proving evolution as just a "theory"

Status
Not open for further replies.

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There is not a single solitary fossil in any museum that supports evolution. Every single fossil for any type remains the same for every fossil found of that type.

Don’t misconstrue the evidence as if it supports evolution at all. Just as Huskie remains Husky. Mastiff remains Mastiff. Only when those two mate does variation enter, suddenly and fully formed.

So too the fossil record. Fossil A mated with Fossil B and produced Fossil C. There was no evolution involved. They are simply incapable of observing what mated with what and produced what from a pile of bones. But observational fact shows us just how variation occurs, and neither the Husky nor Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. This can be applied to any animal in existence. Whether they be grizzly bears mating with polar bears, red tailed deer mating with mule deer, or lions mating with tigers.

Don’t even pretend the fossil record supports evolution in even the smallest detail. Instead it supports the exact opposite. That all types of creatures remained the same for every one found, and new variation appeared suddenly, fully formed, just like the Chinook.....

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you didn't read the entire context of what I was saying. I was saying it is only evidence if you wave away special creation, which is what they do. If you have a track star running a race with a one legged man and the one legged man wins... who wins if the judge disqualifies him because he used a prostetic limb?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The broader picture here is no matter how much or how many times I've asked none of you can produce a common ancestor in any evolutionary split. Where the creature started evolving from a common ancestor.

You have nothing. All you can offer is that all things have a common design. Because that is obvious and can be tested. Evolution from a common ancestor cannot.

Is this what you are looking for? This is representative of the common ancestor of the zebra, the hipparion, the sinohippus, and the donkey.

6horse-dawn-NHMLA3784x.jpg


Was it this exact fossil? Probably not. Maybe his brother was the ancestor of all. Maybe his distant cousin. Maybe a distant member of the same species. Maybe a member of the same genus. Maybe a member of a closely related genus, but quite likely it was this genus, hyracotherium.

But at any rate, some creature closely related to this four-toed, fox sized, nut and leaf eater became the ancestor of all those different species and genera, including the modern horse.

That what you are looking for?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Is this what you are looking for? This is representative of the common ancestor of the zebra, the hipparion, the sinohippus, and the donkey.

6horse-dawn-NHMLA3784x.jpg


Was it this exact fossil? Probably not. Maybe his brother was the ancestor of all. Maybe his distant cousin. Maybe a distant member of the same species. Maybe a member of the same genus. Maybe a member of a closely related genus, but quite likely it was this genus, hyracotherium.

But at any rate, some creature closely related to this four-toed, fox sized, nut and leaf eater became the ancestor of all those different species and genera, including the modern horse.

That what you are looking for?
I'll bet the ranch he'll find some reason it isn't.
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The issue is not that fossils are found in different places. The issues is that they are found below each other in rocks that date to different ages.

All ancient dinosaur fossils are found in strata below the K-PG Boundary, a rock layer rich in iridium found around the world. All lions and bears are found above that layer. Now how do you explain that? Saying that lions and bears ran faster than dinos is ridiculous. There are standing trees buried up with the lions and bears. Did the apple trees run faster than dinos?



How does that account for sand dunes? We see buried sand dunes that were clearly made by sand blowing in the desert. How can you have deserts and blowing winds under a flood?

And how does that account for lava flows? Volcanoes under water do not make the same lava flows as are found on land. Rather, the lava hits the water and solidifies quickly, forming hard lava pillow rocks. But there is vast amounts of rock down there that look like lava flows on land. How did that happen in a flood?

I think I need a link to an example at this point. My understanding is that ancient sand deserts thought to be laid down by wind became "sand stone" after being burried under pressure. For example the Coconino sandstone. The interesting thing about Coconino is there is evidence it was laid down under watery conditions. However many mainstream geologists discount this possibility simply because of its immense magnetud. The calculated amount of water it would have taken moving at the required speed would be far beyond anything ever measured at open sea. It would have taken something on the order of a global catastrophic event. And we know nothing like that ever happened... right? Wink wink.
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You still seem to be laboring under the delusion that the theory of evolution rules out divine creation. All it does is rule out "biblical" divine creation, which has been a dead issue anyway for two hundred years.

