Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Archivist]

Atheists respect a great many junk-science blind-faith notions that I do not think are objective or difficult to see through.

is that supposed to be news??

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Archivist]

In "theory" this thread is about what the Bible says regarding the significance of the Bible account of creation and how it pertains to the Gospel - salvation.

Which got this response.

====================================

As we saw here that -- the Word of God places the creation fact - as the basis for true worship.



Rev 14:6-7
6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

Revelation 4:
9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:
11 “You are worthy, O Lord,
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created.”



John 1
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Ex 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.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Genes 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

=============================================
T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)

None of what you have quoted says that belief in the Genesis account of creation is a salvation issue. Care to find something that backs your claim?

 

[RickG]

Until you read the details.

You mean details like, that if evolution were false we would find fossils of all life forms, both plant and animal, in all layers of sedimentary strata, while conversely we find them distributed throughout in exactly the way evolution would have to have it to be valid.

Reading the details - then Darwin, Dawkins, Provine.. P.Z. Meyers all freely admit to the atheist position in evolutionism's orthodoxy that totally opposes the Bible.

What the think or thought makes no difference.

Details matter.

They certainly do as I just pointed out.

 

[RickG]

And by that you mean "admitting to what the text says" ??

===============================

Not to worry - even the atheists can see that elephant in your living room.

Am I to understand that Christians, including Christian Denominations, that accept evolution, are atheists according to you?

 

[Archivist]

Am I to understand that Christians, including Christian Denominations, that accept evolution, are atheists according to you?

Good point RickG. And it is safe to say that the majority of Christians belong to churches that either believe that evolution occurred or at the very least do not dispute the possibility that it occurred.

 

[BobRyan]

Am I to understand that Christians, including Christian Denominations, that accept evolution, are atheists according to you?

No you are to understand that some christians unwittingly adopt the atheist doctrine on origins - simply by holding both the Bible and science at such a distance from their beliefs that they are unaware of the "details".

 

[BobRyan]

None of what you have quoted says that belief in the Genesis account of creation is a salvation issue.

until you read the post instead of ignoring every detail in it.

 

[BobRyan]

Atheist-creationism (evolutionism)?

Bob, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with atheism

Until you read the details.

Reading the details - then Darwin, Dawkins, Provine.. P.Z. Meyers all freely admit to the atheist position in evolutionism's orthodoxy that totally opposes the Bible.

Details matter.

Yes, it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, but that doesn't make it atheism.

And by that you mean "admitting to what the text says" ??

===============================

Not to worry - even the atheists can see that elephant in your living room.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

==================

T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)

You mean details like, that if evolution were false we would find fossils of all life forms, both plant and animal, in all layers of sedimentary strata

No science and no Bible text says such a thing. you simply "make stuff up" at that point.

There are a great many examples of flash flood turbidity currents creating a sorting effect.

Your appeal is not to "science" rather you appeal to lack of experimentation and lack of observation in nature for the scenario you claim to be testing.

Why do that?

 

[Speedwell]

Ah, the Barr quote again. I still don't see the point of it.

 

[Speedwell]

No you are to understand that some christians unwittingly adopt the atheist doctrine on origins - simply by holding both the Bible and science at such a distance from their beliefs that they are unaware of the "details".

Do you have any non-YEC sources for that opinion?

 

[RickG]

No you are to understand that some christians unwittingly adopt the atheist doctrine on origins - simply by holding both the Bible and science at such a distance from their beliefs that they are unaware of the "details".

Bob, out of respect, would you please refrain from referring to the Theory of Evolution as "atheist doctrine" or atheist? As a former member (retired) of the scientific community and a Christian, I view that as highly offensive. Science is secular, not atheist. The two are not related. Thank you.

 

[Archivist]

until you read the post instead of ignoring every detail in it.

I did read your post several times. There is no indication in it that belief in the Genesis creation account is a salvation issue. From what I am finding it appears that the vast majority of Christians either belong to churches that accept evolution as real or that recognize it as a possibility. Therefore it is not an atheist doctrine as you keep saying. It appears that only a handful of conservative fundamentalists regard it as a salvation issue, yet none in this thread have been able to offer any Biblical support for that view.

