is creation outside of science's scope?

[Rudolph Hucker]

You know this guy??

Not in the flesh, but on other boards in other places. He is well known.

 

[archaeologist]

part 2:

because you have been with me from the beginning.

wasn't the beginnings i had in mind--- i was talking about creation and the post-flood renewal.

Or maybe it is only YECs who are afraid to see the deceitfulness of fellow creationists. The dishonesty is plain form the letter

the former: not sure what you mean there
the latter: goes both ways as all people do it. i try not to but i may not always succeed.

An unsupported claim that doesn't answer the point. If science missed like buckshot technology would not be getting more and more advanced

duplicate from other post

You would not be a non denominational whatever you are, or believe the earth goes round the sun, if doctrine and interpretation of scripture had not changed over the last two millennia

not at all. are you saying the true church died out with jesus and the disciple's deaths? are you saying that all we have is denominational interpretation? sounds like an excuse to believe whatever you want to and avoid the truth.

You ask for independent confirmation for science and you reject scientists as not being independent, but asking how it can come from non scientists is 'elitist'.

the former: i am only asking the same criteria that is often asked of me in other discussions. prove it independently.

the latter: i didn't say that. isaid you were being elitest by saying thatonly scientists cna know these things.

Maybe because there were not modern scientist around at the time

you are under the illusion that people invented things only after the dark ages. as i showed in my previous post, technology was alive and well 2000 years ago.

also, the ancient babylonians were teaching the pythagorian theory long before pythagorus (sp) 'discovered' it.

the ancient eyptians obviously had a superior form of engineering as well as science to accomplish building the pyramids and practice mummification.

the ancient people of nimrod's time must have had top notch scientific knowledge as the attempted to build the tower of babel.

only arrogant people think that the modern people have intelligenceor any other attribute. the ancients were not neanderthals (using the secular science's idea of being a brute with no brains)

Sure, just show us where God says the six days are literal...

Except not one of the verses said anything about creationism. That seems a regular feature of the verse lists you post and your public service cut and pastes

the former: there is a verse but somehow you miraculously decided it was metaphorical. (i will refrain from asking for your credentials as a translator or an expert in english language)

the latter: so you do not believe in synonyms either i see. do they ruin your theory by equalling the word 'created'??

And you are in danger of taking his word in vain when you paste verses that have nothing to do with the discussion and claim they support you.

please quote chapter and verse on that idea. i know of the one about 'taking God's name in vain' but not sure what you are referrencing when you say 'words'.

actually, the verses were quite germane to the point and your response reflects your attempt to ignore what God says about whom to follow. i see you are very afraid of the truth that God says and look to minimalize them so you can continue to pursue theories that have no foundation in scripture.

you certainly squirm a lot.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

So, Achie, when you are ill, do you go to the hospital to be made well by science?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

You know this guy??

Yes, he is very well known elsewhere. He has been active on a couple of other boards in other countries, in one of which he lives. When my post count is high enough, I'll put up some links if you are interested.

I really did not know he was here, and was not seeking him.

I am sure he will be pleased to see me, and some others who will follow.

 

[shernren]

Yes, he is very well known elsewhere. He has been active on a couple of other boards in other countries, in one of which he lives. When my post count is high enough, I'll put up some links if you are interested.

I really did not know he was here, and was not seeking him.

I am sure he will be pleased to see me, and some others who will follow.

Good heavens. I hope your fellows can talk some sense into him!

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Good heavens. I hope your fellows can talk some sense into him!

We have tried, believe me we have tried.

And let me say, the trying has been fun.

 

[rambot]

amazing! so God's punishment on the snake means nothing and the fact that Newsweek had an article on snakes and that they used to have limbs is just more creationist propoganda.

How you extrapolate that yet completely ignore the possibility of evolution is intellectually astounding.

Good heavens. I hope your fellows can talk some sense into him!

We've had threads that go on for twice this length. It's not a matter of talking sense into him. It's a matter of him listening and grasping what is being said.

 

[archaeologist]

How you extrapolate that yet completely ignore the possibility of evolution is intellectually astounding.

evolution is a concept from the imagination of an unbelieving man, why would i not ignore it when there is no factual proof for its existence, just inferrences from those who do not believe or believe in God?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

evolution is a concept from the imagination of an unbelieving man, why would i not ignore it when there is no factual proof for its existence, just inferrences from those who do not believe or believe in God?

