Why do fellow creationists use natural explanations to unnatural events?

geoant said:

I don't feel bad. I appreciate feed back. But what I see with my eyes = fantasy.... right in the feels!

Click to expand...

Ironic. 'Seeing with your eyes' doesn't hold up if it contradicts scripture...and as far as I know, the only thing scientific that conflicts with the bible is literally just the first chapter of Genesis as far as I'm aware. Which wasn't even always taken as a literal event, but a poetic description of God forming the world.

Second, there is no such thing as the supernatural if you have God. If God created everything, then he is part of our 'natural'--just an aspect we cannot yet understand. It's not unexplainable, and I very well expect that we'll understand one day once we've died and joined Him in the afterlife.

Third, what exactly if God had used something like evolution or a more gradual-approach to creating the earth? Would you have any problems with it? As I see it, the creationist or the scientific view are both valid; but none of us possess enough knowledge to assuredly put one over the other. On one hand, allegories and parables were very popular in the bible(just look at Jesus)so it isn't unfathomable that, us being so primitive in our understanding of the world around us, could not possibly have understood God if He simply said 'So I took these things and made 'atoms', and then I arranged them like this and..' etc. In addition to this, the bible was written in what are generally considered two 'dead languages' so it's a possibility on our end that we're mistranslating something.

The video in the original post asked the question "how did rock layers build in opposition to gravity?".

The simple answer is that they didn't. They formed, much like we see sediment depositing over areas today. The sediment settles, becomes lithified and hardens, then is uplifted by tectonic orogenesis.

Here is a video for children that explains:


Dr binocs describes plate tectonics at 45 seconds and mountain building at 2:00 seconds in:


I'm case anyone was curious how layers are lifted against gravity after having already been deposited and hardened into rock.

theoneandonlypencil said:

Third, what exactly if God had used something like evolution or a more gradual-approach to creating the earth? Would you have any problems with it?

Click to expand...

If God had used evolution the Bible would indicate it. The Bible only talks about special creation and that only man is made in his image, that the creation of animals was separate and that there are four different types of flesh.
1 Corinthians 15:39
Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

Since I take scripture above all man-made wisdom than no. God didn't. If scripture indicated evolution than of course I would agree with it. Why do you think we are against evolution in the first place? Because it contradicts scripture. Evolution is man's attempt to understand things without God. If you want to try and place God into this man-made Godless theory and turn scripture into some allegorical pretzel is your own affair, but we believe it as written.

coffee4u said:

If God had used evolution the Bible would indicate it. The Bible only talks about special creation and that only man is made in his image, that the creation of animals was separate and that there are four different types of flesh.
1 Corinthians 15:39
Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

Since I take scripture above all man-made wisdom than no. God didn't. If scripture indicated evolution than of course I would agree with it. Why do you think we are against evolution in the first place? Because it contradicts scripture. Evolution is man's attempt to understand things without God. If you want to try and place God into this man-made Godless theory and turn scripture into some allegorical pretzel is your own affair, but we believe it as written.

Click to expand...

The Bible is our guide to God's words on how we are to live our lives, and the history that accompanies our beliefs--it's not a science book. Interesting how nobody bats an eye at other areas of science such as how everything is made from atoms, how energy works, how our bodies function, how electricity and heat are formed, etc. Scripture hardly ever indicates any of that past the basics of 'it happens'.

Evolution is not man's attempt to understand things without God. Without God, there would be nothing to evolve in the first place. Evolution is a very complex and intricate topic, and it does NOT explain the origins of life, morals, sentience, etc.

Furthermore, believe as you will...but God is not the author of confusion. The foundation on which the Bible has been written is absolute, but I'm not going to act as if there weren't intentional changes made when translating it(lest we forget William Tyndale who was burned at the stake for translating the bible into English so people could read the word for themselves)or deciding what is and isn't canon(let's also not forget that Martin Luther, God bless his soul, almost foolishly removed the books of Jude, James, Hebrew and Revelation from the canonical scriptures). Science is just an observation and understanding of what is around us; I believe it is one of the ultimate ways to truly witness the intricacies of God's work firsthand, almost like examining fingerprints left all around us.