 

[BobRyan]

I did read your post several times. .

then you saw this --

In "theory" this thread is about what the Bible says regarding the significance of the Bible account of creation and how it pertains to the Gospel - salvation.

Which got this response.

====================================

As we saw here that -- the Word of God places the creation fact - as the basis for true worship.

What you have not shown is that John is not informed by Genesis 1, does not accept it... does not think his readers are informed by it... assumes they reject... will let you just 'make up what you wish'.

Notice that John 1 is not blind faith evolutionism - just as Genesis 1 is not.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Ex 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.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Genes 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

And "yes" John knew of Ex 20:11 so also did his readers

Rev 14:6-7
6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

Revelation 4:
9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:
11 “You are worthy, O Lord,
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created.”



John 1
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Ex 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.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Genes 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

=============================================
T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)
===================================================

And apparently had no answer for this post than to ignore every detail listed as if blind or could not see for some other reason.

Which is about what we would have expected since these are Bible texts.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, out of respect, would you please refrain from referring to the Theory of Evolution as "atheist doctrine" or atheist?

That would not be respectful of Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and many other former Christians who all argue that blind faith evolutionism drove them to reject their own Christian faith and adopt atheism.

As a former member (retired) of the scientific community and a Christian, I view that as highly offensive.

It makes no sense to be "offended" that the atheists and thought-leaders of evolutionism as listed above "existed" and in fact declared the truth about the atheism we find in evolutionism.

Science is secular, not atheist.

We have already agreed to that.

Physics,
Math,
Biology,
Chemistry

All of them can be objective and pure science when not corrupted with "story telling" about how a bacteria will turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough bacteria and a long and talented enough period of time - filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but as Patterson said "are not science".

pure science is not atheist nor Christian necessarily as can be seen with 2+2 or with the chiral orientation of amino acids that form during a lab experiment.

But junk-science evolutionism about bacteria that turn into rabbits... well that is another matter altogether.

Just stating the obvious.

Instead of being "offended" at the distinctively atheist nature of the argument for blind-faith evolutionism (As if that is some sort of "solution") -- why not respond to the subject title and the texts that so specifically and irrefutably answer the question?

===================================

Now back to the texts that "test" the premise of this thread as stated in the subject title of the thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[RickG]

That would not be respectful of Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and many other former Christians who all argue that blind faith evolutionism drove them to reject their own Christian faith and adopt atheism.

You need to be respectful of everyone. I have trouble with that myself on occasion, but I try to keep my comments focused on the scientific argument rather than the person(s).

It makes no sense to be "offended" that the atheists and thought-leaders of evolutionism as listed above "existed" and in fact declared the truth about the atheism we find in evolutionism.

I am offended by the categorization of anyone, or group of people who actually understand the theory of evolution and accept it as valid based on the science(s) they understand, as opposed as being classified as an atheist or accepting "atheist doctrine". The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with atheists or atheist doctrine. It is secular science, nothing more, nothing less.

Physics,
Math,
Biology,
Chemistry

What about other sciences such as Geology, Geophysics, Geochemistry, Geomorphology, Oceanogat israphy, Paleo-oceanography, Paleo-climatology, etc.......?

All of them can be objective and pure science when not corrupted with "story telling" about how a bacteria will turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough bacteria and a long and talented enough period of time - filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but as Patterson said "are not science".

There's another problem, calling any science you don't like corrupted and story telling. That my friend is belittlement. And bacteria do not turn into rabbits. That is not even presenting a valid argument. What is the validity in arguing something that one has absolutely no background or knowledge about?

pure science is not atheist nor Christian necessarily as can be seen with 2+2 or with the chiral orientation of amino acids that form during a lab experiment.

Pure science is pure science regardless whether you agree with it or not. If you don't agree with it or like it just state so and cut out the belittling comments.

But junk-science evolutionism about bacteria that turn into rabbits... well that is another matter altogether.

There you go again belittling something you know absolutely nothing about.

Instead of being "offended" at the distinctively atheist nature of the argument for blind-faith evolutionism (As if that is some sort of "solution") -- why not respond to the subject title and the texts that so specifically and irrefutably answer the question?

