6 Day Creation Is A Lie Because.....

Today at 05:48 AM wblastyn said this in Post #100

Does anyone else notice this creationist attitude of "we're more Christian than you"? Those "AMEN!"'s for instance, it's like anyone who doesn't agree with them can't join their "AMEN" club or something. 

Click to expand...

What more christian than. If you are not a chreationist, then your not a christian. How can you be a christian if you do not believe that God is the creator?

What more christian than. If you are not a chreationist, then your not a christian. How can you be a christian if you do not believe that God is the creator?

Click to expand...

How many times do we have to tell you, creationism says HOW God created, creation just says God created. We believe God created using evolution because that is what creation shows.

''...If these should be silent, the stones will cry out. ''

Click to expand...

The stones are crying out "we were formed billions of years ago after the Big bang! Why don't you listen?

Today at 11:10 AM wblastyn said this in Post #104


How many times do we have to tell you, creationism says HOW God created, creation just says God created. We believe God created using evolution because that is what creation shows. 

Click to expand...

An "ism" is a theory. There are many different creation"isms". There are many different theorys on how to interpert or understand the Bible. Even theistic evolution is a creationism. It is a theory on how God created. It is also a evolution theory, one of many evolution theorys that attempts to explain how creation came into being.

"isms" are pretty much a dime a dozen now a days. Man keeps trying to figure it all out, when the Bible says, lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct out path.

Today at 02:48 AM wblastyn said this in Post #100

Does anyone else notice this creationist attitude of "we're more Christian than you"? Those "AMEN!"'s for instance, it's like anyone who doesn't agree with them can't join their "AMEN" club or something.

Also, ignorance isn't something to "AMEN!" about.

Click to expand...

Give Me A break!

Back on subject...

The 6 day creation story is not a lie, it is a story, a fictional event ment to convey spiritual truths and religious opinions of the day.

Just as the Chronicles of Narnia are not lies but stories ment to convey spiritual truths.

An "ism" is a theory. There are many different creation"isms". There are many different theorys on how to interpert or understand the Bible. Even theistic evolution is a creationism. It is a theory on how God created. It is also a evolution theory, one of many evolution theorys that attempts to explain how creation came into being.

Click to expand...

Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Theistic evolution is based on allowing creation to help us interpret Genesis as non-literal.

Today at 02:53 PM wblastyn said this in Post #108

Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. 

Click to expand...

There are a lot of theorys for creation. There are almost as many theorys as there are people. Of course there are almost as many theorys for evolution as there are people also.

What it all comes down to is that we have believers and we have non believers. In the end God will send His angles to seperate them. Are you a believer in God or a non believer?

Today at 02:53 PM LewisWildermuth said this in Post #107

Back on subject...

The 6 day creation story is not a lie,

Click to expand...

It is not a lie. God created in 6 days. It is just not clear to us how long a day was. If it was 24 hours, or 1000 years or even a period of time longer than that.

There is even a theory that the days were not equal in length but that each day was half the length of the day before it.




 

Today at 03:35 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #110



It is not a lie. God created in 6 days. It is just not clear to us how long a day was. If it was 24 hours, or 1000 years or even a period of time longer than that.

There is even a theory that the days were not equal in length but that each day was half the length of the day before it.




 

Click to expand...

First, please do not "half-quote" me and make it look like I support your position, I do not.

And yes I've seen the un-equal day "theory" and many 1000 year or more-day "theories" and they all fall just as flat as the 6-24hr day "theories".

Creationism makes God out to be a liar in the end because of it's insistance on a leteral reading of the Bible. With the blacfk and white only filters they use God is either lying to us though the Bible or through the evidence He left in creation, either way God would be lying.

That is why the theology behind Creationism is not Christian at all, just a mockery of it.

LewisWildermuth said this in Post #111: Creationism makes God out to be a liar in the end because of it's insistance on a leteral reading of the Bible. With the blacfk and white only filters they use God is either lying to us though the Bible or through the evidence He left in creation, either way God would be lying.