Darwin was a non-believer? Are you sure?

 

[gluadys]

evolution is a concept from the imagination of an unbelieving man, why would i not ignore it when there is no factual proof for its existence, just inferrences from those who do not believe or believe in God?

Direct observation of mutation, natural selection and speciation is not factual proof?

 

[archaeologist]

Direct observation of mutation, natural selection and speciation is not factual proof?

evolution is in direct opposition to God. the two and the agenda's of both are not compatible but seek different results.

evolution is a thoery that has been constructed to deceive and lead people away from the truth. all attempts to 'christianize' it fail because 'righteousness has no fellowship with unrighteousness'.

it is a shame that people who call themselves followers of God have allowed themselves to be caught up in evolution's grasp.

what is attributed to evolution robs God of credit and glory and steals from man that which they need; truth, confidence, reality, and the opportunity to praise God for what He has done.

allowing evolution to take root in the believer's lives, gives victory to the evil one and defeats the believer in their spiritual walk with God. something that God does not like or approve of as christians are to be free fromevil and not entangled with it.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

evolution is in direct opposition to God. the two and the agenda's of both are not compatible but seek different results.

evolution is a thoery that has been constructed to deceive and lead people away from the truth. all attempts to 'christianize' it fail because 'righteousness has no fellowship with unrighteousness'.

it is a shame that people who call themselves followers of God have allowed themselves to be caught up in evolution's grasp.

what is attributed to evolution robs God of credit and glory and steals from man that which they need; truth, confidence, reality, and the opportunity to praise God for what He has done.

allowing evolution to take root in the believer's lives, gives victory to the evil one and defeats the believer in their spiritual walk with God. something that God does not like or approve of as christians are to be free fromevil and not entangled with it.

It is only literalists like you who have the problem with evolution.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

edit ...

 

[Assyrian]

amazing! so God's punishment on the snake means nothing and the fact that Newsweek had an article on snakes and that they used to have limbs is just more creationist propoganda.
{can't find the article right now, the title escapes me}
You want to preach on the snake but are afraid to tell us who who the seed is???

Genesis doesn't even say the world was created in six days, that is only found in the metaphorical description in Exodus which describes God as a weary labourer refreshed after a days rest.

yes it does. who decided that exodus became metaphorical at that moment? please provide credible sources for such thinking.

Well it could be interpreted literally, but it would mean we have a weary God who is refreshed after having a rest. The bible says God does not get tired. That's why I think it is a metaphor. Is Exodus 20:2 literal? Did the Israelites all live in a single house? Exodus 20:2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Who decides any passage is literal or metaphoriorical?

sorry,i am not a great typist: staught = is taught.

OK then lets look at our conversation:

You claimed evolution was unbiblical because God did not mention it. Yet we see that God did not mention gravitation theory or heliocentrism. Are you dropping that claim

not at all. i would have to study all the references to creation to give you a better idea of what i taught BUT God would not say one thing then do another--that would be sin nor would He allow His writers to misrepresent what He did, thatwould be sin. God is sinless.

Not mentioning evolution is not God saying one thing. No matter how many passages you find about the creation where God does not mention evolution, it is not the same as God saying evolution does not happen. So if God does not mention evolution in the bible and uses evolution it is not God lying about evolution just as God not mentioning gravity or heliocentrism is not lying when he does use them, or when people misread the bible to .
Your other argument is that evolution did not happen. Well God not mentioning evolution, and then not using evolution isn't lying either.

You originally claimed if God had used evolution, he would have written genesis in a way that would have told us that is what He did. he certainly wouldn't let people believe it tobe one way, write it that way when he used some other process. you make God out to be deceitful and a conniver who has no interest that His creation knows the actual truth. But as we have seen God is under no obligation to explain his method to us and when he doesn't he is not a deceiver. The bible describes the sun rushing around the earth but doesn't explain the heliocentric orbits rotation of the earth or gravitation that God actually uses. Not mentioning the science does not make God a liar.

and genesis is not worded in the same fashion. it would take great translational gymnastics to prove it was allegorical.