Lastly, not all of the early church fathers even believed the first five books in the bible were meant to be taken as literal interpretations. Saint Augustine of Hippo is a fine example of one such man.

SIDE NOTE: Ah yes, the Corinthians verse. That's even funnier of an example--you're almost using it in a way to disprove evolution by saying 'It lists humans as different flesh'...when it also lists birds and animals as being separate. Furthermore, reading it in context I find these verses;

"37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body."

Let me be clear; evolution does not say we evolved from monkeys. It simply implies we all come from the same origin of life--the same 'breath of life' which is indeed very biblical of a concept(the word for 'soul' in the original language is closer to 'life', which is a language not exclusively used for humans). Consider this verse;

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 New International Version (NIV)
19 Surely the fate of human beings; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

Surely, evolution combined with biblical records would presume we all come from the same breath of life, yet from distinct 'classes' or 'kinds'. Specifically, original 'kinds' that would later create more types of their 'kind'. I personally think somewhere along the line, God separated man from these basic classes(as he made them in his image)but using the same 'material', if you will. This explains why we have sentience and far more advanced processes of thought and emotion as opposed to our animal friends...and why we're moral, above all else.

Young earth theories, or Noah flood resculpting theories have a problem. If we take any process over 6,000 years old, like annual layers of snow in the ant artic, we are wrong.
Or take chalk or limestone deposited miles thick that took only months to build. Or continental drift between Africa and South America that is older than this period. It needs to be coherent. What I have seen is absurd.

If people want to be flat earthers, fine but it's not the truth.

Antarctic ice core history goes back 800,000 years
It is possible to suggest things slowed down etc. but it is simpler to talk biblical metaphor of days of creation

God summarises the kingdom into a plant, to give us a framework, but it does not mean we are a plant literally....

geoant said:

apologies if I missed something.
I read your article on the beaches, and it is very interesting. And I do discuss this in my video, but that's why it is an hour long! Beach growth is mostly temporary and not stacking into layers. more importantly not alternating layers types. they can not explain the rock layers. they can explain sand. Skeletal fossils and animal tracks are not being petrified in beaches elongating a couple inches a year.

I can show you 95% of the earth is eroding away. if you look at your article you can see the rivers dumping their inland sediments into the ocean. I can not locate a new layer forming anywhere. (Asside from volcanic ash. But be honest, that is not forming anywhere as fast as the rest is eroding away.)








from what I have read, the deep deep layers are almost exclusively this, but the higher layers you can see with your eyes are rarely this. unfortunately I do not have time tonight to find a citation on this discussion. But from the photo examples, and my personal examples, this has been true. If I was incorrect on the qty, still how can the layers that are not ash stack (naturally) perfectly on top a terrain covered by volcanic ash? And with out damaging the fragile ash layer!






basically you are saying that the area is shrinking in size and growing in size at the same time? Aside from that, the area would be required to grow in a bowl. Was America a massive bowl in the past? where are the ancient mile high walls that held the historical layers? What eroded away as a source of the material to create our mile thick layers? how big was that originally? how is this going to cause alternating layers, it has a single uphill source? how are animals going to fossilize intact at this speed. are feet prints going to get covered before they disappear? if you look at the ground, it is covered in rocks and pebbles. look at the stone structure that is being eroded. there are no rocks and pebbles in it. This photo looks like a view of everything eroding away.

Click to expand...

Did you watch Dr. binocs explanation for mountain building? See post #23.

When you're ready to respond to all of my words, feel free to do so. Otherwise we aren't going to go anywhere. There are several posts you haven't responded to such pad post number 8 (second half) 15, 16 and 23.

This is the second time you've just not responded to my words.

@geoant


Geo ant:
"Beach growth is mostly temporary and not stacking into layers. more importantly not alternating layers types. "

Re-read posts number 15 and 18. According to NASA's satellite imagery, some 28 percent of beaches are growing. That's about one in every three beaches that are growing in size as a product of sediment deposition.

Once we understand that many environments are being buried by sediment the next question is "how does the sediment form various layers of changing lithology?"

Rock types change with alterations in sea level, which are also observed. Beaches deposit sands. As you have seen, continental margins deposit silts and muds. Limestone largely consists of calcium carbonate deposits from shallow marine dwelling organisms. As sea level rises, once beaches become the new continental margins and the layers stack on top of one another.

