is creating with age deceptive?

[Mallon]

i see a big difference between the descriptions 'created to look old' and 'created with age'.

since it was all good, i am sure the universe and the world and that new car look and smell.

???
Now you're contradicting yourself, archaeologist. How does something look old and new at the same time???

because, it makes sense and fits God's plan. an evoltionary odeldoesn't make sense as it has no plan nor purpose, even with God guiding it.

I would argue that God's plan and purpose for evolution was to bring about the human species, that we might one day give him the love and praise He craves.

no, what you are saying is, that i haven't done it the way you want me to.

No, archaeologist. What I am saying is that you plainly do not understand evolution. I have told you that populations evolve, NOT individuals, and have given you several reliable sources to back me up. You insist otherwise, and have provided NO sources you back you up. You simply insist that me and every other evolutionary scientist are wrong. We'll I'm sorry to say it, but you're wrong. And if you think otherwise, I would kindly ask that you please cite a professional source to back you up. Alternatively, you might try explaining what you mean by an individual evolving (Lamarckism?). How does that happen? Until then, there is simply no debate.

another evolutionist smoke and mirror trick. populations are made up of individuals and unless the individual evolves, then populations do not.

Please tell me HOW you think an individual can evolve. If a giraffe stretches its neck long enough and then gives birth, will its offspring have longer necks?

not at all. the truth cuts both ways, it is down the middle so to speak and not a fringe player. extremes are fringe aspects.

Your insistance that not even microevolution or speciation occurs is a fringe statement. Even the most adamant of YECs accept microevolution (and most accept speciation). We can see it happening today with our own eyes. The Bible does not require you to reject these things. You are creating hurdles for yourself and those you influence.

now you are being more literal than i am. there is a big difference insaying 'windows in heaven' and 'God spoke and the land brought forth all animals' .

the former is a metaphor the latter is literal action.

If Genesis 1 is literal, why does it contain strophes and refrains, alliteration, assonance, and parallelism? These are all characteristics of Hebrew poetry.

the reason we know it is not allegorical, is that the results of creation continue as spoken in the first chapter of the Bible.

They continue as described in Psalms, too. Does that makes the Psalms literal?

 

[archaeologist]

Now you're contradicting yourself, archaeologist. How does something look old and new at the same time???

you split too many hairs. if you think gen. 1 is allegorical then think that allegory can be used outside of scripture as well.

I would argue that God's plan and purpose for evolution was to bring about the human species, that we might one day give him the love and praise He craves

which would raise the question: why would he wait 14 billion earth years to get it when He could create that in 6 days or less?

a very weak justification to include a secular origin model in a divine act.

What I am saying is that you plainly do not understand evolution. I have told you that populations evolve, NOT individuals,

oh but i do and will provide an example shortly. i am not wrong because i am looking at what i sbeing said and seeing how ridiculous it really is.

populations cannot change unless the individual changes you cannot escape such facts. if the individuals do not change then the population remains static. i read your links and just about vomited from reading the stupidity:

1.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Evolution occurs on populations, not individuals. Individuals do not evolve, but are part of populations which do[/FONT]​

2. Natural selection befalls individuals, but occurs in populations

so which is it? do individuals change or populations seems to me that individuals change first then populations.

3.If a food source is removed, populations may have trouble adapting to eat different food sources

that is so obvious, do we really need phds telling us things we already know??

4.It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

how is that change passed on?? through indivduals. individuals must change first.

i will stick with my disagreement because your logic and links do not meet with reality. but this conversation is moot as there is no evolution , it has never existed and never been proven to have existed. all it has going for it is that the blanks are filled in with speculation and conjecture. it is a secular construct meant to replace God and Gen. 1 and to lure those who love science over God away from the truth.

Your insistance that not even microevolution or speciation occurs is a fringe statement. Even the most adamant of YECs accept microevolution (and most accept speciation). We can see it happening today with our own eyes

1. those who accept micro-evolution,as believers, only compromise their position. it is an appeasement to those who mistakenly identify genetic defects with an non-existent evolutionary process. stating the truth is not extreme or fringe it is the truth.