Actually here we find it is the YECs who go in for translational gymnastics trying to make their literal translations work. Meanwhile Genesis 1 never says the world was created in six days, it never says the days are consecutive, and if you read it as six days, the days don't match biblical calendar days. But it really should be enough for us that Moses did not take God's days literally.

science is true because science and its tools say it is true. sorry. i renew my call for independent corroborration.

Astronomers are independent from biologists and geologists.

You call is pure rhetoric, you are asking for non scientists to provide evidence about science and seem to believe that only people who disagree with the age of the universe are independant enough to corroborate it.

so you are calling God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit sinful?? they are the ones who wrote the Bible and it is very clear that 6 days was the time frame.

No that is just your interpretation. Unless you are equating yourself and your interpretation with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

calling something allegorical or metaphorical doesn't change the truth.

True enough. Calling the Good Shepherd metaphorical doesn't change the truth. Jesus wasn't a shepherd.

people have doubts about luthor, who it seems was very anti-semetic. calvin had his own problems since he advocated killing his adversaries.

they are mere men like anyone else.

People like you and me who can get our interpretaiton wrong. Their geocentric interpretations were shown to be wrong by science. Science has shown your six day interpetation is just a bad.

i don't believe that Jesus taught that we are to follow interpretations. that is a word people hide behind whenthey do not want to deal with the truth.

Jesus taught interpretation to his disciples. Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

also, i could careless if you disagree with me, but when you change God's word, declare it something it is not then those actions open a person up to a charge of heresy.

No one here changes God's word.

that is if you count modern technology an advancement. i started a thread in Bib. Arch. on ancient technology and used as my starting point the ancint greek computer.
we do have one and here is one linkof many that talks about it:
http://www.ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=28&z=1

Of course modern technology is an advancement. We left clockwork behind long ago. Or computers are based on the modern scientific understanding of subatomic physics, something the ancient Greeks knew nothing about. If our science was wrong the computers, cell phones and satellites would not work.

solomon tells us that 'there is nothing new under the sun' so i wouldn't herald modern technology just yet.

You are not suggesting Solomon had mobile phones, television, stealth fighters and microwave ovens??? Of course the things Solomon had been talking about are still the same.

you do not have to put up with the abuse that i do.

You probably do not realise the abuse people who talk to you put up with.

why? creation happened as stated in Gen. 1 and throughout the Bible it just didn't happen according to theistic evolution or other alternative models.
for they accept, adopt, adapt secular theories that have no basis in divine origin and are meant to deceive not lead to the truth.

Genesis 1 cannot prove creation because we believe by faith that it is the word of God. Your claim you can prove creation while science cannot prove evolution is without foundation. Not only is you view of creation based on faith rather than proof, it is also based on your interpretation of Genesis 1. Why do you claim 'creation happened as stated in Gen. 1'? Why not Genesis 2 which gives us a different order of creation altogether?

no, they are not secular man's ideas. these things were created by God not invented by a man like evolution. big diference between discovering what God did and inventing something that omits Him from the process.
asked and answered. move on.

How do you know? A round earth, gravitational theory, heliocentrism, evolution and electronics are all manmade ideas. They are all the work of secular man describing how the world works. None of them are mentioned in the bible. You only have the word of the secular scientists who came up with the ideas. How do you know which are true? Because evolution contradicts your interpretation of the bible? They all contradict some interpetation of scripture, even microelectronics unless you can show it was around in Solomon's day.

that is another non-believer's favorite tricks--hide under the 'you do not understand' argument. please, i thought you could do better than this.

Generally TEs only use that with people who don't understand the science but think they do. You probably get it a lot though.

you can't test creation, it is done and gone. at best all you can do is test the results. oh wait, we don't even need to do that as we can see it in action every day, every season,, every pregnancy and so on.
there is very little to test. do ou want God to do it all over again just so you can continue in your scientific games and quest?

I will take that as a withdrawal of you argument that you are able to test and observe creation.

consider the source. ifit is not of God why do you accept it and then modify it or scriptures so the two will seem in synch with each other?