I explained why I was offended by your comments. I am a part of that community. You belittle them, you belittle me.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, out of respect, would you please refrain from referring to the Theory of Evolution as "atheist doctrine" or atheist?

That would not be respectful of Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and many other former Christians who all argue that blind faith evolutionism drove them to reject their own Christian faith and adopt atheism.

As a former member (retired) of the scientific community and a Christian, I view that as highly offensive.

It makes no sense to be "offended" that the atheists and thought-leaders of evolutionism as listed above "existed" and in fact declared the truth about the atheism we find in evolutionism.

Science is secular, not atheist.

We have already agreed to that.

Physics,
Math,
Biology,
Chemistry

All of them can be objective and pure science when not corrupted with "story telling" about how a bacteria will turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough bacteria and a long and talented enough period of time - filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but as Patterson said "are not science".

pure science is not atheist nor Christian necessarily as can be seen with 2+2 or with the chiral orientation of amino acids that form during a lab experiment.

But junk-science evolutionism about bacteria that turn into rabbits... well that is another matter altogether.

Just stating the obvious.

Instead of being "offended" at the distinctively atheist nature of the argument for blind-faith evolutionism (As if that is some sort of "solution") -- why not respond to the subject title and the texts that so specifically and irrefutably answer the question?

===================================

Now back to the texts that "test" the premise of this thread as stated in the subject title of the thread.

You need to be respectful of everyone. I have trouble with that myself on occasion,

Agreed -- which is why my focus is not on RickG or saying that "you" do this or that or something else.

My focus is on the topic, the facts of the matter, what the Bible says -- what are factual observations in nature and what are the wild claims of religious systems such as blind faith evolutionism with its own "special" doctrine on origins.

I am offended by the categorization of anyone, or group of people who actually understand the theory of evolution and accept it as valid based on the science(s) they understand, as opposed as being classified as an atheist or accepting "atheist doctrine".

You are free to resort to the "solution" of "being offended" when something is said about belief in blind faith evolutionism. or when something is said to draw attention between atheism and the doctrine on origins that we find in blind faith evolutionism.

But that would be you being 'offended at the facts' at "the details' in the discussion rather than proving or disproving something.

Nobody - (certainly not me) will be arguing that in fact you are not offended or are offended at this or that or something else. You are free to choose all that stuff that you wish and I will never doubt you on it.

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with atheists or atheist doctrine.

Until we look at the details - and even Darwin himself admits to this.

History does not change simply because we choose to be offended by it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Science is secular, not atheist.

We have already agreed to that.

Physics,
Math,
Biology,
Chemistry

All of them can be objective and pure science when not corrupted with "story telling" about how a bacteria will turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough bacteria and a long and talented enough period of time - filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but as Patterson said "are not science".

pure science is not atheist nor Christian necessarily as can be seen with 2+2 or with the chiral orientation of amino acids that form during a lab experiment.

But junk-science evolutionism about bacteria that turn into rabbits... well that is another matter altogether.

Just stating the obvious.

What about other sciences such as Geology, Geophysics, Geochemistry, Geomorphology, Oceanogat israphy, Paleo-oceanography, Paleo-climatology, etc.......?

Science that is 50% guesswork with little to nothing of its salient first-principles observed in nature or reproducible leaves a lot of room for atheist religion and orthodoxy to blend in. For example -- Geology is fine until it begins to tell stories that cannot be tested or proven.

There's another problem, calling any science you don't like corrupted and story telling. That my friend is belittlement.

It is for atheism - but not for Christianity because it only belittles the doctrine on origins held dearly by the orthodoxy in atheism.

And bacteria do not turn into rabbits. Nor do prokaryotes turn into eukaryotes at all. Which is the "elephant" in blind-faith evolutionism's living room.

That is not even presenting a valid argument.

Sadly that statement of yours is not true at all. Everyone knows that blind faith evolutionism is forced to start with a pile of dirt (if one is atheist) and come up with a bacteria and a rabbit and all living systems. Or at least start with something like a bacteria (If T.E.) and come up with the rest of all living systems --- including rabbits.

