rom 1:18-23), you deny that creation does this, you also deny that those who will be saved, who are saved have been chosen before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8)

I dont deny any such thing. The authority of the devil is manifest throughout creation.

While you were dead in your sins... God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins -- Col 2:13

You have no power to remove the authority of the old man

You are not able to deal with sin or the effects thereof.

You are not able to destroy the works or power of the devil.

You are not able to manifest the Glory of God.

But God in His Grace through the Cross of Christ has;

Removed the authority of the old man.

Dealt with our sins, dealt with the effects of sin.

Destroyed the work and power of the devil.

And through bringing whom He wills unto Himself has manifested His Glory, transforming us into the likeness of His Son thereby proclaiming His Glory.

which is what I said...

 

[berachah]

Then you cannot you cannot use what God has in store for us in the future to try to work out what Eden was like.

Do you know what the husks represent in the parable of the Prodigal son? Who are the pigs? What about the Labourers in the Vineyard, what do the hours represent when it talks about the third hour, sixth hour and so on? Are we meant to find specific symbolic meaning to each part of the story, or is that missing the point?

If you have a serious point to make, go ahead and make it.

Context is relevant if it shows us the writer didn't take the 7th day as a literal 24 hour day.

Why not address my actual argument? You wanted to show the Moses took the days of creation literally, but the passage you quoted showed him using the days to teach something else, Sabbath Observance. Jesus use parables to teach his message, he also used David eating the bread in the temple. The fact that Jesus used a story to teach doesn't tell you if the story is literal or not. In the same way Moses using the creation days to teach Sabbath observance does not tell if the creation account is literal or not either.

Notice I am not presenting any evidence here that the days of creation are figurative or that Moses took them figuratively, simply that you cannot use Moses' reference to show they are literal. It was in the next paragraph I gave you some evidence Moses was not interpreting them literally.

Sorry you are not dealing with the fact that God being refreshed after a day's rest does not fit what we now of the nature of the Almighty, not if you want to take it literally. It says rested as well, but the problem is rested and was refreshed.

I am glad you recognise non literal meanings to the rest too, that are confirmed by the NT. What you need to realise is that sometimes it is only the figurative meaning that is the real meaning of the passage. Jesus is the good shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep - metaphorically. Jesus never worked minding literal sheep. Jesus never stepped on a snake's head, yet he is the promised seed who fulfilled that figurative prophecy when he defeated Satan on the cross.

Paul told the Ephesians that they were dead in their trespasses and sins before they were saved. Was Ephesus full of Zombies? Paul says the same about himself Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Was Paul a corpse propped up beside the coats while people stoned Stephen? Or was Paul talking about dying spiritually when he sinned?

The fact that it is a story in Genesis 2 tells you it is describing a series of events, the order of events in the narrative tells you the time sequence. It tells you what happened, when it happened and what happened next. Yet this account of the creation of man and woman, of plants and animals, birds and livestock, describes them being created in a completely different order to their creation in Genesis 1. Sound to me you find the plain meaning of the text very inconvenient and are doing you best to avoid what it actually says.

Its pointless contending with your logic....

As so God rested and was refreshed... So, He finished from His work and was blessed by what He saw.

You use NT parables to justify your rejection of OT history. Professing to know Hebrew you should understand the difference between the two.

You deny what is clearly stated and then expect me to explain why I accept the obvious. The order is clear; creation, man on the 6th day and then the garden of Eden and those events thereafter.

Using an historical account of events as a background for teaching the law, (Exodus 31) does not make the factual account incorrect.

Seeing as you contend with the original thread - the stupidity of evolution - rather let us hear the alternative. What is the account of creation as it has been revealed to you.

 

[berachah]

*rolls eyes*

That's it, keep up with the contributions....it will maintain your reps and blessings, if nothing else..

 

[Assyrian]

Its pointless contending with your logic....As so God rested and was refreshed... So, He finished from His work and was blessed by what He saw.

Perhaps your problem is that literalism just doesn't fit how God speaks to us through his word.

You use NT parables to justify your rejection of OT history.