What strange doctrine is this my brother? For do we not live in the same world and observe the same things? Oh ye of little faith, do you doubt that our almighty God could do such a thing as create a world as it is written? How can you equate that creationism is not Christian? That is absurdity to the highest degree! You need to examine your own life as a Christian before you make such a bold unsupported claim.

That is why the theology behind Creationism is not Christian at all, just a mockery of it.

Creationism makes no mockery of Christianity, it is those who call themselves Christians and are not worthy of the name that maketh mockery of Christians. It is those who insist that our awesome God is a god of an old earth, and equate God into an ogre of a god who can provide no relief from the torments of life that equate as the highest form of mockery. Trust in God, not merely what you see.

What strange doctrine is this my brother? For do we not live in the same world and observe the same things? Oh ye of little faith, do you doubt that our almighty God could do such a thing as create a world as it is written? How can you equate that creationism is not Christian? That is absurdity to the highest degree! You need to examine your own life as a Christian before you make such a bold unsupported claim.

Click to expand...

Why does creation not agree with creationism? Why does the earth look older than 6000 years old, why is there so much supporting evidence for evolution but none for special creation. IF God created the way creationists say He did then why do we not see it in creation itself?

Creationism makes no mockery of Christianity, it is those who call themselves Christians and are not worthy of the name that maketh mockery of Christians. It is those who insist that our awesome God is a god of an old earth, and equate God into an ogre of a god who can provide no relief from the torments of life that equate as the highest form of mockery. Trust in God, not merely what you see.

Click to expand...

We do trust God, we trust that He did not plant false evidence in creation but the evidence shows what really happened.

It is you who will not allow God to show you how to interpret Genesis through His creation. You try and tell God how He should have created rather than looking at how He actually did it.

You are making exactly the same mistake the flat earthers and geocentricists made. They tried to use scripture to interpret creation, rather than allowing creation to interpret scripture and look how that turned out - they were wrong.

Also, "maketh"?  Since when do we speak in ye olde english here?

LewisWildermuth said this in Post #107:  Back on subject...  The 6 day creation story is not a lie, it is a story, a fictional event ment to convey spiritual truths and religious opinions of the day.

That is a condradiction if I ever saw one. How can something be "not a lie" and a "fictional event" at the same time. God's word iseither lie or truth, fiction or non fiction - it cannot be both. So which one is it?  If it is a lie then there is no true reason for anyone of us to be here, and if it is truth then why not accept it on face value?

Today at 10:43 AM Crusadar said this in Post #114

LewisWildermuth said this in Post #107:  Back on subject...  The 6 day creation story is not a lie, it is a story, a fictional event ment to convey spiritual truths and religious opinions of the day.

That is a condradiction if I ever saw one. How can something be "not a lie" and a "fictional event" at the same time. God's word iseither lie or truth, fiction or non fiction - it cannot be both. So which one is it?  If it is a lie then there is no true reason for anyone of us to be here, and if it is truth then why not accept it on face value?

Click to expand...

There is a vast differecne between telling a story to make a point any lying, as I pionted out C.S Lewis's fictional works were not lies, they were moral tales.

If there is no difference then Christianity is already doomed since Jesus used fictional stories and examples in his teachings. And that would make Jesus a liar, are you prepared to call Him that?

wblastyn said this in Post #88 :That's because humans with tails are very rare, and they usually have them removed as a baby, but they are real tails, some people can even wiggle them. As for the bats, it turns out I got mixed up, bats aren't actually blind, it's cave dwelling salamaders, their eyes are covered with skin, but they are there.

Very rare indeed because it is a mutation. It is true that once in a great while a child is born with this outgrowth and it is removed because it serves no purpose and have no bone structure or nerve cord, it is merely an outgrowth from the true tail bone “coccyx” which is far from being useless. Some people will believe that it can be wriggled but that is false, no muscle tissue, it is actually just skin and a little fatty tissue. This outgrowth of skin in no way relates to an evolutionary heritage much like humans who are born with an additional useless finger or toe, or for that matter no digits.

No, I stopped listening to man trying to tell God how He should have created and started allowing God to tell me how He created, through Creation.