But you have just claimed that gravitation and heliocentrism do not have their source in secular science but in the world God created. The age of the earth and evolution are just as true because that is the way God created the world. The source is in God.

then the scripture 'the blind leading the blind' means nothing to you and is solely another one of your mirale metaphors?
or the verses found in 1 Timothy which state that 'men are being deceived'
herein lies your problem, you equate non-christian with christian when it comes to science and that is wrong. they are not the same and they do not have compatible purposes.

You mean you didn't realise 'the blind leading the blind' was a metaphor? And you claim to be able to tell us what passages are literal?

But I would not trust a natural man to tell me about spiritual truth. I would expect a secular scientist to be able to tell me about the natural world.

yet you don't post it for all to see.

Your claim was both wrong and irrelevant, you do our own research.

then you call God a liar as he said 'friendship with the word is enmity with God' or when he had the whole book of 1 John written.

Look at the context. When James talked about 'friendship with the world' he was talking about greed, desire and pandering to our own passions James 4:1-3. John defined loving the things of the word as the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and the pride of life 1John 2:16.
On the other hand, understanding the universe around us is learning about God's handiwork. Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. You think that studying this is wrong?

Phil 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

there is conflict between secular , non-christian science and God. they state God did not create the earth, while God said He did it in 6 days. christianizing secular science is not harmonizing the field with God but just a waste of time and another deception.

And Jesus said he was bread. It doesn't mean the literal interpretation is right or that Jesus was a liar.

and you wonder why the word 'heresy' crops up in the discussion.

Some times it comes up when there are serious doctrinal issues at stake. But usually, such as here, it crops up when Christians cannot tolerant fellow believers who disagee with their intepretations.

 

[Assyrian]

part 2:
wasn't the beginnings i had in mind--- i was talking about creation and the post-flood renewal.

There are loads of beginnings. Every time something new starts it is a new beginning. Never mind, I thought you were making a different point.

the former: not sure what you mean there
the latter: goes both ways as all people do it. i try not to but i may not always succeed.

I am glad you admit AiG were being deceitful with Barr's letter.

not at all. are you saying the true church died out with jesus and the disciple's deaths? are you saying that all we have is denominational interpretation? sounds like an excuse to believe whatever you want to and avoid the truth.

No I am saying Christians today have a lot of interpretations the church did not have in the past. Very few believe the sun goes round the earth. At one time everyone believed bread was literally changed into meat. In the first century nobody had even heard of the Trinity. Interpretations and doctrines change and develop. Good interpretations improve, some bad ones get dropped.

the former: i am only asking the same criteria that is often asked of me in other discussions. prove it independently.

Scientist and different scientific disciplines are independent.

the latter: i didn't say that. isaid you were being elitest by saying thatonly scientists cna know these things.

The people who find out these things are scientists. How are non scientists supposed to make scientific discoveries without doing science?

you are under the illusion that people invented things only after the dark ages. as i showed in my previous post, technology was alive and well 2000 years ago.

also, the ancient babylonians were teaching the pythagorian theory long before pythagorus (sp) 'discovered' it.

the ancient eyptians obviously had a superior form of engineering as well as science to accomplish building the pyramids and practice mummification.

the ancient people of nimrod's time must have had top notch scientific knowledge as the attempted to build the tower of babel.

only arrogant people think that the modern people have intelligenceor any other attribute. the ancients were not neanderthals (using the secular science's idea of being a brute with no brains)

So Pythagoras and the Babylonians and mathematicians in India understood about right angled triangles? The could build towers and pyramids? Remarkable achievements for people with their limited knowledge and technology. But our technology and knowledge vastly outstrips theirs. Could they put a satellite in space? Could they send a probe to Jupiter? Build a microscope to examine atoms? Split atoms? Build a suspension bridge? Do calculus? Understand complex numbers? Understand the structure of DNA? There is loads of stuff they did not understand or know about.

But only YECs think anybody is saying the people in the ancient world were stupid, or equate intelligence with the level of science and technology.

the former: there is a verse but somehow you miraculously decided it was metaphorical. (i will refrain from asking for your credentials as a translator or an expert in english language)

Where does the verse say it is literal? And what has translation got to do with it?

the latter: so you do not believe in synonyms either i see. do they ruin your theory by equalling the word 'created'??

You did a word search for 'follow', how is that supposed to be a synonym for created?

please quote chapter and verse on that idea. i know of the one about 'taking God's name in vain' but not sure what you are referrencing when you say 'words'.

