Should Genesis be taken literally?

[-57]

There is no problem between the science of evolution and the Bible. There is a problem between the pseudo-biblical YEC interpretation of the Bible and science.

My goodness! Look at the similarities, the reflective equalities, in these statements! How can any man choose between them, logically?

OO I know . . . lets look at the evidence!

Uh. . . . the science has the evidence. The YEC view does not.

Well, that settles that.

One has to wonder about your logic paul. How is forming Eve from Adams rib anything like the religion of evolutionism?

 

[-57]

If evolution is really a lie, you have to believe that tens of thousands of highly credentialed experts, including the likes well-known Christian scientists Francis Collins, are lying and thereby risking their professional reputations.

Still want to stick with the "evolution is a lie" line?

Are they really lying? Probably not. They actually believe what is fals and present it as fact.
Not one has the ability to show how mutations add up. They simply believe they can......take it on faith....especially the credentialed experts who are afraid of losing their position. So sad.

 

[The Times]

the experts simply know that evolution has, in fact, happened.

My 5 year old daughter would even question this assertion.

She would say, I can't see it, show me how and where....

The good old evidence is what is missing from the fallacious statement.

A loving God does not create order out of chaos and he certainly never uses death to bring forth life, after much pain and suffering.

The religion of evolution has a different god being advocated, one who destroys before he creates and this theology my friends is diameterically opposed to God and his perfect character. God said on every consequetive day that he saw what was created was perfect....aaaahhhh.... doesn't that bring perfect devine order the first time every time.....unless offcourse liberal Theologians want to put into question God's perfect and devine character.

The religion of evolution is becoming more and more like the religion of alchemy.

 

[The Times]

since it is not possible to prove anything scientifically

Beg your pardon. So your typing your fingers on the keyboard whilst reading text on your display is an unproven science.

Are you serious.Dr Hovind states that science is repeatable and provable, otherwise nothing can be relied upon. If you flick the switch sometimes light comes on, sometimes it doesn't, but there is evidence to why it does and why it doesn't. If it is not possible to prove anything scientifically, then countries spending billions of dollars on satellite technology are just sending wishful theories in the air.

not possible to prove anything scientifically. Science does not claim to prove anything

Science does claim to prove everything that it has tried and tested repeatedly, otherwise lawsuits exist to expose false claims.

Talking about false claims like the evolution theory, now there is a law suite and a half that is going to happen.

I tell you the two sides in the lawsuite....

Respondents are Liberals who support evolution theory

Applicant is God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son filing the lawsuite against those who defame his perfect Image and character.

Are you serious Liberals are you serious.

Just as a hypothetical...do people who advocate evolution think that they will win at the end?

Come on an honest answer will do!

 

[HenryM]

I still didn't get an answer, and would like to know:

What is universally accepted scientific law (not theory), expressed in a formula, that's discovered within macro evolution, and that's now used in science?

I guess there is something, since some people seem to have little shame, but would be interested to see if any of those here who stand for evolution know such thing.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Mutations can't add up over generations and produce the sophistication we see today.

That is where the theory falls apart and this is why most people accept microevolution and not macro evolution. They try to cover for themselves by calling frame shift a mutation which it is not. Vast numbers of mutations are harmful and a lot of research goes into trying to cure diseases caused by mutations. No one has ever given me a valid example of a beneficial mutation even though they claim this is the driving force of evolutionary theory. People like Hoyle have shown that the mutation theory as a driving force for evolution is simply mathematically impossible.

For me the issue is that evolution does not take into consideration that creation is in a fallen condition and in need of redemption and restoration. Mutations are evidence of this fallen condition. A lot of research is going on to correct the mutations that cause the diseases to bring about a cure. One cure is to do all you can to avoid inbreeding.

The mutation theory plays off of the multi universe theory. In that theory every possible universe exists no matter how minor the change or difference maybe. Of course what they are finding now is that very very few possible universe exist. We are very finely tuned and any variation on God's design for us simply does not work. At least not out in the real world.

This is an example of the possible proteins and the very few proteins above the line that will actually work for what you need them to do. This shows the mathematical improbability of the random chance theory of evolution. The real driving force of science is the ability of the scientific method to show error and where their theory does not work. Clearly there is a lot of difference between many and few in this example. 0.0004% I see maybe 7 or 9 proteins that are able to do what they need the protein to do in this application. Out of a possible one million proteins. This is how fine tuned our world and our universe is.

 

[mark kennedy]

I still didn't get an answer, and would like to know:

What is universally accepted scientific law (not theory), expressed in a formula, that's discovered within macro evolution, and that's now used in science?

I guess there is something, since some people have no shame, but would be interested to see if any of those here who stand for evolution know such thing.

The only laws of inheritance I'm aware of are the Mendelian laws of inheritance. Darwinian evolution is a philosophy of natural history that presupposes exclusively naturalistic causes.

 

[joshua 1 9]

the science has the evidence. The YEC view does not.

Moses clearly teaches that a day is equal to 1,000 years. The Historical evidence agrees with this. 12,900 years ago the earth plunged into a short ice age that wiped out 90% of the species. Only a remnant survived to repopulate the earth.