That is not what I am seeing, you have substituted man’s theories with God’s words. If it is as you have said that you have “started allowing God to tell me how He created, through creation” then what is the problem here? Do you trust God or not?

Yes it does, what do you think peer reviews, etc are for - to weed out human error.

Peer reviews? You really mean biased peer reviews that filter out any views opposing their own presuppositions based on their a priori commitment to materialism.

Science does not deal with the supernatural because it does not have the tools to do so and because the supernatural cannot be falsified, because with the supernatural ANYTHING is possible.

So if you believe in God and that He exists and science cannot prove His existence, then what is there to be gained from believing in such a being? Furthermore what is there to be gained from believing in anything else that is written in scripture – since science has not proven that a virgin can give birth, nor a man can come back from the dead?

What has nature being cursed got to do with evolution, how does sin explain errors in design?

Because mutations, death, suffering and the like are the consequence of sin. God is a God of infinite holiness and is without sin nor can He be in the sight of sin. It is because of sin that God has removed his eternal sustaining power from His creation. But because of His infinite love He did not destroy His creation and began a new – rather He has offered salvation through His beloved son. How do I know this? I have prayed many times that God reveal to me His truth, and he has - only after I have relinquished my heart, mind, and soul to JC. The truth to many is hard to swallow for men love darkness rather than light, and few their be that find their way to eternal life.

What is a kind?

Horse kind, dog kind, cat kind, elephant kind, mankind. (no specific order, because evolution did not occur)

Creation science is an oxymoron, it's the very opposite of science. Science finds evidence and allows it to lead them to a conclusion, whereas creation "science" already has a conclusion and twists the facts to fit the conclusion.

Evolution is a myth propagated by wishful thinking, and is an orphaned theory removed from all the other hard earned useful sciences.

You're arguing atheism, which won't work with me, since I believe God is the ultimate designer, usiing evolution as His designing tool.

The God I know does not use such a cruel, blind process to design His creation. My God is the God of creation, whereas yours is of an old earth and of evolution and mutations and not a true god at all, for yours has no power over pain and suffering - as a matter of fact your god enjoys seeing people suffer!

Science does not assume anything about God's existance, or non-existance, it just makes no comment, scienc is agnostic. Otherwise, how do you explain scientists who are Christians.

Or there is already the presupposition that there is no God therefore He is not mentioned. As I have said earlier not everyone is worthy of the name. It really does not matter what people call themselves, what matters is how they live their lives.

"Why isn't evolution called a law? Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."

Evolution is neither a law nor a theory - it is a myth, brought on by wishful thinking and as a way for men to turn away from the truth of God and God Himself.

No, I trust men who have studied scripture to be able to interpret it correctly. Literal Genesis is only YOUR interpretation of it, not God's Word, please stop implying you are God.

And I, the word of God. I don’t think I am interpreting anything, much like everything else, I read Genesis on face value and as Jesus himself quoted as literal history - as it was meant to be. And what gives you the idea that I am implying that I am God? Because I believe in what He tells me that makes me a child of God, not God. I have no desire to be God, I would not have the patience with mere mortals such as ourselves who allow themselves to value men’s theories over the word of God, and would have obliterated them many times over. And please stop saying that the almighty God of the Bible used evolution because He did not.

Genesis tells us that sin entered the world, as do many other scriptures, HOW is unimportant, it does not matter if someone actually ate from a magic tree or not.

Tell me are there many ways to eternal life? Is not Jesus the only way? How sin entered the world is of the utmost importance for if sin did not enter the world as describe in Genesis then we would not need Jesus to pay the price for our sins. If sin did not enter the world as in the account described in Genesis, what was Paul talking about in the New Testament when he referred to sin entering the world through one man or the many other instances where Paul refers to the accounts of Genesis.

The Bible was written by falliable men, then changed alot by falliable men, then translated by falliable men.

Then why do you believe in any of it? Is there any proof that it has been changed a lot since it was written? How many handwritten copies have been found? How early are these copies? What were the errors? Are they translation errors or intentional distortions of the truth? The scriptures are the inspired word of God revealed to man – that is why I believe in it. No one can simply understand the scriptures by reading it as a text until the Holy Spirit opens their hearts and minds.