If you're confused about how silts deposit on top of sand, understand that as sea level rises, it carries sand further inland and silt settles out on top of sand. Watch the below video and if you don't understand, feel free to ask about it.

And Marine regression and transgression can occur over and over and over and over again stacking one layer on top of another over and over and over and over again.

Further, As the elevation of the land changes as a product of orogenesis (rising) or subsidence (falling) you can continue to get Even more layers stacking one on top of the other. And these sequences can form in thousands of feet of thickness so long as that elevation change occurs as a product of origenesis or substance. And considering that bathypalegic seas extend several thousand feet in depth, and mountains extend several thousand feet in height, It is easy to see how sedimentary sequences can span 5 or 10 or 15,000 ft fairly easily.

Here is another short and simple video. Feel free to review this and Dr binocs.


Geoant: "basically you are saying that the area is shrinking in size and growing in size at the same time? "

Here is post #23, don't forget to watch Dr binocs explain how rocks rise against gravitation.
Why do fellow creationists use natural explanations to unnatural events?

Basically, during orogenesis, mountains build up, just as in the case of the himilayas (see post #23). Then when orogenesis ends, mountains slowly erode away. Don't forget to review Dr binocs educational video. I'm sure you can handle it.

geoant said:

Today 95% of the earth is eroding away. not growing this.

Click to expand...

This may be true above sea level but 75% of the earth's surface lies below sea level and that is where the eroded sediments from the land are headed.

coffee4u said:

Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

Click to expand...

So if you take this literally there is no aliens in existance that have flesh, nor fleshly demons nor angels ?
Or something ?

Also are birds and fish not considered animals then because they are mentioned separately ?

theoneandonlypencil said:

The Bible is our guide to God's words on how we are to live our lives, and the history that accompanies our beliefs--it's not a science book. Interesting how nobody bats an eye at other areas of science such as how everything is made from atoms, how energy works, how our bodies function, how electricity and heat are formed, etc. Scripture hardly ever indicates any of that past the basics of 'it happens'.

Click to expand...

I never said it was a science book-science is man's attempt to understand the world, the Bible is God's truth revealed.
If science falls within the Biblical framework, of course we don't 'bat an eye' because it is within the framework of known truth.

Evolution is not man's attempt to understand things without God. Without God, there would be nothing to evolve in the first place. Evolution is a very complex and intricate topic, and it does NOT explain the origins of life, morals, sentience, etc.

Click to expand...

You think an atheist or a humanist needs to believe in God to believe in evolution? You may be fitting God into it, but God is not a requirement in evolution for the vast majority of people nor will you find him in evolutionary texts. The whole theory is man made and fits neatly into a Godless world view that made itself through chance random processes.

Furthermore, believe as you will...but God is not the author of confusion. The foundation on which the Bible has been written is absolute, but I'm not going to act as if there weren't intentional changes made when translating it(lest we forget William Tyndale who was burned at the stake for translating the bible into English so people could read the word for themselves)or deciding what is and isn't canon(let's also not forget that Martin Luther, God bless his soul, almost foolishly removed the books of Jude, James, Hebrew and Revelation from the canonical scriptures). Science is just an observation and understanding of what is around us; I believe it is one of the ultimate ways to truly witness the intricacies of God's work firsthand, almost like examining fingerprints left all around us.

Click to expand...

So you feel Genesis is confusing? I think when it is read without thinking that man knows more than God in how things were made, that it is simple enough for a child to understand.
You can read the Torah instead if you wish, it still says God created over 6 days.
God will keep his word intact.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Science is man's attempt at understanding what is around us. It assumes certain things and when it's an experiment that can never be seen or repeated such as the beginning of life or evolition, it relies on an interpretation of the facts. No matter that the same facts can be interpreted in different ways, it's evolutions way or the highway in mainstream science. A fingerprint can be clearly observed, claims such as dinosaurs turned into birds cannot.

Lastly, not all of the early church fathers even believed the first five books in the bible were meant to be taken as literal interpretations. Saint Augustine of Hippo is a fine example of one such man.

Click to expand...