I wasn't quoting a verse, though I did have the commandment in mind. It is dishonouring to God's name to swear falsely in his name. It is dishonouring to God's word to paste a list of verses that have nothing to do with the topic and claim they support you. It is not a commandment, but I think the children of God should treat his word with more respect.

You can't just do a word search for create and claim without basis it shows Jesus and Paul taking Genesis literally, or paste a word search for 'follow' and pretend to have provided synonyms for create.

actually, the verses were quite germane to the point and your response reflects your attempt to ignore what God says about whom to follow. i see you are very afraid of the truth that God says and look to minimalize them so you can continue to pursue theories that have no foundation in scripture.

I agree totally that we are to follow the Lord. It is because all of us on this forum seek to follow the Lord that the verses are irrelevant to this debate. And follow is not a synonym for create.

you certainly squirm a lot.

 

[archaeologist]

Your claim was both wrong and irrelevant, you do our own research

answer me this: you claim i am wrong though i have done my own research and had it confirmed by another person, and yet, you can't even post the link or quote that backs you up. why should i answer any more of your posts or take you seriously, when your credibility has been undermined by this one singular act of refusal to post what you have found, then demand that i do my own research?

how arrogant is that? it certainly isn't the christian attitude you claim to follow.

please do not ask me to provide any more sources until you can do the same for your own argument.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Well, you haven't changed Archie. As soon as someone betters you in debate, you throw your toys out of the pram.

BTW, how is your research going?

 

[archaeologist]

part 1--assyrian:

You want to preach on the snake but are afraid to tell us who who the seed is???

not afraid, just not there yet.

That's why I think it is a metaphor

are you saying God can't literally take a rest?or how about He rested to provide an example for His creation to follow? still is literal.

No matter how many passages you find about the creation where God does not mention evolution, it is not the same as God saying evolution does not happen.

read the passages again. it is quite clear how God did it.

Your other argument is that evolution did not happen. Well God not mentioning evolution, and then not using evolution isn't lying either

you don't get it. evolution is not of God it is in opposition to Him. until you realize that fact, this is pointless.

Meanwhile Genesis 1 never says the world was created in six days,

yes it does. each close of a day the number is mentioned.

it never says the days are consecutive

now you are desperate and reaching.

if you read it as six days, the days don't match biblical calendar days

which biblical calendar days?? you really need to start posting links and quotes to make sense.

But it really should be enough for us that Moses did not take God's days literally.

prove this. do you really know moses' mind?

You call is pure rhetoric, you are asking for non scientists to provide evidence about science and seem to believe that only people who disagree with the age of the universe are independant enough to corroborate it.

not at all. you obviously do not deal with atheists very much or people who regard the bible as fairy tales. what i ask of you is the exact same thing they ask of me.

Science has shown your six day interpetation is just a bad.

you are assuming that science is infallible, sinless and has the ability to discern what God did eventhough God said 'my ways are not your ways' so how can science know if it is right if it can discern what God did?

youplace science on par with God yet it is rife with sin, corruptibility and under the authority of the evil one.

Jesus taught interpretation

you love playing word games--did Jesus just give us His interpretation and the disciples were free to disagree with His words? or did Jesus tell them the truth about what the scriptures said and the disciples learned the true story?

which is it? you can't have it both ways.

No one here changes God's word

the minute someone adds something to the Bible, like evolution, they have changed the God's word.

We left clockwork behind long ago.

that is amazing. iguess everyone needs to throw their clocks and watches out now.

If our science was wrong the computers, cell phones and satellites would not work.

do cell phones, satellites, movies, computers lead to God, give Him glory or is the glory given to man's intelligence? if you say the latter, then it is wrong.

more than one meaning to the word 'wrong'.

You are not suggesting Solomon had mobile phones, television, stealth fighters and microwave ovens??? Of course the things Solomon had been talking about are still the same.

take it up with him, he is the one who said it. i don't know if i could explain this so you would be able to answer it.

Your claim you can prove creation while science cannot prove evolution is without foundation.

not at all. i told you in another post, probably another thread, that all you have to do is go to the hospital matrnity ward, the vet's or even the plant nursery and you will see the results of creation in action everyday.

that proves creation but you cannot show me one transitioonal species to prove evolution all you can give are excuses.