You seem to be implying that the Bible is not valid when it comes to it's description of Creation. If that is true then we should toss the entire thing out because that renders all of it invalid. My contention is that if any of it is true it is all true and if any false all is false. In Romans 1:20 God challenges us to prove His existence through the study of science. I have taken that challenge up about 27 years ago and yet to find any actual scientific evidence that it conflicts with. Not only this the Bible agrees with all of known history. Not only this, within its pages from Genesis to Revelation one cannot find a single true inconsistency. Not only this, the icing on the cake is that it contains hundreds of highly specific prophecies and is 100% prophetically accurate. This is what I call the SHIP test. Science, History, Inconsistency, and Prophecy. An all knowing all powerful God would not fail in a single one of these four areas. And the Bible not only passes, but in many cases it surpasses the test demonstrating it to be divine rather than human in origin. So contrary to your claim that it is a dead issue it is very much alive and well my friend.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Similarities are not consistent with common ancestry.
How? You would have to show that there was something about the inference of common ancestry which was inconsistent with the observation of similarities.
They are consistent with common design.
Right.
Common ancestry is an assumption.
common ancestry is an inference. Continually misrepresenting it won't help your case.
Real observation shows common design.
"Real observation" shows similarities. Period. Design is an inference from those similarites, just like common ancestry.
How can we test common design? We do it all the time in medical research.
How? What's the test?
We accept that God used the same building blocks of life to create all creatures and life on this planet.
Which is true whether He created the creatures through evolution or in some magial way all at once.
As I said it fits perfectly with Scripture and is observable today. Whereas a common ancestor evolutionary process is not.
How is design observable today? This is an important question for you, one which no other ID proponent has been able to answer satisfactorily.
Nobody cares what you think Scripture says about it.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you didn't read the entire context of what I was saying. I was saying it is only evidence if you wave away special creation, which is what they do. If you have a track star running a race with a one legged man and the one legged man wins... who wins if the judge disqualifies him because he used a prostetic limb?

Claim can be easily waved away, if you can't support them with evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You seem to be implying that the Bible is not valid when it comes to it's description of Creation.
Your assumption being that the creation stories of Genesis were intended by their author(s) to be 100% accurate literal history.
If that is true then we should toss the entire thing out because that renders all of it invalid. My contention is that if any of it is true it is all true and if any false all is false. In Romans 1:20 God challenges us to prove His existence through the study of science. I have taken that challenge up about 27 years ago and yet to find any actual scientific evidence that it conflicts with. Not only this the Bible agrees with all of known history. Not only this, within its pages from Genesis to Revelation one cannot find a single true inconsistency. Not only this, the icing on the cake is that it contains hundreds of highly specific prophecies and is 100% prophetically accurate. This is what I call the SHIP test. Science, History, Inconsistency, and Prophecy. An all knowing all powerful God would not fail in a single one of these four areas. And the Bible not only passes, but in many cases it surpasses the test demonstrating it to be divine rather than human in origin. So contrary to your claim that it is a dead issue it is very much alive and well my friend.
Which is the standard Evangelical Protestant apologetic stance--a waste of bandwidth.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
How can we test common design? We do it all the time in medical research.

This is a lie. There is no scientific "common design" model and consequently nothing being tested in medical research. Spend some time combing the medical literature; you won't find anything to support this assertion.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Your assumption being that the creation stories of Genesis were intended by their author(s) to be 100% accurate literal history.

Not a bad assumption considering that was how the Lord Himself took it.

Which is the standard Evangelical Protestant apologetic stance--a waste of bandwidth.

That's a personal opinion. Here is mine. If you are interested.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟88,248.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That guy in the cowboy hat...lol... doesn't believe that one "squid" of the past is more advanced than the others of today. But he does believe that due to location and mobility the horse made it to higher ground than the squid. And probably could run faster and climb higher than the Titanosaurus. The point is that the arrangement and sorting of the fossils in the fossil record can be explained just as easily within a single global catastrophic event as they can within a 600 to 700 million year set of strata.
....sooooo, the Land Tortoise, Sloth and flowering plants outran the Raptor, T-Rex and Ichthyosaur??
I know exactly how it is caused. Do you? Can we say what already existed was copied incorrectly? Nothing new was created, only what ALREADY EXISTED was copied into a different format. A format that was already possible within the genome, or else copying it could not make it......
Well, I guess you're right in that our genomes are made up of A, C, G and T.... and sometimes a molecular combination that doesn't amount to anything... but the arrangement is what matters, and we do get novel arrangements that were never there before through these copy errors. it still amounts to novel structures and protein combinations that work in novel ways.
Never once has a mutation created new information. It took information that already existed in the genome and changed its order. A change not possible had that information not already been available to be copied.....
Sure, but the results of these rearrangements and copy errors are novel traits. You can't deny this and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who is working with the science.
I am fully aware what copy means, perhaps you should look it up sometime.
:|
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Not a bad assumption considering that was how the Lord Himself took it.
Typical creationist "logic."
P1: Jesus based some of His preaching on the creation stories of Genesis.
P2: He wouldn't have done so unless He agreed with me about the genre determination of those stories.
C: Therefore, He agrees with me about the genre determination of those stories.