I don't follow 'church fathers', I only follow God and the Bible. Saint Augustine was a fallible human being, no different to anyone else.

SIDE NOTE: Ah yes, the Corinthians verse. That's even funnier of an example--you're almost using it in a way to disprove evolution by saying 'It lists humans as different flesh'...when it also lists birds and animals as being separate. Furthermore, reading it in context I find these verses;

"37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body."

Click to expand...

I am using it to show that humans are separate from animals but also because it lists four kinds of flesh. Not 'animals' as a whole but rather four separate groups. Swimming creatures, flying creatures, land animals and people, each unique and separate.

What were you trying to show by the verses before?
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

Let me be clear; evolution does not say we evolved from monkeys. It simply implies we all come from the same origin of life--the same 'breath of life' which is indeed very biblical of a concept(the word for 'soul' in the original language is closer to 'life', which is a language not exclusively used for humans). Consider this verse;

Click to expand...

They believe we evolved from a primate which completely contradicts God's word in Genesis.
2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 New International Version (NIV)

Click to expand...

19 Surely the fate of human beings; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

Click to expand...

I am sure you know Ecclesiastes is not meant to be used that way.
Or are you saying you actually believe that you have no advantage over the animals? Last time I checked Lutherans believed in salvation by grace through Jesus and in heaven.

Surely, evolution combined with biblical records would presume we all come from the same breath of life, yet from distinct 'classes' or 'kinds'. Specifically, original 'kinds' that would later create more types of their 'kind'. I personally think somewhere along the line, God separated man from these basic classes(as he made them in his image)but using the same 'material', if you will. This explains why we have sentience and far more advanced processes of thought and emotion as opposed to our animal friends...and why we're moral, above all else.

Click to expand...

Evolution doesn't believe in a breath of life. They believe in big bang theories, that life came from non-life, that things mutated and changed over millions of years forming all the intricacies of life.

How do you combine the scripture which says God formed man out of the clay with evolution from a primate who gradually turned into a man? Where does original sin fit into this picture? Where does Adam fit into this? Jesus is the 'last Adam' and 'second man' because there was a first real man called Adam. He isn't second to an allegory.
Romans 5:12-21
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

There is not a single Bible verse that indicates that God used evolution. Which means you and others like you do not get this view from the Bible, you get it from evolutionary science. Which means you believe they are correct and that the scriptures are wrong. Jesus believed in creation so so will I.
Matthew 19
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,'

coffee4u said:

I never said it was a science book-science is man's attempt to understand the world, the Bible is God's truth revealed.
If science falls within the Biblical framework, of course we don't 'bat an eye' because it is within the framework of known truth.

Click to expand...

God didn't discuss atoms or particles, or the laws of gravity--yet we believe in them just the same, is my point.

coffee4u said:

You think an atheist or a humanist needs to believe in God to believe in evolution? You may be fitting God into it, but God is not a requirement in evolution for the vast majority of people nor will you find him in evolutionary texts. The whole theory is man made and fits neatly into a Godless world view that made itself through chance random processes.

Click to expand...

I think you need to stop injecting 'Godless' atheistic dogma into evolution where it does not belong. Charles Darwin's closest friend happened to be a Reverand in a local parish that he supported. In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted he did not know what was 'up there' so to say, and that his theory could indeed be proven wrong. Yet, you believe the loud militant-atheist minority that uses science as a scapegoat over the ones who invented the very premise of those scientific theories?

It does not matter if the theory is 'man made'. If we find that fire is hot, yet the bible says fire is cold, the bible nor science is wrong--our understanding of scripture is at fault.

coffee4u said:

So you feel Genesis is confusing? I think when it is read without thinking that man knows more than God in how things were made, that it is simple enough for a child to understand.
You can read the Torah instead if you wish, it still says God created over 6 days.
God will keep his word intact.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Click to expand...

Cheeky remark, but the child analogy doesn't exactly work when we're explicitly told to 'put away childish things'. I do not find genesis confusing, my point was that if scripture is in conflict with something that is very likely(but not for certain, as none can say)a reality, then it is our understanding of scripture that is at fault. It would also benefit you to know that the hebrew used for 'days' was not always used to describe a 24-hour long period, and that genesis itself, as I'm sure you know, has two conflicting creation accounts(conflicting because the second account speaks of the creation process in the wrong order entirely).