2.as to observation, you do not know if it is evolution responsible. it is credited as such but you can not prove that any defect is a product of evolution at work instead of the result of the fall of man in action. you cannot dismiss the results of the fall because that is more probable than evolution.

If Genesis 1 is literal, why does it contain strophes and refrains, alliteration, assonance, and parallelism? These are all characteristics of Hebrew poetry.

and poetry cannot be literal? is their some law that bars it from such a style? when the psalmist says, blessed is th eman who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, is he being literal or allegorical? sounds literal to me and a very direct command of God.

you still haven't proven or shown that Gen. 1 is allegorical.

the only reason people make Gen. 1 allegorical is so that they can pursue their desires instead of listening to God.
Titus or Timothy tells us that people forsake sound doctrine for beliefs that tell them what the want to hear. making Gen/ 1 allegorical allows people to forsake sound doctrine. they look for every excuse possible to follow what they want instead of following what was said.

 

[Mallon]

I think we've dragged this on long enough, archaeologist, don't you? I'm not going to continue trying to convince you of evolution because, as you've made clear, your faith hinges on its inexistence. That is, if evolution were true, you might be prone to giving up your Christianity, and I don't want to do that. Your Christian faith is the best thing you have, and far be it from me to take it away from you with simple science. I will respond to a few final points, however.

which would raise the question: why would he wait 14 billion earth years to get it when He could create that in 6 days or less?

God is patient. Why wait six days to create man? Why wait 4,000 years to send a Saviour? Why wait 6,000+ years to end it all? God does not operate according to our schedule.

oh but i do and will provide an example shortly. i am not wrong because i am looking at what i sbeing said and seeing how ridiculous it really is.

I await patiently. Perhaps you can start a new thread so we can avoid derailing this one even further.

how is that change passed on?? through indivduals. individuals must change first.

Again, individuals cannot change. I wish you would stop saying it and start showing it. Populations can evolve because their gene pool changes with time as unfit individuals die and fit individuals are born. This process changes the allelic frequencies of the population's gene pool, and hence, perpetuates evolution.

and poetry cannot be literal? is their some law that bars it from such a style? when the psalmist says, blessed is th eman who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, is he being literal or allegorical? sounds literal to me and a very direct command of God.

you still haven't proven or shown that Gen. 1 is allegorical.

Not to your standard, no. I don't believe there is anything I could possibly show you that would change your mind. Is there? Clearly, you reject all scientific evidence to the contrary, and as you've just demonstrated, you've rejected all literary evidence to the contrary, too. What could possibly convince you that Genesis was not meant literally?

I will allow your other statements to stand on their own for all to see.

 

[shernren]

i answered this in another thread but i wanted to add. sure i use products derived from secular science but i do not incorporate such things or ideas into my belief system and say look we must also believe science because it has given us these wonderful things.

God remains God and science is relegated to its rightful place and we can say, 'look at what God did, he gave intelligence to everyone, His gifts were given to all not just those who believed in Him.'

why can we say that, so that secular man cannot have an argument against God in the final day and complain... 'you played favorites and we didn't have the tools needed to believe'

sorry but this argument quoted above, is just an excuse to accept secular thinking and ways into a place God said it did not belong.

If secular science is wrong, why do things made using secular science work?

 

[Deamiter]

populations cannot change unless the individual changes you cannot escape such facts. if the individuals do not change then the population remains static. i read your links and just about vomited from reading the stupidity:

I'm sorry about your stomach. I'll try to explain this carefully so you can understand without losing your lunch.

1.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Evolution occurs on populations, not individuals. Individuals do not evolve, but are part of populations which do[/FONT]​

2. Natural selection befalls individuals, but occurs in populations

so which is it? do individuals change or populations seems to me that individuals change first then populations.

Individuals don't change. Over an individual's life, they will have the same genes the entire time. Those with genes less suited to the environment will have a better chance of dying (i.e. natural selection leads to a generally more fit population). Just killing off the unfit is not the whole story though. When the more fit reproduce more often, the population in the next generation consists of more fit individuals and less unfit individuals.