That's a personal opinion. Here is mine. If you are interested.
Trying to make this into a cosmic struggle between between theists and atheists will do you no good. It's really just a disagreement between a minority group of Protestants and everybody else, theists and atheists alike.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
....sooooo, the Land Tortoise, Sloth and flowering plants outran the Raptor, T-Rex and Ichthyosaur??

I think you are intentionally mischaracterizing what I said. I said the sorting of the fossil record can be accounted to a single cataclysmic event in which mobility and location played a factor. If T-Rex lived primarily in a lower lying region he would obviously get swept away and buried much faster than an animal who's primary habitat was at higher altitudes. One thing we know for certain is that all the fossils were formed under wet conditions in which they were buried too rapid to be eaten or decompose.
 
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟88,248.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't understand what you need to know. Do you need a specific fish? Do you need a specific bird? What do you need that is not covered in those words?
A way to apply this definition to organisms to determine if they are of the same "kind" or not. A wishy-washy list of examples you can count on one hand is in no way a substitute for a rigorous framework that can be applied as best practice in defining what a 'kind' is. That's what'll make it useful...
Let's start with species shall we. A species is defined as you say. That is a kind. A kind is something that reproduces the same kind. Reproduction is the key to kind. If it can't mate and produce offspring that will produce offspring they are not of the same kind. Now if you want to use some more scientific terms kind could also fall under a broader term such as genus or family. Why because we know that creatures can adapt and to their environment.

You can have great variety in kinds. Just like you can have a great variety within species. And you know just as well as I that species has been a very fluid definition itself.

Take a look at this quote from evolution.berkley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

"There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist-after all, the idea of a species is something we humans invented for our own convienence!"

The broader picture here is no matter how much or how many times I've asked none of you can produce a common ancestor in any evolutionary split. Where the creature started evolving from a common ancestor.

You have nothing. All you can offer is that all things have a common design. Because that is obvious and can be tested. Evolution from a common ancestor cannot.
I've never been able to get an answer on Ring species, Species A can reproduce with Species B, Species B with Species C, Species C with D, D with E, yet Species E can't reproduce with Species A. Are they the same species? If no, then you accept that speciation occurs. If yes, then what happens if the species in between are wiped out or go extinct? Then are they different species?

The simple fact that the far ends of these ring species can't interbreed is actual bona-fide evidence that speciation happens. It happens in both plants and animals and there are numerous examples of this. The genetic diversity in these ringspecies is quite diverse, so saying it's because of reduced genomic variation is just nonsense, they have a more diverse genome than we humans do.
So which is it? It is species, genus or family? These are very different levels of taxanomic classification, so you'll need to be more specific.

On top of that, defining "kinds" based on whether or not they can sexually reproduce doesn't deal with the large part biological life that doesn't reproduce sexually. How does one define "kind" for asexually reproducing organisms?
Oh, Yeah! I can't wait to see how the Bacteria Kingdom fits into this setup, especially since it has more species than both the Animal and Plant Kingdoms combined...
Not only are you making it up, you are making up the explanation. Nothing you have said is evidence for evolution.
Similarities are also consistant with common design (for purposes of argument, anyway).
So, neither side gains. What's your next move?
Great! Show us by example how you can get a handful of 'designed' things that we've created and group them into a tree-like hierarchy as we do with evolution (which is how we test that by the way...)

**EDIT:
Are you seriously looking for evidence of a split?

If you had, I would think you would have heard of ring species by now.
:D Dang! you beat me to it...
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I said the sorting of the fossil record can be accounted to a single cataclysmic event in which mobility and location played a factor.

Yeah, it can't. If this were true, we'd expect to find various dinosaur fossils mixed in with modern species. But we never do.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟88,248.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I think you are intentionally mischaracterizing what I said. I said the sorting of the fossil record can be accounted to a single cataclysmic event in which mobility and location played a factor. If T-Rex lived primarily in a lower lying region he would obviously get swept away and buried much faster than an animal who's primary habitat was at higher altitudes. One thing we know for certain is that all the fossils were formed under wet conditions in which they were buried too rapid to be eaten or decompose.
So, wind-blown sand dunes at various points in the middle of the geological column, forest fires, enormous salt lakes that have dried up and been buried over long timeframes (without which we wouldn't have salt mines, btw), volcanic eruptions that have laid down and solidified rock in the complete absence of water, let alone a flood of any sort - all of these conditions feature at many, many times in the geological column, etc.