I do not think God is offended by us observing his work, and I believe it is well within our understanding.

coffee4u said:

Science is man's attempt at understanding what is around us. It assumes certain things and when it's an experiment that can never be seen or repeated such as the beginning of life or evolition, it relies on an interpretation of the facts. No matter that the same facts can be interpreted in different ways, it's evolutions way or the highway in mainstream science. A fingerprint can be clearly observed, claims such as dinosaurs turned into birds cannot.

Click to expand...

If you knew anything about what you were talking of, you'd know that for 1) Evolution, as I said, does NOT make any claim to the origin of life and 2) Dinosaurs did not turn into birds. Birds are closely related to the family known as 'dinosaurs', and we can see this within their bone structure similar to how we can observe tigers and cats to be of similar families.

coffee4u said:

I don't follow 'church fathers', I only follow God and the Bible. Saint Augustine was a fallible human being, no different to anyone else.

Click to expand...

Considering the Church fathers interpreted and handled most of the traditions you and I hold steadfast to this very day, I'd be very careful in insinuating you know better than they. What, do you think the bible simply fell from the sky, already scripted in perfect, accurate english fully compiled? The bible doesn't even mention the bible, because it didn't exist! It was scriptures that were preserved in order to record our history, God's word, and to teach it to others via the church. I mean on a technicality, all you really need to be a good Christian is faith in Jesus Christ and the 10 commandments.

coffee4u said:

I am using it to show that humans are separate from animals but also because it lists four kinds of flesh. Not 'animals' as a whole but rather four separate groups. Swimming creatures, flying creatures, land animals and people, each unique and separate.

What were you trying to show by the verses before?
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

Click to expand...

Not going to reiterate my point if you didn't understand it the first time.

coffee4u said:

They believe we evolved from a primate which completely contradicts God's word in Genesis.
2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Click to expand...

We share a common ancestor with primates--that is it. Anything more is gratuitous guessing on scientists' end due to the very few similarities we share. More than likely, as I said, we were separated from animals somewhere along the line; likely by divine intervention. I don't know why you're so obsessed with the humans vs animals point, considering biblically the only difference is that we have God's likeness(the modern equivalent of a 'soul')and animals do not. We all have blood, flesh bone and organs...so organically, we're all pretty much the same.

Also, the verse you referenced is in conflict with the first-chapter creation account.

coffee4u said:

I am sure you know Ecclesiastes is not meant to be used that way.
Or are you saying you actually believe that you have no advantage over the animals? Last time I checked Lutherans believed in salvation by grace through Jesus and in heaven.

Click to expand...

First off, I have no idea what salvation by grace has to do with my example--my example had to do with the 'all come from dust, and all turn to dust' segment. 'All come from dust' being symbolic of the breath of life God gave to ALL living things; not exclusively man, as all things are created the same way. Being a living, God-created creature and having sentience/a 'soul' are totally different things.

coffee4u said:

Evolution doesn't believe in a breath of life. They believe in big bang theories, that life came from non-life, that things mutated and changed over millions of years forming all the intricacies of life.

Click to expand...

You must still be living in the 90's, because the big bang theory model is not as popular as you think it is. And I will reiterate for the third, and final time; science DOES NOT make any absolute claims to the origin of life, or even the universe for that matter. All we have are models and theories; that's it.

coffee4u said:

How do you combine the scripture which says God formed man out of the clay with evolution from a primate who gradually turned into a man? Where does original sin fit into this picture? Where does Adam fit into this? Jesus is the 'last Adam' and 'second man' because there was a first real man called Adam. He isn't second to an allegory.
Romans 5:12-21
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

Click to expand...

First off, if we assume evolution to be true, it's undoubtedly that Adam and Eve were the first of 'their kind'--in other words, sentient, soul-baring humans. I'm fairly certain that if original sin were to be taken as an allegory, it would be that man, upon achieving the 'knowledge' of good and evil(sentience, in our case--as animals do not possess the knowledge of good and evil)it tainted us with what is called the original sin. Second, you say Jesus isn't second to an allegory...when the term 'last Adam' itself is allegorical. Good job.