LewisWildermuth said this in Post #115 There is a vast differecne between telling a story to make a point any lying, as I pionted out C.S Lewis's fictional works were not lies, they were moral tales.

So you are equating the events of Genesis to be nothing more than moral tales? So what keeps the rest of the Bible from being simply that, moral tales and nothing more? Lewis' writings cannot be compared to the Scriptures. It is bad analogy to compare the Holy Scriptures to works written by fallible men.

If there is no difference then Christianity is already doomed since Jesus used fictional stories and examples in his teachings. And that would make Jesus a liar, are you prepared to call Him that?

There is a major difference. Jesus used stories, because He is God and if He were to tell us of heavenly things how can we as finite human beings understand infinite thoughts and concepts. I am a sinner just like you and everyone else, but I know that what I say comes not of my own reasoning but what is revealed to me by my absolute faith in God and the authority of the Scriptures. Your implications of me calling JC a liar is unsupported and stems from lack of faith. Moreover, are you prepared to tell God why you did not believe in what He has said, and started to believe in the theories of men?

wblastyn said this in Post #113 : Why does creation not agree with creationism? Why does the earth look older than 6000 years old, why is there so much supporting evidence for evolution but none for special creation. IF God created the way creationists say He did then why do we not see it in creation itself?

It agrees more with a young earth than you have been lead into believing. Over 90% of all dating methods date the earth younger than what evolutionists require and yet they are insistant on accepting only the 10% or less that conclude an old earth. Why is that? Tell me is that good science? If the earth is as old as it is said to be why are the oceans not saltier than it presently is? Or for that matter why do you not find more cosmic dust on the moon than there actually is? There are many other examples that disagree with the evolutionary timeline. If you want strictly scientific data for proof of a young earth - look into Walt Brown's Book. "In the Beginning. Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. 7th edition. 


We do trust God, we trust that He did not plant false evidence in creation but the evidence shows what really happened.

And so do I. It is true that God does not plant false evidence. So there must be another reason should there not? And it is as I have said earlier, not in our trust of any theory by man whether it be creationism or the ToE that will bring us to know God, but by His grace that our eyes will be opened. What has really happened is that you have forgotten the other part of the equation, God's once trusted archangel Lucifer who also has super natural powers but not God's equal in any sense - who will in the end be tossed along with the unbelievers into the lake of fire.

It is you who will not allow God to show you how to interpret Genesis through His creation. You try and tell God how He should have created rather than looking at how He actually did it.

That is a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact however that I have allowed God to show me His truth and it is in the plain understanding of His word. Do not interpret the scriptures using mere human intuition, but rather through prayer and meditation, something that many neglect to do today.

You are making exactly the same mistake the flat earthers and geocentricists made. They tried to use scripture to interpret creation, rather than allowing creation to interpret scripture and look how that turned out - they were wrong.

Perhaps in your view but not in God's. And besides what makes you so sure evolution was how God created? Yes they were wrong, because they were men who interpreted the scriptures based on human intuition and what was available to them at the time, God however is not wrong. In essence then you are saying that God was wrong then since what you see does not reflect what is written?

Also, "maketh"?  Since when do we speak in ye olde english here?

Since I became born again, and the word of God has been branded into my heart and soul and not merely my mind. For "Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies. Psalms 40:4 KJV

--------------------------------------------------------------
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Revelations 4:11 KJV

LewisWildermuth said this in Post #111: And yes I've seen the un-equal day "theory" and many 1000 year or more-day "theories" and they all fall just as flat as the 6-24hr day "theories".

It seems the only place the word day does not mean day is in Genesis. Why is that? Is it because of the assumed billions of years of the evolutionary process? Do we ever say that Jonah was in the belly of the great fish 3 thousand years or 3 million years instead of 3 days? If the word day doesn't mean day when it plainly says day, then when does it mean day when it says day?

I think here again instead of taking God for His word, we have taken our own fallen view of the world and reduced our omnipotent God into an ogre of a god who is content in ruling an old earth. If God took this long in bringing about this world, we should worry about the new heaven and new earth that will come to be. Will we need to wait another 4.5 billion years before that world is habitable? And what strange doctrine would that be in promising that death and suffering will be no more in the new world, when it is the very process such a god used in creating this one. That is nonsense of the highest kind!