I used biblical parables you are familiar with to your argument doesn't work, there are parables in the OT too, remember Nathan's parable of the pet lamb in 2Sam 12? You need to address my point about illustrations and stories used to teach something else does not mean the story is literal.

Professing to know Hebrew you should understand the difference between the two.

The odd thing is, David didn't realise Nathan was telling a parable. Parables and history are both narratives, written in the same Hebrew narrative style.

You deny what is clearly stated and then expect me to explain why I accept the obvious. The order is clear; creation, man on the 6th day and then the garden of Eden and those events thereafter.

The order of creation are clearly described in both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and they clearly describe creation in different sequences. Your problems is assuming because the story is described clearly it is meant to be take literally. Nathan's story of the pet lamb was described clearly, but it wasn't literal.

Using an historical account of events as a background for teaching the law, (Exodus 31) does not make the factual account incorrect.

No, you are not dealing with the heart of the problem. Moses could have taken a historical account and used it to teach the law, but he could just as easily have taken a metaphorical description and used it to teach. Using an illustration to teach a lesson simply doesn't tell you if the illustration is literal or not.

Look at the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy and the illustration Moses uses to teach Sabbath Observance there. Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. Instead of using the Creation to teach the Sabbath he uses a description of God freeing the Israelites from slavery. But look at the sort of illustration he uses, an anthropomorphic metaphor of God freeing them with his mighty hand and an outstretched arm. If Moses could use a metaphorical description of the Exodus to teach Sabbath Observance, there is no reason he couldn't have used a metaphorical description of the Creation.

Seeing as you contend with the original thread - the stupidity of evolution - rather let us hear the alternative. What is the account of creation as it has been revealed to you.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
I know Christ created all things, so it simply isn't a problem to discover how I was formed in my mother's womb or how life evolved on earth, because I know it is all the handiwork of God.

 

[Keachian]

I dont deny any such thing. The authority of the devil is manifest throughout creation.

For the creation waits with eager longing for othe revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. -- Romans 8:20

Who subjected creation to futility?

"All Authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." -- Matt 28:18

How can Christ have all authority if the devil's authority is manifest throughout creation?

which is what I said...

No it's not, from my perspective you believe that God only made these things possible, while I believe he DID these things.

 

[berachah]

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
I know Christ created all things, so it simply isn't a problem to discover how I was formed in my mother's womb or how life evolved on earth, because I know it is all the handiwork of God.

mmmmm..... I thought so.
Rather keep that doctrine hidden, because clearly will not stand up to the light..

 

[berachah]

How can Christ have all authority if the devil's authority is manifest throughout creation?

No it's not, from my perspective you believe that God only made these things possible, while I believe he DID these things.

Because Christians are carnal and unyielding to the Spirit of God. If you honestly think God's glory is manifest throughout this world, then I'm afraid you have a low opinion of the Lord. There is no doubt that the devil is exercising great authority in this world.

Embrace that Calvinism brother...each to his own..

 

[Assyrian]

mmmmm..... I thought so.
Rather keep that doctrine hidden, because clearly will not stand up to the light..

This from someone whose arguments for a literal interpretation of Genesis don't stand up and changes the subject rather than address my replies.

What doctrine am I supposed to be hiding? If you don't think I answered your question properly, just say so and try to make your point clearer. If you don't understand my answer, why not tell me the part you don't understand and ask what I meant?

 

[Keachian]

Because Christians are carnal and unyielding to the Spirit of God. If you honestly think God's glory is manifest throughout this world, then I'm afraid you have a low opinion of the Lord. There is no doubt that the devil is exercising great authority in this world.

All authority on heaven and on earth has been given to me...
What authority can the Devil have if all authority is Christ's?
Why do I need have fear of the Devil? Christ has stolen the sting of his most powerful weapon against God's elect. Why should I blame the Devil for the depravity of men such that the Gospel is not proclaimed? Why should I blame the Devil for the deaf ears of those who hate the Gospel? Is it not written "he has made some for righteous purpose and some for base purpose." Why is it not woefully apparent that the devil has no power and that the resistance to the Gospel is purely because we hate the light and don't want anything to do with it, we hate God, we don't want anything to do with him, because he is the righteous God, he is the Judge and we took his son and killed him.