In any case, I also forgot to mention that with the recent studies in epigenetics(which is being led by a devout Christian convert, btw)evolution very well could have happened much faster and in a different way than we thought previously. Besides, do you really think a being that created time and space itself couldn't have just...you know, 'sped up' the process?

coffee4u said:

There is not a single Bible verse that indicates that God used evolution. Which means you and others like you do not get this view from the Bible, you get it from evolutionary science. Which means you believe they are correct and that the scriptures are wrong. Jesus believed in creation so so will I.
Matthew 19
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,'

Click to expand...

No, I believe that if God's physical creation(us and the world around us)ever comes into conflict with scripture, the scriptures are not wrong; we, in our interpretation, are wrong. As I've stated. I mean come now, what do you expect from a book that's been painstakingly translated...how many times again? Furthermore, we know that Jewish religion/tradition was being passed down orally faaaaar longer than the bible or any scripture had existed. I'm sure you've heard of the saying 'tell one person something, let it pass through a hundred more people...and when it gets back to you, it'll be nothing like what you originally said'.

I do absolutely believe in the divinity of scripture. But I do not believe in man's ability to uphold it properly at the expense of his own wants/needs.

Jonathan Walkerin said:

So if you take this literally there is no aliens in existance that have flesh, nor fleshly demons nor angels ?
Or something ?

Also are birds and fish not considered animals then because they are mentioned separately ?

Click to expand...

So that others are aware this is a Bible verse.1 Corinthians 15
39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

What do aliens -who are really demons- have to do with flesh and blood bodies?

Angels and demons are spirits, they do not have flesh.

Birds are considered to be 'flying creatures' and fish are 'swimming creatures'.

coffee4u said:

So that others are aware this is a Bible verse.1 Corinthians 15
39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

What do aliens -who are really demons- have to do with flesh and blood bodies?

Angels and demons are spirits, they do not have flesh.

Birds are considered to be 'flying creatures' and fish are 'swimming creatures'.

Click to expand...

They're also both 'creatures' with blood, organs, lungs and a pulse...are they not?

theoneandonlypencil said:

God didn't discuss atoms or particles, or the laws of gravity--yet we believe in them just the same, is my point.

Click to expand...

Because atoms and gravity do not destroy Biblical doctrine. There are no verses stating anything against atoms or gravity. The doctrine of original sin is a vital part of salvation and if you do not have a literal Adam who literally sinned so that a literal Jesus could come and be the second Adam, the whole thing falls apart.

I think you need to stop injecting 'Godless' atheistic dogma into evolution where it does not belong. Charles Darwin's closest friend happened to be a Reverand in a local parish that he supported. In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted he did not know what was 'up there' so to say, and that his theory could indeed be proven wrong. Yet, you believe the loud militant-atheist minority that uses science as a scapegoat over the ones who invented the very premise of those scientific theories?

Click to expand...

There is no God in evolutionary theory. It is secular science.

Am I supposed to be impressed by a revered? Who again is just a man and just as infallible as anyone else.

"he did not know what was up there" Exactly. A true man of God knows what is "up there" it is God.

It does not matter if the theory is 'man made'. If we find that fire is hot, yet the bible says fire is cold, the bible nor science is wrong--our understanding of scripture is at fault.

Click to expand...

Of course it matters when the Bible says differently. Gods breathed word versus man, who wasn't there, didn't see, does not know everything.
Why do you assume it is true?

The Bible does not say fire is cold.
Nobody saw the big bang, no one saw supposedly 1 cell creatures evolve into 2 or more, no one saw dinosaurs turn into birds or primates turn into man.
Fire, on the other hand, can be seen and experienced right now.

Cheeky remark, but the child analogy doesn't exactly work when we're explicitly told to 'put away childish things'. I do not find genesis confusing, my point was that if scripture is in conflict with something that is very likely(but not for certain, as none can say)a reality, then it is our understanding of scripture that is at fault. It would also benefit you to know that the hebrew used for 'days' was not always used to describe a 24-hour long period, and that genesis itself, as I'm sure you know, has two conflicting creation accounts(conflicting because the second account speaks of the creation process in the wrong order entirely).