It is the process of the POPULATION changing that is known as evolution. Individuals do not change during their life -- all they do (in terms of evolution) is reproduce and die. So while reproduction or death in an individual is important, no change in an individual matters or even makes sense in terms of evolution.

3.If a food source is removed, populations may have trouble adapting to eat different food sources

that is so obvious, do we really need phds telling us things we already know??

Evolution is indeed rather obvious if you don't have a pre-conceived belief that it is wrong. The key is that when the individuals better able to reproduce in a changed environment continually reproduce more than those that reproduce less well, tiny changes guided by the environment add up quickly to result in speciation (which has been observed).

4.It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

how is that change passed on?? through indivduals. individuals must change first.

No, individuals do not change. Mutations in the sperm or eggs are passed on so the genome of the population changes with every new organism, but no organism's DNA changes during their lifetime (we're not talking about localized mutations like cancer as they don't pass the mutation on to healthy cells and can't really be considered a change in the individual's DNA).

1. those who accept micro-evolution,as believers, only compromise their position. it is an appeasement to those who mistakenly identify genetic defects with an non-existent evolutionary process. stating the truth is not extreme or fringe it is the truth.

Eh? We know mutations happen -- we each have a hundred or more unique mutations (that don't exist in our parents or anybody else). Some of these cause obvious defects, the vast majority are totally neutral as far as we can tell. Some are even beneficial such as those that let an African tribe run faster, or one which made a European family resistant to high cholesterol). I know you hate the term "evolution" but mutations are a fact of life, and as much as you might hate to admit it, not all (not even most) are detrimental to reproduction.

and poetry cannot be literal? is their some law that bars it from such a style? when the psalmist says, blessed is th eman who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, is he being literal or allegorical? sounds literal to me and a very direct command of God.

you still haven't proven or shown that Gen. 1 is allegorical.

Neither have you proven or shown that Genesis 1 cannot be non-literal. Can poetry not be purely allegorical? Is your personal feeling somehow more authoritative than mine as I pray and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance just as (I assume -- do correct me if I'm wrong) you pray and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance?

the only reason people make Gen. 1 allegorical is so that they can pursue their desires instead of listening to God.
Titus or Timothy tells us that people forsake sound doctrine for beliefs that tell them what the want to hear. making Gen/ 1 allegorical allows people to forsake sound doctrine. they look for every excuse possible to follow what they want instead of following what was said.

Wouldn't it be interesting if it were the evolutionary creationists like myself who were holding to sound doctrine? Have you considered that you yourself might have forsaken sound doctrine when you decided to insist that Genesis must be factual? You look for every excuse possible to follow what you already believe without opening your mind and heart to allow the Holy Spirit to move as it will.

 

[Assyrian]

now you are being more literal than i am. there is a big difference insaying 'windows in heaven' and 'God spoke and the land brought forth all animals' .

the former is a metaphor the latter is literal action. creation is not allegorical, but a revelation of how God acted. the reason we know it is not allegorical, is that the results of creation continue as spoken in the first chapter of the Bible.

That sound pretty arbitrary to me. Surely God know whether there are widows in heaven or not. After all you are the one who insists on the need to believing what he says. Surely he knows how the heavens are furnished not secular science.

On the other hand, 'God spoke and the land brought forth all animals' does not even need to be treated metaphorically. It does not say how the earth brought forth animals or how long it took. It is perfectly consistent with TE.

the Bible says, 'from the dust you were made and to the dust you shall return' open any coffin and you will see that take place.

Exactly. According to the bible we are all made from dust and we return to dust when we die. Yet everyone of us was born through natural processes and have a biological mother and father. Why should God forming man from dust in Genesis be any different?

the bible says, each species reproduces after its kind, we see today that that is true. the hybrid experiments confirm this fact.

we also see that God did not say eah species eolved to where iI want it and then i gave them reproductive organs so that the continuing of the species changes.

no,the reproductive organs were there fromthe sart and He said, 'they prodcued after their kind'.

the wording of the scriptures is very clear, there was no evolution involved (in any form).

