Genesis 1 is to be taken literaly - it is the only logical option

[GodLovesCats]

Evolution is not just about common ancestors.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why do you refuse to show me PROOF that what what Collin Patterson said is true? If you can't do so, he is a liar.

Can you PROVE that all that Jesus Said in Scripture is TRUE? (no, you cannot)
Does that mean that Jesus is, heaven forbid, a liar?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why do you keep insisting science itself is a sin to drive people away from God, not provable, and a myth with no factual support?

God Says So in His Word.
I agree with God and His Word.

The 'science' that is true, is not of the same character at all as the science of the world. But the world rejected the truth long long ago, and always does. Thus the science of the world, that tricked multitudes, does not comply with truth nor with God.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Evolution is not just about common ancestors.

It is a hodge-podge of false teachings all associated with each other in various ways. Not just one mistake, but many all at once, all together, opposed to Yahuweh and contrary to His Word and an enemy of the people following Jesus (actually an enemy of all people ) ....

 

[rjs330]

Evolution is not just about common ancestors.

We know that. NO one here is arguing against evolution of a certain kind of creature. I challenge you to find someone who says a creature cannot and never has adapted in order to survive.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I challenge you to find someone who says a creature cannot and never has adapted in order to survive.

This happening is not at all evolution, nor even ever slightly related to anything pertaining to the false teachings of evolution.

 

[solid_core]

God Says So in His Word.
I agree with God and His Word.

The 'science' that is true, is not of the same character at all as the science of the world. But the world rejected the truth long long ago, and always does. Thus the science of the world, that tricked multitudes, does not comply with truth nor with God.

There is no "science of the world", because scientists can be both Christians and non-Christians. Science does not discriminate by religion.

Its like saying "the car of the world".

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is no "science of the world", because scientists can be both Christians and non-Christians. Science does not discriminate by religion.

"Science of the world" is by both Christians and non-Christians who disagree with (and oppose) God.

True science , if it actually exists, agrees with God.

 

[solid_core]

"Science of the world" is by both Christians and non-Christians who disagree with (and oppose) God.

True science , if it actually exists, agrees with God.

True science is science that is based on evidence, was peer-reviewed and is still giving the same results when the same steps are repeated.

It cannot be against God, because it would be truth against truth.

Its like saying that gravity is against God.

 

[rjs330]

For those who believe Genesis shouldn't be taken literally because Genesis 1&2 are differing accounts of creation, the problem is liberal theology. The vast number of liberal theologians are non believers. They really don't understand the scriptures. They find ways to discredit scriptures and make them sound just like any other ancient book. Full of mythology and interesting stories to proclaim a non existent God. They use Genesis as an example.

The problem is they aren't looking very closely. Here is an example. The claim is that Genesis 2 says man was created before the animals. However that is not the case. The Hebrew wording for the text is that God "had created" the animals. It's a pluperfect tense which is a tense that has already occurred. So no, Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1.

I studied under a Doctor who specialized in ancient Hebrew. He traveled all over as a consultant for translating ancient Hebrew texts. He was clear that Genesis 2 did not contradict 1 because of the language.

I know that won't matter to some, because they are such solid believers in evolution from a common ancestor that they will refuse to trust scripture over the science they have been taught. They want to believe evolutionary science is right, but also don't want to believe that scripture is wrong. Therefore in order to reconcile their faith with science, scripture is relegated to allegory or a type of mythological story in places so they can still believe in both.

 

[solid_core]

For those who believe Genesis shouldn't be taken literally because Genesis 1&2 are differing accounts of creation, the problem is liberal theology. The vast number of liberal theologians are non believers. They really don't understand the scriptures. They find ways to discredit scriptures and make them sound just like any other ancient book. Full of mythology and interesting stories to proclaim a non existent God. They use Genesis as an example.

The problem is they aren't looking very closely. Here is an example. The claim is that Genesis 2 says man was created before the animals. However that is not the case. The Hebrew wording for the text is that God "had created" the animals. It's a pluperfect tense which is a tense that has already occurred. So no, Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1.

I studied under a Doctor who specialized in ancient Hebrew. He traveled all over as a consultant for translating ancient Hebrew texts. He was clear that Genesis 2 did not contradict 1 because of the language.

I know that won't matter to some, because they are such solid believers in evolution from a common ancestor that they will refuse to trust scripture over the science they have been taught. They want to believe evolutionary science is right, but also don't want to believe that scripture is wrong. Therefore in order to reconcile their faith with science, scripture is relegated to allegory or a type of mythological story in places so they can still believe in both.

If you do not believe Scriptures when they say that pi = 3, that there is Leviathan in the sea, or that you think in your kidneys, why do you take it so precisely when it talks about mythological beginnings?

 

[rjs330]

This happening is not at all evolution, nor even ever slightly related to anything pertaining to the false teachings of evolution.

Since evolution is a man made word and it's used to describe creatures adapting, such as the finch growing stronger wings in order to fly longer distances than their ancestors and that trait is passed down to their offspring, I am willing to compromise and say that if they want to call that evolution, then have at it.