--------------------------------------------------------------
"Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies." Psalms 40:4 KJV
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Revelations 4:11 KJV

It agrees more with a young earth than you have been lead into believing. Over 90% of all dating methods date the earth younger than what evolutionists require and yet they are insistant on accepting only the 10% or less that conclude an old earth. Why is that? Tell me is that good science? If the earth is as old as it is said to be why are the oceans not saltier than it presently is? Or for that matter why do you not find more cosmic dust on the moon than there actually is? There are many other examples that disagree with the evolutionary timeline. If you want strictly scientific data for proof of a young earth - look into Walt Brown's Book. "In the Beginning. Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. 7th edition.

Click to expand...

Where is your evidence to back up what you say?

All those things have been refuted by real science before. Are you arrogant enough to believe that you, a layman, can disprove science by simply quoteing some "facts" about the moon dust, etc. If it were as simple to disprove an old earth then why would so many scientists accept an ancient earth?

Moon dust: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/moondust.html
Btw, moon dust is also refuted by AiG.

Saltiness of ocean: from http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/mar00.html

"Question 3: The saltiness of the oceans has nothing to do with the age of the Earth, and everything to do with the chemical residency time of sodium chloride (salt) in solution in the oceans. This argument comes originally from Henry Morris, and can be found in his small book The Scientific Case for Creation (1977). Table 1, pp 55-59 presents 70 "uniformitarian estimates" for the age of the Earth, and of those 32 are based on the influx into the ocean of one or the other material. The estimates on the age of the Earth run from 100 years (!!) for aluminum to 260,000,000 years for sodium. It's an entirely bogus trick, which should be fairly obvious. Who would suggest that this is a reasonable way to estimate the age of the Earth, when the result is 100 years?? The average and standard deviation of these 32 "uniformitarian estimates" on the age of the Earth works out to be about 17,600,000 ± 53,400,000 years, which looks like a not much worse than 50/50 bet that the Earth does not exist yet. I'm impressed. "

And so do I. It is true that God does not plant false evidence. So there must be another reason should there not? And it is as I have said earlier, not in our trust of any theory by man whether it be creationism or the ToE that will bring us to know God, but by His grace that our eyes will be opened. What has really happened is that you have forgotten the other part of the equation, God's once trusted archangel Lucifer who also has super natural powers but not God's equal in any sense - who will in the end be tossed along with the unbelievers into the lake of fire.

Click to expand...

What has accepting evolution got to do with apparantly forgetting my belief in Satan?

That is a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact however that I have allowed God to show me His truth and it is in the plain understanding of His word. Do not interpret the scriptures using mere human intuition, but rather through prayer and meditation, something that many neglect to do today.

Click to expand...

Well anyone can say "God told me". We can't just sit back and expect God to send His angels to tell us things, we have to get up and do our own research and pray God will lead us to the truth.

Perhaps in your view but not in God's. And besides what makes you so sure evolution was how God created? Yes they were wrong, because they were men who interpreted the scriptures based on human intuition and what was available to them at the time, God however is not wrong. In essence then you are saying that God was wrong then since what you see does not reflect what is written?

Click to expand...

So in God's view the earth is flat and at the center of the solar system? Uh huh...

I'm so sure because evolution is the best explaination for the evidence found in Creation and has yet to be falsified, Creationism on the other hand was falsified by CHristian geologists hundreds of years ago.

The men interpreted scripture literally just as you do, they thought anyone who thought different was a heretic. How are you any different. You have knowledge available to you yet you chose to ignore it.

No, I'm saying a literal interpretation is wrong because it does not reflect what we see in reality. I do not believe God's Word is wrong.

Since I became born again, and the word of God has been branded into my heart and soul and not merely my mind. For "Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies. Psalms 40:4 KJV

Click to expand...

Er you realise it's the translators who spoke in ye olde english, not God. When speaking directly to the people God would have to speak to them in their own language, ie Hebrew for the Old Testament characters.