This is impossible in a flood. I'm happy to hear your reasoning on top of the far-fetched and unfounded assertion that all dinosaurs lived in the lowlands and all the mammals and flowering plants lived above a notable radioactive layer of dust all over the world - perhaps you could explain how Whales lived in the highlands above this radioactive layer and the Ichthyosaur lived with the Dinosaurs on the plains underneath that same radioactive K/T boundary too?

EDIT: Let's say you were right, and that there was a single cataclysmic flood, and that whales could run to the highlands with the flowering plants, tortoise and sloth while the ichthyosaur, raptors and T-Rex were not mobile enough to escape the rising floodwater - surely there'd be at least *one* example in all the millions upon millions of fossils we've found to date of something being out of place? Perhaps one banana tree caught napping at the start of the flood? or one tortoise had bad timing when it made its way to the drinking hole? Why don't we find even one fossil out of place? Was this cataclysmic flood suffering from accute OCD?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟22,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Typical creationist "logic."

P1: Jesus based some of His preaching on the creation stories of Genesis.

P2: He wouldn't have done so unless He agreed with me about the genre determination of those stories.

C: Therefore, He agrees with me about the genre determination of those stories.

Oooor it could be that I am trying to read the Bible as it was intended and don't feel I have to defend it by bending it to fit "comealonglately" popular opinions. I believe it stands or falls all on its own with no help from me.

Typically a literal narrative is easily spotted because it says this happened "then" this happened. An analogy usually says this thing is "like" this. Or a story with a symbolic meaning starts out saying something to the effect of "Once upon a time," or "there once was" and then it ends the story by summarizing the moral idea being taught. Does the Bible contain analogies and symbolic stories? Of course it does, and they are very easily spotted because they follow this literary style.

However in the first seven days of creation the word "then" is used 11 times. This is our first clue that this was intended to be taken as a literal narrative and not poetic or figurative. The word "day" is used in its description. This happened "then" this happened. That word as you probably know is the Hebrew word (yom). But did you know it appears over 2000 times in the old Testament and almost always means a literal 24 hour period of time. The author of Genesis used this word to mean 24 hours 359 other times. So my question then is why would he have meant something completely different in Genesis chapter one?

Can the word mean something other than a 24 hour day? Of course it can. However it is the only word that can mean a literal 24 hour day. So why didn't the author use several other Hebrew words that mean long periods of time if that was what he meant? Then if that isn’t enough it seems as if the author wanted us to be clear on what he meant by adding in the phrase "evening and morning were the X day." A Jewish day started in the evening and it uses terms associated with a literal 24 hour period of time which implies that was the author’s intent.

The same author then uses the concept of a literal 24 hour period in the book of Exodus (20:8-11) when giving us the ten commandments. He tells the Jewish people that God worked on six days and rested on the seventh and commanded them to do likewise. Obviously he didn’t intend for them to only rest every seventh great era of time.

Jesus attributed the book of Genesis and Exodus to Moses and said that they were the fundamental beliefs we need to grasp before ever believing in Him. (John 5:47) One of the beliefs, Jesus said, was about the beginning. He describes God making the man and the woman just as Moses had told us He did. (Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4) Other New Testament writers refer to the Genesis creation over 200 times. Not one of them ever implied it was only an allegory.

So friend its not a case of my logic or my opinion or anything else. It’s a case of what the Bible said and clearly meant and rather or not you are going to believe it.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Is this what you are looking for? This is representative of the common ancestor of the zebra, the hipparion, the sinohippus, and the donkey.

6horse-dawn-NHMLA3784x.jpg


Was it this exact fossil? Probably not. Maybe his brother was the ancestor of all. Maybe his distant cousin. Maybe a distant member of the same species. Maybe a member of the same genus. Maybe a member of a closely related genus, but quite likely it was this genus, hyracotherium.

But at any rate, some creature closely related to this four-toed, fox sized, nut and leaf eater became the ancestor of all those different species and genera, including the modern horse.

That what you are looking for?

Evidence that what you claim is true. How do you know that is the common ancestor? If it is, that doesn't prove common ancestry between men and spiders. Let's just for argument sake say your right. It's still a member of the horse family. Just like the wolf is a member of the dig family and the bobcat a member of the cat family. It does not show evidence of a common ancestor of men and fish or birds and worms.