Click to expand...

Scripture is not in conflict, you can find verses about creation through both the Old and the New Testaments, it is in harmony. It isn't in harmony with evolution because that is a man-made attempt to understand the world and it is wrong.
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness";

Childish ways is referring to immature ways of acting, to merely reading the milk rather than the meat of the word, it wasn't about coming in faith with an open heart like a child.

Matthew 18:2-4
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.


Yom, as used in Genesis with evening and morning and numbers always means a 24 hour day. The author's intention (probably Moses) was to convey literal days. This has already been debated many times. If you want to drag this up again I guess I can find my notes.

There are not two conflicting accounts. Again this has also been debated and I can find my notes on this as well if need be.
Genesis 1 gives you the details of what was made each day in order. Genesis 2 goes down to mankind's level and looks into the creation of the garden and in more detail and about how the animals and man had been made. They are the same account from a different angle. It is not in the wrong order, the order is not mentioned. You are not meant to take the order of creation from this. Mosses is talking about what had previously been made as he assumes everyone knows the order from Genesis 1.

I do not think God is offended by us observing his work, and I believe it is well within our understanding.

Click to expand...

I don't know what that is referring to. We are supposed to observe his work.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

If you knew anything about what you were talking of, you'd know that for 1) Evolution, as I said, does NOT make any claim to the origin of life and 2) Dinosaurs did not turn into birds. Birds are closely related to the family known as 'dinosaurs', and we can see this within their bone structure similar to how we can observe tigers and cats to be of similar families.

Click to expand...

Origin of life
Origin of life - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most experts agree that all life today evolved by common descent from a single primitive lifeform.[2] It is not known how this early form first lived, but scientists think it was a natural process which happened about 3,900 million years ago.

You can bet they are doing their best to discover this 'natural process'. God is not in this picture.

why-are-birds-the-only-surviving-dinosaurs
Why are birds the only surviving dinosaurs?

How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds
How Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs | Quanta Magazine

Origin of birds
The present scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs
Origin of birds - Wikipedia

Do you want more? Do you see God mentioned anywhere in any of those links?

Considering the Church fathers interpreted and handled most of the traditions you and I hold steadfast to this very day, I'd be very careful in insinuating you know better than they. What, do you think the bible simply fell from the sky, already scripted in perfect, accurate english fully compiled? The bible doesn't even mention the bible, because it didn't exist! It was scriptures that were preserved in order to record our history, God's word, and to teach it to others via the church. I mean on a technicality, all you really need to be a good Christian is faith in Jesus Christ and the 10 commandments.

They are no more or no less than fallible humans. They are not above you or I or anybody else. If what they said contradicts scripture they are as wrong as anybody else.

We can often be uplifted, edified and taught by good teachers, preachers and books, but they all must fall under the scrutiny of scripture, every last one of them. True teachers will reach for the Bible first, second, and always.

I am quite willing to use the Old King James version or the Torah; the meaning of creation does not change from 6 literal days.

I believe that God preserved his word and that when it says something literally happened-then it literally happened. If it's a parable, that is also quite clear, as is poetry that is also clear.

Not going to reiterate my point if you didn't understand it the first time.

Click to expand...

I have no clue what this was now.

We share a common ancestor with primates--that is it.

Click to expand...

You believe that -I do not.
God made Adam out of the clay and breathed into his nostrils creating the first man. He put Adam to sleep and made Eve from his rib. I am descended from those two people.
If you wish to believe you are descended from some primitive primate you are free to do so.

Anything more is gratuitous guessing on scientists' end due to the very few similarities we share. More than likely, as I said, we were separated from animals somewhere along the line; likely by divine intervention. I don't know why you're so obsessed with the humans vs animals point, considering biblically the only difference is that we have God's likeness(the modern equivalent of a 'soul')and animals do not. We all have blood, flesh bone and organs...so organically, we're all pretty much the same.

Click to expand...

Looking at similarities and saying 'similar means common ancestry' is their interpretation of the facts. I see similarities and say the same creator made everything out of the same materials. The facts didn't change, the interpretation did.
For sure we are all living beings that breath and eat and while we might look similar in some ways we are not the same. Only man is made in the image of God, only man can sin, only man can have faith in God or reject God.