You should check the wording of the scriptures, it is very clear. The bible does not say "each species reproduces after its kind". It is amazing how this non existent bible quote gets passed around among YECs. It is a bit like the extract from Barr's letter being passed along, only they do have access to the full text of Genesis.

 

[archaeologist]

deamiter:

Individuals don't change. Over an individual's life, they will have the same genes the entire time

i know this and fromwhat i can see, we were talking about two separate applications of the word individual. you and other evolutionists were talking about the specific person existing who has to pass it on to the next generation; i was talking about the individual as a general term that allowed for future generations who are individuals, whom must change for evolution to work.

#1. i still don't buy it because the time frame is too large to verify any such change

#2. the time frame is too long to prove that evolution is responsible.

#3. history proves that no such change has ever taken place except in the minds of evolutionists. they have no recorded evidence that such a process actually took place or is at work and all research that people count as credible has taken place in the last 150 years.

sorry that just isn't along enough study to confirm or to promote such thinking.

#4. every ancient society has a creation story and not an evolutionary one. that speaks volumes against any evolutionary model. inhe manner inwhich they are written, there are no other alternatives alluded to or mentioned. they are written as the one and only origin of mankind.

Evolution is indeed rather obvious if you don't have a pre-conceived belief that it is wrong

but that is where you are wrong. i used to believe in micro-evolution, well allowed it to be inexistence. it was the work of God that made me realize that i couldn't accept it.

also, there is not one scripture that even hints at such a process being used by God. i asked you all to provide one yet you have not done so.

We know mutations happen

mutations can easily be described as a defect steming from the result of the fall of man when sin and corruption were allowed to enter into the world.

calling something a mutation is just wishful thinking on the part of the evolutionist. mainly for the reason that they do not consider or accept God's version of events.
christians need to be on God's side not secular science's.

Neither have you proven or shown that Genesis 1 cannot be non-literal.

excuseme?? i have given you enough spiritual men who accept it as literal who have participated inwriting the Bible who treat it as literal. they should know far better than anyone else.

plus, gen. 1 is written in a non-allegorical fashion. you hae not yet shown me any other scripture reference for creation , that was written poetically or allegorically but they all refer to a literal event in 6 days.

Wouldn't it be interesting if it were the evolutionary creationists like myself who were holding to sound doctrine

you and others have adopted and adapted a purely human construct that was meant to replace God and you change what disagrees with that theory into an allegorical model so you can continue pursuing your desires, not God's, and you want to claim that you are holding to sound doctrine.

do you know how many verses outside of the creation ones that you violate?

Have you considered that you yourself might have forsaken sound doctrine when you decided to insist that Genesis must be factual?

i have stuck with the Bible and God's word, His revelation and i am not changing the inconveneient verses to fit my models of origin theology, so no.

You look for every excuse possible to follow what you already believe without opening your mind and heart to allow the Holy Spirit to move as it will.

one of the things i hate is being acused of doing something that i am not. i do not look for any excuse, i do not need to as God has led me to the truth. it is those who hold to alternatives that look for excuses and change scriptures to fit what they want to believe . whether it fits their comfort zone, or to look intelligent to the secular world, or to look non-foolish and so on, their reasons are usually their own,not God's and they ignore so many other verses to do such an act.

 

[archaeologist]

mallon:

I'm not going to continue trying to convince you of evolution because, as you've made clear, your faith hinges on its inexistence. That is, if evolution were true, you might be prone to giving up your Christianity, and I don't want to do that.

'IF' that is all you can say??? I KNOW it was 6 days and done not through a secular process but through God's speaking. How do i know--'if it were not so, He would have told us.' since God does not lie or deceive, there is no alternative to gen. 1 as being literal.

Why wait six days to create man? Why wait 4,000 years to send a Saviour? Why wait 6,000+ years to end it all? God does not operate according to our schedule.