How do you know?

as i have said i have to do a complete study on all the verse that refer to creation to provide you with any answers. that takes time BUT how do i know evolution is wrong? consider the source. consider its construct. consider the time frame. consider none of it is proven except by declatory statements and conjecture and pressupposition. consider that God is not invloved.

Generally TEs only use that with people who don't understand the science but think they do

personal attacks will be ignored.

I will take that as a withdrawal of you argument that you are able to test and observe creation.

i wouldn't jump the gun just yet.

The age of the earth and evolution are just as true because that is the way God created the world. The source is in God.

only in a 'christinaized' version of the theory. if you think that evolution is from God, then you must not believe in a devil either and that he is active like scriptures says.

And you claim to be able to tell us what passages are literal?

show me the passage and credible sources wich state it is ametaphor. i do not take your word for anything anymore.

I would expect a secular scientist to be able to tell me about the natural world.

you do not see what is wrong with that statement?

You think that studying this is wrong?

if you do it the secular way--yes.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

part 1--assyrian:


[you do not think that studying this is wrong?]


if you do it the secular way--yes.

So, what are your degrees in Arch?

 

[archaeologist]

part 2--assyrian:

I am glad you admit AiG were being deceitful with Barr's letter.

didn't admit anything of the sort. i just said everyone is guilty of it, which means you should drop the accusations, since you can't even provide one link to back up your statements. they at least do.

No I am saying Christians today have a lot of interpretations the church did not have in the past

if you read the books on heresies i alluded to, you would see that the exact same heresies that were present then are present today. not much has changed. even the idea of worshipping on sunday was already banded about in the 1st century. you have no argument here.

Scientist and different scientific disciplines are independent

they follow the same rules and principles--that does not make them independent.

How are non scientists supposed to make scientific discoveries without doing science?

happens all the time.

Build a suspension bridge

go to the jungles of south america--you will find many built with out aid of science and which last longer than scientific ones.

Do calculus

yes. they also built a computer.

Understand complex numbers

yes.

Understand the structure of DNA? There is loads of stuff they did not understand or know about.

there is also a load of stuff that modern science does not understand--how did the egyptians build the pyramids without cranse and still be so exact?

how to cure the common cold, cancer, almheizers and so on. which do you think would be more beneficial--science sending a satillite into orbit or discoverying a cure for a disease?

why should the ancients worry about space when they had a high mortality rate? your argument is baseless and redundent.

But only YECs think anybody is saying the people in the ancient world were stupid, or equate intelligence with the level of science and technology.

no, if anything, they and i get it from your remarks, and superiority complex. as i mentioned before, the ancient greeks built a computer which demonstrates they (and other ancients) had the same intelligence given to them by God as modern man has.

to state otherwise would be insulting to God and saying God lied when He gave all people talents and gifts.

And what has translation got to do with it?

if you have to ask, then you know very little about he rules of translation. having done some in my time, one cannot just do what they want.

You did a word search for 'follow', how is that supposed to be a synonym for created

i did a scriptural search for follow not a word search and i didn't use it to example it as a synonym for 'creation' please try to represent what i write correctly.

It is dishonouring to God's name to swear falsely in his name. It is dishonouring to God's word to paste a list of verses that have nothing to do with the topic and claim they support you. It is not a commandment, but I think the children of God should treat his word with more respect

unless you can show the exact biblical teaching on this then you are just wrong. there was nothing disrespectful that i did. i pointed out the many verses where both God and Jesus explicitly stated to follow them. not one verse states to follow any alternative. if you follow an alternative then you are not following God.

plain and simple.

You can't just do a word search for create and claim without basis it shows Jesus and Paul taking Genesis literally, or paste a word search for 'follow' and pretend to have provided synonyms for create

nor can you dismiss them as allegorical and metaphorical and make the claims and accusations you are making. God certainly did not say metaphorically to follow Him anyone who reads it as such, is looking for an excuse to ignore God's word and follow their own desires.

It is because all of us on this forum seek to follow the Lord that the verses are irrelevant to this debate

if you seek to follow God, how are His verses irrelevent to this debate? are you saying that God's word is irrelevent and only science is germane??