But again the claim you make is assumed. You have no evidence that the creature actually is the common ancestor of horses and zebras. You have no evidence that it split at some point to become them. In fact you have no evidence from where it came from itself.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
You seem to be implying that the Bible is not valid when it comes to it's description of Creation. If that is true then we should toss the entire thing out because that renders all of it invalid. My contention is that if any of it is true it is all true and if any false all is false. In Romans 1:20 God challenges us to prove His existence through the study of science. I have taken that challenge up about 27 years ago and yet to find any actual scientific evidence that it conflicts with. Not only this the Bible agrees with all of known history. Not only this, within its pages from Genesis to Revelation one cannot find a single true inconsistency. Not only this, the icing on the cake is that it contains hundreds of highly specific prophecies and is 100% prophetically accurate. This is what I call the SHIP test. Science, History, Inconsistency, and Prophecy. An all knowing all powerful God would not fail in a single one of these four areas. And the Bible not only passes, but in many cases it surpasses the test demonstrating it to be divine rather than human in origin. So contrary to your claim that it is a dead issue it is very much alive and well my friend.

Yes and it's only a fear issue when men have chosen to disbelieve what the Bible clearly states and instead follow a man made theory that directly contradicts what the Bible teaches. It's kind of the same thing when science teaches that ressurrection is impossible. We don't dismiss that as believers even though science says it's false. But we will dismiss creation. I don't get it. Creation has been taught and believed since the beginning of Christianity. Now because man says evolution is true, Christians jump on the bandwagon.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Oooor it could be that I am trying to read the Bible as it was intended and don't feel I have to defend it by bending it to fit "comealonglately" popular opinions. I believe it stands or falls all on its own with no help from me.

Typically a literal narrative is easily spotted because it says this happened "then" this happened. An analogy usually says this thing is "like" this. Or a story with a symbolic meaning starts out saying something to the effect of "Once upon a time," or "there once was" and then it ends the story by summarizing the moral idea being taught. Does the Bible contain analogies and symbolic stories? Of course it does, and they are very easily spotted because they follow this literary style.

However in the first seven days of creation the word "then" is used 11 times. This is our first clue that this was intended to be taken as a literal narrative and not poetic or figurative. The word "day" is used in its description. This happened "then" this happened. That word as you probably know is the Hebrew word (yom). But did you know it appears over 2000 times in the old Testament and almost always means a literal 24 hour period of time. The author of Genesis used this word to mean 24 hours 359 other times. So my question then is why would he have meant something completely different in Genesis chapter one?

Can the word mean something other than a 24 hour day? Of course it can. However it is the only word that can mean a literal 24 hour day. So why didn't the author use several other Hebrew words that mean long periods of time if that was what he meant? Then if that isn’t enough it seems as if the author wanted us to be clear on what he meant by adding in the phrase "evening and morning were the X day." A Jewish day started in the evening and it uses terms associated with a literal 24 hour period of time which implies that was the author’s intent.

The same author then uses the concept of a literal 24 hour period in the book of Exodus (20:8-11) when giving us the ten commandments. He tells the Jewish people that God worked on six days and rested on the seventh and commanded them to do likewise. Obviously he didn’t intend for them to only rest every seventh great era of time.

Jesus attributed the book of Genesis and Exodus to Moses and said that they were the fundamental beliefs we need to grasp before ever believing in Him. (John 5:47) One of the beliefs, Jesus said, was about the beginning. He describes God making the man and the woman just as Moses had told us He did. (Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4) Other New Testament writers refer to the Genesis creation over 200 times. Not one of them ever implied it was only an allegory.

So friend its not a case of my logic or my opinion or anything else. It’s a case of what the Bible said and clearly meant and rather or not you are going to believe it.
That's fine, you are free to believe what you like about it. But you don't own the Bible and your beliefs about it aren't necessarily truer or superior or normative for other Christians. If it wasn't for the political aspect, nobody would care what you believed or try to talk you out of it, any more than we care that Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat or that Mormons wear funny underwear.

Consider this, with respect to your "comealonglately" slur: There are around two billion Christians in the world. Some of them are opposed to evolution and some not, but only you "Bible believers" feel seriously threatened by it. Why do you think that is? Do you really think a Christian group like the Copts, say, who have hardly had a new theological idea since Jesus lived in Egypt, have bent the Bible to conform to "comealonglately" popular opinions?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.