1. God had a purpose for 6 days
2. don't know, God said 'my ways are not your ways...' so why is up to Him
3. don't know...see #2
4. right, that is why he did not use a secular process constructed in the mind of a man who didn't believe in God. and who did not give Glory to God for the theory.

Clearly, you reject all scientific evidence to the contrary,

you got it wrong. I REJECT all secular theories, hypothesis, conclusions, etc. which lead away from God and what God said. i do not reject evidence as we all have the same pieces to examine.

also i reject all 'christianizing' of the same secular list above just to make one appear spiritual or christian so they can stay in the church and be accepted by the unwitting.

if we change what the Bible says then what do we proclaim to those who are lost? they are in need of the truth not another model or a christianized version of another theory.

going contrary to God, adopting & adaping secular thinking is not following Him but going against Him and disobeying His other words as well. christians need to follow ALL of God's words and not the ones that allow them to continue in a practice that leads them into sin.

 

[Mallon]

'IF' that is all you can say??? I KNOW it was 6 days and done not through a secular process but through God's speaking. How do i know--'if it were not so, He would have told us.' since God does not lie or deceive, there is no alternative to gen. 1 as being literal.

I used the word "if" for the sake of argument, archaeologist. Again, please stop with the word games.
And I might use the same logic you use above to argue that sky has windows in it! After all, God never lies or deceives... and He never told us otherwise!

1. God had a purpose for 6 days
2. don't know, God said 'my ways are not your ways...' so why is up to Him
3. don't know...see #2
4. right, that is why he did not use a secular process constructed in the mind of a man who didn't believe in God. and who did not give Glory to God for the theory.

So you're willing to admit that God's ways are not our ways. Why is "God would not have waited 4.6 billion years to create man" a valid argument, then?
Besides, we can tell from Genesis that God does indeed use "secular processes" (I'm assuming you mean "natural processes") to create. Genesis 2:4-5 tells us that much:

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground...

God didn't create plants or shrubs because it had not yet rained and no one around to take care of them. That's God working according to His own natural (not "secular") laws.

you got it wrong. I REJECT all secular theories, hypothesis, conclusions, etc. which lead away from God and what God said. i do not reject evidence as we all have the same pieces to examine.

You've patently rejected the very basic, observable evidence for evolution, though: the fact that allele frequencies change with time in a population. Don't feel too bad about it, though. Answers in Genesis does the same.

going contrary to God, adopting & adaping secular thinking is not following Him but going against Him and disobeying His other words as well. christians need to follow ALL of God's words and not the ones that allow them to continue in a practice that leads them into sin.

I agree. I just don't agree with your interpretation of the inspired word. I respect your position; why can't you respect mine?

 

[juvenissun]

Y.E.C.'ers claim that God created with age, in your mind would that be deceptive or practical? why?

for the record i feel that it would be practical but let's hear what others have to say.

Someone may help me to solve this problem:

We see the sunlight after a few (eight?) minutes after the photon left the sun. The 8 minutes is the time perceived by us. But for the photon, it travels at the speed of light, how long does it take to reach the earth? This is the time perceived by the photon.

Would the time be nearly instant?

If so, how much time is needed for the light to reach the earth from xxx million light-years away if the time is measured "on the light"? Would that also be instant?

So, if God creates the far-away star and the earth yesterday, would it be possible for us on the earth to see the star instantly?

 

[archaeologist]

After all, God never lies or deceives... and He never told us otherwise!

it wasn't a word game. when one says 'if' that communicates a lot.

Why is "God would not have waited 4.6 billion years to create man" a valid argument, then?

going longer than the 6 days he mentioned, would defeat His purpose, His message and His plan. He would have had to write the Bible differently, change His purpose and so on.

as i explained in a previous thread, doing it the theistic,evolutionist's, the progressive creationist's, or any other alternative way would open God up to ridicule and His methods to be ignored for they did not demonstrate who He really was.

[QUOTEwe can tell from Genesis that God does indeed use "secular processes][/quote]

that is your reading in to it what you want to see. It was God's spoken word that brought forth the items. you will notice that the command was for all species at the same time, not a process which developed the different species over time. it was instantaneous.