This is blatantly obvious and to deny it - is to appeal to an out-in-the-open transparent dodge that nobody takes seriously if one is talking about evolutionism. And we both know it.

=================================

BTW - this thread is all about the Bible and what it says about the damage done to the gospel if one decides to trash the Word of God on the subject of origins.

you are bending it around to discuss only the trivial matter of whether or not you will choose to be offended in this example or that one. Surely we can rise above that and just deal with the topic. for example the Bible texts given.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

All of them can be objective and pure science when not corrupted with "story telling" about how a bacteria will turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough bacteria and a long and talented enough period of time - filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but as Patterson said "are not science".

There's another problem, calling any science you don't like corrupted and story telling. That my friend is belittlement.

That was borrowed from our atheist friend - and evolutionist - Colin Patterson

========================

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history
On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

=========================================================
April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland


“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

===============================

As an atheist Patterson can afford to be more generous and objective than the far more compromised and self-conflicted T.E. on that point.

 

[Archivist]

then you saw this --

In "theory" this thread is about what the Bible says regarding the significance of the Bible account of creation and how it pertains to the Gospel - salvation.

Which got this response.

====================================

As we saw here that -- the Word of God places the creation fact - as the basis for true worship.

So the Genesis creation account is "the basis for true worship"?

Perhaps the it is the basis of your worship. The basis of my worship is that Jesus, the Son of God, came to Earth, took on human form and died for our sins.

Rev 14:6-7
6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

Doesn't say how God created anything so no disagreement with evolution.

Revelation 4:
9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:
11 “You are worthy, O Lord,
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created.”

Doesn't say how God created anything so no disagreement with evolution.

John 1
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Doesn't say how God created anything so no disagreement with evolution.

Ex 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.

No evolutionist text on origins will have that text as its affirmative or summary. And we all know it.

Specifies six days, but elsewhere scripture tells us that "with the Lord a day is like a thousand years" so that doesn't mean a literal 24-hour day.

Genes 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Doesn't say how God created anything so no disagreement with evolution.

=============================================
T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)
===================================================

So those who believe that God used evolution as the tool of creation don't believe in the Bible? Most Christians would say otherwise.

And apparently had no answer for this post than to ignore every detail listed as if blind or could not see for some other reason.

Which is about what we would have expected since these are Bible texts.

I am still waiting for you to provide anything saything that belief in the Genesis creation account is a salvation issue. Thus far you have provided nothing.

 

[RickG]

It makes no sense to be "offended" that the atheists and thought-leaders of evolutionism as listed above "existed" and in fact declared the truth about the atheism we find in evolutionism.

From the Forum rules: "Do not maliciously ridicule other people or groups of people (e.g., members and non-members, public and non-public figures, political figures and political groups). Constructive criticism is allowed, but destructive and cruel criticism is not allowed."
(Bold emphasis mine)

If you wish to argue the validity of evolution, that is fine, I am not opposed to anyone doing that and I welcome your position. What you are doing is ridiculing the people and groups rather than "their argument". I suggest presenting an argument showing what you perceive as making evolution false.

Aside from that, your argument is incorrect and baseless. A few persons opinions is not science or what the scientific community presents and/or represents. You agree with me that science is secular, yet associate the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and the people involved in the scientific research of it, or accept the theory as fact as atheist. That's quite a contradiction and why I said I am offended. As I previously revealed to you, I am a part of that community. Am I a biologist or geneticist? No, one does not have to be associated with those scientific disciplines to contribute to the ToE. Every single discipline and sub-discipline of all the Physical Sciences have contributed and continue to contribute or depend upon the ToE, whether directly or indirectly. I have a Master of Science degree in the Physical Earth Sciences (Univ. of Memphis, 1975) which included studies in Geology, Oceanography and Climatology. I subsequently spent some 30 years as a research chemist and process engineer. It is through those sciences and professional career that I learned and understood the major aspects concerning ToE. It is also through this experience and understanding that I have no problem accepting evolution as a fact. If you consider evolution junk-science, then you need to show how that science is junk, which is not through criticizism and ridicule of people or groups of people. You need to show where the science is incorrect (junk).