That's not even close to what he does; and I'll say this again:Not unlike what every other creationist here does, really. I have yet to see two creationists agree in the same "version" of creation. Yet, every single one of them claims their version is "the truth".
This is twice you've accused me of saying this, VS.
The first time you said it, I requested a link; and I don't recall you responding.
Now you've said it again, and I'm not going to request a link, but I am going to request you cease and desist.
The next time you say it, I'll turn it over to administration.
Am I clear on this?
That's not even close to what he does; and I'll say this again:
If it bothers you, you can go to church and observe otherwise.
Incorrect.But for the record, you do think they spoke English and wrote the original Bible in English (which is not KJV1611), and then it was translated to Hebrew, correct?
And you let that concern you, as if it's a stone in your shoe?I do go to church, have been to many, and I will say this again, every pastor has his own version of creation, and they all present it as "the truth". And more often than not, the members of the church have slightly different versions, all (according to them) are "the truth".
Incorrect.
My believe ... (at the risk of correcting you, which I've supposedly never done before) ... is that the original autographs from Genesis 1 to the Tower of Babel were written in English.
In other words, Adam wrote Genesis 1 & 2 in English; Seth wrote Genesis 3 & 4 in English; Noah wrote Genesis 5-9 in English; Shem wrote Genesis 10 in English; then Abraham wrote Genesis 11-25 in Hebrew.
(Something like that.)
Moses then edited the entire book of Genesis (into Hebrew), and that's why Genesis is titled, The First Book of Moses.
I really think the problem boils down to this:Why does the "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure from Creation.com confuse the meaning of "evolution"? Why would a Young Earth Creationist ministry wish to expose their "science knowledge" in this way?
Most of the questions deal with topics which have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Why? Is it scientific ignorance? Or dishonesty? Very shrewd propaganda technique?
15 questions for evolutionists
I really think the problem boils down to this:
"Evolutionists ALWAYS piggyback on the idea along the implicative lines that abiogenesis (what other option is there for those who do not subscribe to the idea of intelligence creating intelligence?) got the proverbial organic ball rolling. Therefore, the two have become paired whether evolutionists want to deal with that or not. The fact that evolutionists disavow any need to solve the problem of where life originated does not mean they do not have that problem.
Can any evolutionist tell me WHY answering the question of where we came from isn't of the utmost importance if one insists upon claiming that all the diversity of life came from that one mysterious ancestor?
Can any evolutionist tell me HOW that doesn't make a difference for the ToE of whether that question ever gets answered?
Can any evolutionist tell me HOW that doesn't make a difference for the ToE of whether that question ever gets answered?
I really think the problem boils down to this:
"Evolutionists ALWAYS piggyback on the idea along the implicative lines that abiogenesis.........
In other words, when faced with a problem which we can't answer, we limit the range of questioning. We invent a version of God that doesn't appear anywhere else other than in our desperate attempt at validity and say that particular god started things in motion then went golfing for the next five billion years while everything developed on its on. And then they say we make stuff up.Yes. Because evolution is only the science of how life diversifies after it already existed.
Hey, it's your lie, you tell it.It doesn't matter to evolution how it started, just that it DID.
You don't believe in God. You're an atheist. That means you have NO explanation for the origination of anything, much less everything.Yes, God could have started it.
Some believe the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't comprise a scientific theory.Some believe that he did start it, then used evolution to diversify it.
Actually it goes to the central theme of our existence. Science has proven that everything can't come from nothing. Science has proved that life cannot come from no life. Science has never documented a mutation inventing new genetic material and encoding it into the reproductive systems. The so-called driving forces of evolution aren't common, but in fact are so rare they can't even be studied. In short, evolution falls short as a scientific theory, and is more of a religion.The fact that we don't know how life started has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not.
Atheists latch on to evolution so that they have something to point to when they deny the overwhelming evidence of God.Creationists insist on latching abiogenesis onto evolution so that they have something they can point to which science can't explain, yet.
In other words, when faced with a problem which we can't answer, we limit the range of questioning.
In other words, when faced with a problem which we can't answer, we limit the range of questioning. We invent a version of God that doesn't appear anywhere else other than in our desperate attempt at validity and say that particular god started things in motion then went golfing for the next five billion years while everything developed on its on. And then they say we make stuff up.
Hey, it's your lie, you tell it.
You don't believe in God. You're an atheist. That means you have NO explanation for the origination of anything, much less everything.
Some believe the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't comprise a scientific theory.
Actually it goes to the central theme of our existence. Science has proven that everything can't come from nothing. Science has proved that life cannot come from no life. Science has never documented a mutation inventing new genetic material and encoding it into the reproductive systems. The so-called driving forces of evolution aren't common, but in fact are so rare they can't even be studied. In short, evolution falls short as a scientific theory, and is more of a religion.
Atheists latch on to evolution so that they have something to point to when they deny the overwhelming evidence of God.
In other words, when faced with a problem which we can't answer, we limit the range of questioning.
Well, given that your first statement was nonsense, you do make stuff up. You could try getting things right, but hey, that's just me.We invent a version of God that doesn't appear anywhere else other than in our desperate attempt at validity and say that particular god started things in motion then went golfing for the next five billion years while everything developed on its on. And then they say we make stuff up.
It is not a lie.Hey, it's your lie, you tell it.
Not knowing something is fine. There is no use in pretending you know something when you do not. That only breeds ignorance.You don't believe in God. You're an atheist. That means you have NO explanation for the origination of anything, much less everything.
Nobody said that believing God started evolution is a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory though, regardless of the starting point.Some believe the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't comprise a scientific theory.
You were already corrected on these assertions, yet you keep repeating them. Why do you not learn?Actually it goes to the central theme of our existence. Science has proven that everything can't come from nothing. Science has proved that life cannot come from no life. Science has never documented a mutation inventing new genetic material and encoding it into the reproductive systems. The so-called driving forces of evolution aren't common, but in fact are so rare they can't even be studied. In short, evolution falls short as a scientific theory, and is more of a religion.
[/quote]Atheists latch on to evolution so that they have something to point to when they deny the overwhelming evidence of God.
Wrong and nonsensical. Every scientific theory only explains a limited amount of the world. Nobody ranges the limit of questioning, it is only that each answer is limited to a single process.
Well, given that your first statement was nonsense, you do make stuff up. You could try getting things right, but hey, that's just me.
It is not a lie.
Not knowing something is fine. There is no use in pretending you know something when you do not. That only breeds ignorance.
Nobody said that believing God started evolution is a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory though, regardless of the starting point.
You were already corrected on these assertions, yet you keep repeating them. Why do you not learn?
No, atheists are atheists because of the lack of evidence of God. If evolution were not true, this wouldn't suddenly validate the existence of God.
LOL. Funny how we came up with most of the same answers. Too bad creationists can't agree on what they tout.
But that's just because the black helicopters will come if we don't answer in unison
Anyway, a job well done, brownie points with the atheist hive mind. Now I only have to catch a kitten for breakfast tomorrow morning and I'm done for the day.
As a Bible-affirming Christ-follower, I'm continually embarrassed by the fact that so many of the atheists I deal with (both professionally and non-professionally) are so much more HONEST than so many of the young earth creationist leaders (and far too many of their followers.) It is a disgrace that "Lying for Jesus" has become such a common theme that it brings up something like 380,000 hits on Google.
My Christian brethren: dishonesty does NOT help your cause. Nobody is fooled when someone lies about basic definitions and the evidence (both scientific and scriptural.)