You've patently rejected the very basic, observable evidence for evolution, though

i don't feel bad as evolution does not exist. it is a imaginary label placed upon what God has done and what has transpired through the fall of man.

there is no observable evidence for evolution, for what is observed cannot prove the process nor can it be definitively seen as evolution, there are other options ignord by those who accept an evolutionary mindset.

it is amazing that so many 'christians' would reject God's account for a man's imagination.

I just don't agree with your interpretation of the inspired word. I respect your position; why can't you respect mine?

the former: that is your choice but hiding behind the word 'interpretation' allows you to ignore the truth as well.
the latter: you are wrong and you change God's word instead of making a stand for God. accepting secular models that have no divine origin and stating that is of God. one cannot respect people who alter God's word or fail to preach the truth.

 

[Mallon]

It's been a slice, archaeologist. I hope you will not be offended if I chose to no longer continue this discussion. We aren't getting anywhere.

And please don't insult my faith (and the faith of most people here) by calling me a "Christian" with quotation marks. I am no less a Christian than yourself. I just chose not to follow your (very human) interpretation of Genesis.

 

[archaeologist]

I hope you will not be offended if I chose to no longer continue this discussion

i do not care if you continue or not, i do not twist anyones arm to participate.

And please don't insult my faith (and the faith of most people here) by calling me a "Christian" with quotation marks

you must be feeling convicted as i do not remember making such a claim specific but thought i kept that general.

I am no less a Christian than yourself.

depends on how you look at it.

I just chose not to follow your (very human) interpretation of Genesis.

how can you call it human when i stuck to scripture whereas you and others adopt and adapt a very human construct to add to the creation account.

considering your position of using science to interpret scriptures, that charge fits you better than me.

 

[shernren]

that is your reading in to it what you want to see. It was God's spoken word that brought forth the items. you will notice that the command was for all species at the same time, not a process which developed the different species over time. it was instantaneous.

No, it wasn't. Have you read Genesis 1 lately?

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:24-25 NIV)

The Bible doesn't say:

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind, all at once."

or

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was immediately so.

You are reading things into the text that exist only in your preconceived assumptions. There is precedent here:

The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
(Genesis 7:1-3 NIV)

Even though God in one shot commands Noah to take "clean animals", "unclean animals", and "birds", you certainly wouldn't expect to see Noah instantaneously and simultaneously shooing the whole unruly flock onto the Ark! In the same way, just because God commands in the same command for the land to produce living creatures according to their kinds (note: the land is commanded to produce kinds. The creatures themselves are never commanded to reproduce in kind.) does not force the land to do it all at once or even instantaneously.

Not that the creation story is relevant for scientific details. But even if it were your argument would still be wrong.

 

[Mallon]

depends on how you look at it.

Believing in the saving grace of Christ, archaeologist. That's how I look at it. That's what makes us all Christian.

Good day to you, good sir. I trust you will be reported.

 

[archaeologist]

why should i be reported. all i said was 'depends on how you look at it' which is quite true. and non-maligning.

That's what makes us all Christian.

yes but if you read 1 john you will see that being saved doesn't allow you to chnage God's word, declare it allegorical or metaphorical and so on, when you want it to be.

when one becomes saved, they become the servants of God not His master thus the servant is not at liberty to change the message, or style because it does not suit his perspective and desires or to stop looking foolish.

one has to abide by ALL of God's words and not change them into what he/she wants them to be so they can continue pursuing purely secular thinking.

science is not on par with the Bible and it has is as deceived, corruptible, and limited as any other field. to do as as assyrian states--there is no difference between secular and christian science --is denying what God says and that is dangerous ground to be on.

 

[Jase]

why should i be reported. all i said was 'depends on how you look at it' which is quite true. and non-maligning.

You insinuated by that remark that Mallon, and others like him are not as much of Christians as you because they don't accept your faulty, human-contrived interpretation of an ancient text, in the wrong language no less. That's why you should be reported.

yes but if you read 1 john you will see that being saved doesn't allow you to chnage God's word, declare it allegorical or metaphorical and so on, when you want it to be.