That in no way shape or form is evidence that we all evolved from a common ancestor. Or that one type of creature can evolve into something else. Such as a lizard evolving feathers to turn into a bird.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Since evolution is a man made word and it's used to describe creatures adapting, such as the finch growing stronger wings in order to fly longer distances than their ancestors and that trait is passed down to their offspring, I am willing to compromise and say that if they want to call that evolution, then have at it.

Without getting more technical, it seems "evolution" entails a lot more than just saying creatures adapt, and the concept , ungodly as it is, and opposed to what God Says in His Word,
includes ways of happening outside of God's Declared Plan and Purpose,
and is used for persuading little children with reasons not to honor their parents nor trust them. (at least the nazis in Germany did this with the false teachings of evolution - and planned within three generations to totally dis-associate babies/ children from any parental ties that were not helpful to the "state" ) .
i.e. the concepts and development of the false teachings of evolution was not and is not innocent at all.

 

[RTP76]

This happening is not at all evolution, nor even ever slightly related to anything pertaining to the false teachings of evolution.

You are correct. As per Dr. James Tour on evolution:

But evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs over time, and the theory of universal common descent (Common descent - Wikipedia)
Source: James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

Per God's word:
"So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind." Genesis 1:21

"And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind." Genesis 1:24


These 'kinds' are what God created, per His word. What is observable from science is that adaptation and variation within these kinds does occur, but not so far as to suggest that God just created a single living organism and then left it to spin off into every different kind of life that exists. That has never been observed. It is apparent from God's word that He created variety (kinds... plural). Further, creating new body plans would require new information, but it stands to reason that God already put the information into each kind, uniquely suited for that kind, allowing it to adapt to its environment.

It is wrong to say that because adaptation is true, therefore the entire theory of evolution (which includes the theory of universal common descent) is also true. They are not the same--the latter is not true.

J. Tour is not a proponent for macroevolution as it is not supported scientifically. For those on both sides of the fence, the following videos are enlightening (note that these focus more so on the origin of life topic - different than evolution, but in the article I sourced from above, J. Tour makes his position clear on macroevolution):

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

True science is science that is based on evidence, was peer-reviewed and is still giving the same results when the same steps are repeated.

It cannot be against God, because it would be truth against truth.

Its like saying that gravity is against God.

A lot of science is claimed to be by evidence, and is false and is deceptive totally.
This is because MEN ARE DECEPTIVE (sinners). (and are mostly against God, and opposed to the truth).

 

[solid_core]

A lot of science is claimed to be by evidence, and is false and is deceptive totally.
This is because MEN ARE DECEPTIVE (sinners). (and are mostly against God, and opposed to the truth).

Thats why its peer-reviewed and must be repeatable by other labs, not just by the one that discovered it.

These mechanisms are exactly to exclude false and deceptive "science" discoveries.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Thats why its peer-reviewed and must be repeatable by other labs, not just by the one that discovered it.

These mechanisms are exactly to exclude false and deceptive "science" discoveries.

hmmm.

Let's examine this a little bit.

"Peer-reviewed"..... WHO does the reviewing ??

"These mechanisms" .... perhaps they are said to exlude false and deceptive "science" discoveries",
but they did not work for the last 500 years.

Why would they start working that way (better?) now ?

 

[rjs330]

Without getting more technical, it seems "evolution" entails a lot more than just saying creatures adapt, and the concept , ungodly as it is, and opposed to what God Says in His Word,
includes ways of happening outside of God's Declared Plan and Purpose,
and is used for persuading little children with reasons not to honor their parents nor trust them. (at least the nazis in Germany did this with the false teachings of evolution - and planned within three generations to totally dis-associate babies/ children from any parental ties that were not helpful to the "state" ) .
i.e. the concepts and development of the false teachings of evolution was not and is not innocent at all.

Absolutely and thats why evolution from a common ancestor is bunk. It absolutely is used to discredit the Bible and Christianity in general. And it saddens me when believers agree with it and gives unbelievers further reason to disbelieve in God. They say "see, even believers don't believe the Bible."

 

[rjs330]

If you do not believe Scriptures when they say that pi = 3, that there is Leviathan in the sea, or that you think in your kidneys, why do you take it so precisely when it talks about mythological beginnings?

Do you really think the Bible was trying to give the factor of pi?
How do you know there wasn't a Leviathan? Do you even know what a Leviathan is?
Jesus said, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.' Do you really believe he thought that the heart was where that came from?
Do you think God is a chicken?
How about a door?


There is much to be learned here.

 

[GodLovesCats]

God Says So in His Word. I agree with God and His Word.

The 'science' that is true, is not of the same character at all as the science of the world. But the world rejected the truth long long ago, and always does. Thus the science of the world, that tricked multitudes, does not comply with truth nor with God.

Where does God say in His word science cannot be proven? If you can't show me that, you are wrong.