I do not have any problem with a literal 24 hour day. Clearly the world that we are talking about is not the whole geosphere. Adams world in the Tigris Euphrates river valley was a biodiverse ecosystem. What started in Eden did spread to the rest of the world. Farming began in this area that some people call the fertile crescent.

This is what shadow and types are all about. This shows the pattern that God follows and He is consistent in what He does. There is a reason why the story of Adam and Eve has been so popular for the last 6,000 years.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I reject a literal reading of the creation account.

Why do you reject a literal reading? Are you limiting God and what He is able to do?

 

[JacksBratt]

No. No. No. Ruse believes in the science supporting evolution. Must I prove this? He also believes that scientists PROMOTE evolution in the same manner that religious people do.

Big difference.

That's why he states "Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. "

 

[JacksBratt]

Nonsense. Name one scholar who agrees that evolution is a religion.

And no, finding a scholar, like Ruse, who believes evolution IS scientific, yet PROMOTED like a religion doesn't count.

So, find one that agrees that evolution is a religion.....except any that believe that it is a religion.... they don't count.
Also, while your at it don't quote or refer to any Creation web sites. They are biased. Only quote evolution websites as they are not biased at all..................sarcasm implied.

 

[joshua 1 9]

This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.

Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Do you have a better theory that you can use to replace the theory of evolution?

 

[joshua 1 9]

evolution is a religion

Do you have a better theory that explains more than the theory of evolution explains?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Not relevant. How Darwin responded to his findings has no connection to the matter of whether or not his findings were correct.

The only thing that is relevant to Darwin was that he sold his book and he made enough money to support his wife and a rather large family. There were 12 people that needed to be fed and provided for. 10 children and 2 adults. Of course he did what he could to promote his book. This was his bread and butter. He was thrilled when the book started to sell in other countries.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The word is not sole but sola! There are a lot of things nott mentioned in the Bible like evolution.

When we use the term Sola Scriptura we are saying the Scriptures Alone - not Apostolic Tradition - is our guide, our life our all. For Christ Jesus is the Living Word and came that all who truly believe would have His Light. The problem is men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds are/were evil. The Bible is the record of God's dealing with sinful men and God's Word is eternal.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

And we are by no means adding to it.

You still have to "rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim 2:15

 

[expos4ever]

I still didn't get an answer, and would like to know:

What is universally accepted scientific law (not theory), expressed in a formula, that's discovered within macro evolution, and that's now used in science?

I guess there is something, since some people have no shame, but would be interested to see if any of those here who stand for evolution know such thing.

Some people certainly do have no shame, but I suspect we will disagree on who those people are. I think those who post misleading, false quotes are part of that group.

I am not sure I understand your question. But I don't really need to. We have trained experts for a reason - none of us in this conversation are sufficiently knowledgeable to independently evaluate the evidence for evolution. But we don't need to - we have a scientific system that clearly works and a clear consensus that evolution has indeed happened.

 

[expos4ever]

They do, do they? Or are they making up fairy tales? I'll give you another quote - if you like?

Sure - give me another opportunity to prove that a quote is fake, or clearly not relevant.

 

[Speedwell]

I still have not gotten an answer to my question.

I don't think anyone here bases his interpretation of Genesis on Apostolic Tradition. The YECs certainly don't, because they don't believe that Apostolic Tradition exists. Those of us who do believe in Apostolic Tradition don't look to it to provide an interpretation of Genesis.

Anyway, it is disingenuous of a creationist to ask such a question, because the YEC position (as expressed in this thread, anyway) appears to be that the churches which profess belief in Apostolic tradition really don't, and have actually, secretly, embraced Sola Scriptura ever since Apostolic times.

So, all in all, you neither deserve nor should expect an answer to your question.

 

[expos4ever]

Beg your pardon. So your typing your fingers on the keyboard whilst reading text on your display is an unproven science.

You are going to have to rephrase - I don't understand. Science does not deal in proof. You can post as many kooks saying otherwise as you like; it will not change what everyone even mildly conversant with science knows: Science is not in the business of "proving" anything, in the sense of establishing that something is true with absolute certainty.

So, yes, evolution has not been proven; it has instead simply been shown to be a superb explanation for observations. As such, it can legitimately be called a "fact" in the same sense that it is a fact - a virtual, although not absolute certainty - that swallowing radioactive bars of uranium causes illness.

Science does claim to prove everything that it has tried and tested repeatedly,....

You are mistaken - I challenge you to find anyone with a professorship at a real university - who agrees that science "proves" anything.

From Wikipedia:

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.

And to anticipate a response that this asserts only that "many" scientists have made this claim. You can't conclude that the ones who haven't believe otherwise - they may have simply not chosen to comment on this issue.

From Psychology Today:

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Had enough? I can provide more - this a no-brainer: science is not in the "proof" business. Yes, some scientists might casually use the word "proof" to refer to their findings. Well, they are mistaken and would surely admit this if challenged - people are sometime careless in their speech and actions.

Like when people post quotes allegedly showing that some scientists think evolution is a religion, and it turns out the quotes are fakes or are taken out of context.

 

[JacksBratt]

Do you have a better theory that explains more than the theory of evolution explains?

YEC. Right from the creator.