One's interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with salvation. And as you apparently haven't figured out, interpretation and metaphorical additives happen to every single person the second they start reading the Bible. You declare things allegorically that the Biblically authors wouldn't have, for example the Earth having 4 corners, or the Sun revolving around the Earth.

when one becomes saved, they become the servants of God not His master thus the servant is not at liberty to change the message, or style because it does not suit his perspective and desires or to stop looking foolish.

Guess you should inform the Biblical translators that they are going to hell, since they were required to change the message in order to convert it into other languages. Lots of words/phrases/concepts in Hebrew and Greek can not be word for word translated into another language.

one has to abide by ALL of God's words and not change them into what he/she wants them to be so they can continue pursuing purely secular thinking.

So i take it in your free time you enjoy stoning children to death, burning witches, and boycotting cotton/polyester blends of clothing?

science is not on par with the Bible and it has is as deceived, corruptible, and limited as any other field. to do as as assyrian states--there is no difference between secular and christian science --is denying what God says and that is dangerous ground to be on.

Science has proven itself accurate and reliable time and time again. It's corruptibility is only in your naive mind.

 

[gluadys]

Someone may help me to solve this problem:

We see the sunlight after a few (eight?) minutes after the photon left the sun. The 8 minutes is the time perceived by us. But for the photon, it travels at the speed of light, how long does it take to reach the earth? This is the time perceived by the photon.

Would the time be nearly instant?

I think not. My very rudimentary recall of relativity is that time slows down as one approaches the speed of light, so that time as perceived by the photon would be infinite.

So, if God creates the far-away star and the earth yesterday, would it be possible for us on the earth to see the star instantly?

For us to see the star? No. Neither we nor the star are travelling at the speed of light or anywhere near it so the peculiarities of relativity do not apply.

 

[archaeologist]

You insinuated by that remark that Mallon, and others like him are not as much of Christians as you

nice to know that 'reading of minds' is a gift of the Spirit.

[QUOTEOne's interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with salvation][/QUOTE]

but speaking the truth is vitally important. if it wasn't these discussions would cease altogether.

You declare things allegorically that the Biblically authors wouldn't have, for example the Earth having 4 corners, or the Sun revolving around the Earth.

are you saying those are literal?

Guess you should inform the Biblical translators that they are going to hell, since they were required to change the message in order to convert it into other languages. Lots of words/phrases/concepts in Hebrew and Greek can not be word for word translated into another language.

that happens in english as well, so we should throw out all translations and revert back to the originals, forcing everyone to learn them?

So i take it in your free time you enjoy stoning children to death, burning witches, and boycotting cotton/polyester blends of clothing

i see by this response of yours that you practice what Jesus taught you about showing brotherly kindness, love to others, being a peacemaker and other sermon on the mount tidbits.

Science has proven itself accurate and reliable time and time again. It's corruptibility is only in your naive mind.

so paul is wrong in titus 1:10-16; 2 tim. 3:12--13; 1 tim. 4:7

or John who wrote in 2 john 7-11; 1 john 4:1

so they are wrong and science is perfect? or how about eph. 4:22? i could go on and list many, many verses which shows that science is not exedmpt from such characteristics. 1 tim. 6:5ff also.

flee secular science and look to God to point the way.

 

[crawfish]

so paul is wrong in titus 1:10-16; 2 tim. 3:12--13; 1 tim. 4:7

or John who wrote in 2 john 7-11; 1 john 4:1

so they are wrong and science is perfect? or how about eph. 4:22? i could go on and list many, many verses which shows that science is not exedmpt from such characteristics. 1 tim. 6:5ff also.

flee secular science and look to God to point the way.

You'll have to show me where it talks about science in ANY of those verses. They refer to those who preach a false gospel, adding requirements to one's salvation.

From what I see, we TE's tend to preach and teach the full gospel of Christ and God's grace. We don't add anything to it. You creationists are the one adding the requirement of believing in a particular interpretation of Genesis.