Also, the verse you referenced is in conflict with the first-chapter creation account.

Click to expand...

Genesis 1 merely tells you that mankind was created on day 6. Genesis 2 goes down to mans level as I said before and shows you exactly how God created man. There is no contradiction. When you read the Gospels you will see different sides to the same story, or do you also view those as contradictory? You can't cherry-pick verses to believe in and disregard others. Either it is all true or none of it is true.

You must still be living in the 90's, because the big bang theory model is not as popular as you think it is. And I will reiterate for the third, and final time; science DOES NOT make any absolute claims to the origin of life, or even the universe for that matter. All we have are models and theories; that's it.

Click to expand...

My point was, science is looking for a natural process for the origins of life, they already assume it to be one, they do not seek after God.

First off, if we assume evolution to be true,

Click to expand...

9 out of 10 here assume that.

it's undoubtedly that Adam and Eve were the first of 'their kind'--in other words, sentient, soul-baring humans. I'm fairly certain that if original sin were to be taken as an allegory, it would be that man, upon achieving the 'knowledge' of good and evil(sentience, in our case--as animals do not possess the knowledge of good and evil)it tainted us with what is called the original sin.

Click to expand...

So you view some early man waking up one morning and finding himself sentient? Do you believe God came to him and offered him a choice? What was his one sin that caused physical and spiritual death?

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

You do realize in the creation that the world was without death (evolution requires millions of years of death) and that animals only ate plants? That sin is what caused death to enter the world. Spiritual and physical death. Which is also why death was required to save the world.

Second, you say Jesus isn't second to an allegory...when the term 'last Adam' itself is allegorical. Good job.

Click to expand...

The allegory exists because Adam was real-Jesus was real.
He isn't being likened to a fairy tale.
Adam brought it in sin and death- Jesus saves us from sin and death.

In any case, I also forgot to mention that with the recent studies in epigenetics(which is being led by a devout Christian convert, btw)evolution very well could have happened much faster and in a different way than we thought previously. Besides, do you really think a being that created time and space itself couldn't have just...you know, 'sped up' the process?

Click to expand...

God could have created anyway he chose, but the Bible clearly states that he created over 6 days.

What scripture do you have to back up your position? I will say you have none because your position does not come from scripture but science and as I asked above, why do you believe man's word (evolution) over God's? You believe in Jesus and science won't back up the virgin birth or the resurrection, so why not believe Genesis?

No, I believe that if God's physical creation(us and the world around us)ever comes into conflict with scripture, the scriptures are not wrong; we, in our interpretation, are wrong. As I've stated. I mean come now, what do you expect from a book that's been painstakingly translated...how many times again? Furthermore, we know that Jewish religion/tradition was being passed down orally faaaaar longer than the bible or any scripture had existed. I'm sure you've heard of the saying 'tell one person something, let it pass through a hundred more people...and when it gets back to you, it'll be nothing like what you originally said'.

I do absolutely believe in the divinity of scripture. But I do not believe in man's ability to uphold it properly at the expense of his own wants/needs.

Click to expand...

Then why not believe scripture when it says 6 days, that God made Adam, that Adam sinned? Genesis 1 is laid out very plainly there is nothing to interpret.
As I already said but you choose to ignore I am just as happy using the Old King James version or even the Torah.

This is God's word we are talking about, not a folk tale. God preserves his word.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

You believe in Jesus and then you literally attack God's word? The Gospels are also God's word, in which case you also believe a book that's "been painstakingly translated...how many times again?" You can't have it both ways, trash one part of the Bible while upholding another part.

theoneandonlypencil said:

They're also both 'creatures' with blood, organs, lungs and a pulse...are they not?

Click to expand...

Demons and angels? certainly not.

coffee4u said:

Sorry, not watching a 55-minute video, but we know the rock layers formed during the flood and we know God caused the flood. Rain and mudslides and volcanoes are 'natural' phenomenon though even when caused by God.

30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens
So there are still natural events like Mount St. Helens that can change the rock layers.

What creationists are you actually referring to?

Click to expand...

Did you study plate tectonics in school?