Embrace that Calvinism brother...each to his own..

Yep I'll embrace Biblical theology.

 

[jlmagee]

From fish to man: Research reveals how fins became legs

Interesting! Yea, I know it is still a fish. Hower, it is interesting that the same element that is involved in limb production is present in fish. They introduced EXTRA element. Zebra danios are easily manipulated. If any one has heard of the Glofish that are trademarked, it is a genetically manipulated danio introducing coral DNA that produces different colors.

I am now wondering if guppies, platies, or any of the other live-bearer fish have this.

 

[Smidlee]

From fish to man: Research reveals how fins became legs

Interesting! Yea, I know it is still a fish. Hower, it is interesting that the same element that is involved in limb production is present in fish. They introduced EXTRA element. Zebra danios are easily manipulated. If any one has heard of the Glofish that are trademarked, it is a genetically manipulated danio introducing coral DNA that produces different colors.

I am now wondering if guppies, platies, or any of the other live-bearer fish have this.

Wouldn't a more honest headline would be "From fish to extinction: Research reveals how fins become deformed."?

 

[Mr.Waffles]

100 reasons why evolution is so stupid. - YouTube

I would agree, maybe not use the word "stupid" though it does seem to fit the description. However, I also wouldn't touch Kent Hovind's work with a 10 foot pole at the same time, even though some of it may be accurate. If you are looking for more of a solid authority on the subject, Cornelius G. Hunter does come to mind. Many like to pretend that the usefulness of evolutionary theory is somehow more important than its truthfulness.

 

[SkyWriting]

How do you know foxes are part of dog kind and not a separate fox kind? What about jackals? Are they a separate kind or part of dog kind? Are fossil dog-bears dog kind or bear kind? Or are they both dog-bear kind?

We have no details on what current boundaries are for any Kinds.
All such details are formulated by active minds.

 

[Assyrian]

We have no details on what current boundaries are for any Kinds.
All such details are formulated by active minds.

So 'kind' is a useless concept for any study of biology? It seem really odd, if creatures were created in separate distinct kinds, then even if they diverged from their original kinds, these original distinctions should be the most obvious differences between groups of organisms, there should be sharp distinctions marking organisms that belong to one kind from those which belong to different kinds. Instead we find organism belong to groups that as you trace them back simply merge into other groups, and those groups merge with others further and further back.

The term 'kind' was used in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to describe which animal were kosher, how would that work if it didn't give the boundaries current back then?

 

[SkyWriting]

So 'kind' is a useless concept for any study of biology? It seem really odd, if creatures were created in separate distinct kinds, then even if they diverged from their original kinds, these original distinctions should be the most obvious differences between groups of organisms, there should be sharp distinctions marking organisms that belong to one kind from those which belong to different kinds. Instead we find organism belong to groups that as you trace them back simply merge into other groups, and those groups merge with others further and further back.

The term 'kind' was used in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to describe which animal were kosher, how would that work if it didn't give the boundaries current back then?

We don't "see" anything in the past. We only imagine things based on a variety of sources. If you'd like to predict what things will evolve into, I'd be glad to watch with you.

I didn't find your use of "kind" as a formal descriptor for a group.
Rather as a substitute for "what y'all refer to as a Hawk".

Deuteronomy 14:14 any kind of raven,
any kind of raven, .... ...
//bible.cc/deuteronomy/14-14.htm - 14k
Deuteronomy 14:15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any ...
the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, .... ...
//bible.cc/deuteronomy/14-15.htm - 15k
[ More results from biblecc.com/deuteronomy ]

Leviticus 11:22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid ...
..... Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. ...
//bible.cc/leviticus/11-22.htm - 16k
Leviticus 11:15 any kind of raven,
any kind of raven, .... ...
//bible.cc/leviticus/11-15.htm - 14k
[ More results from biblecc.com/leviticus ]