Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If anyone can hear from God,I think you'd better go back and read what Paul had to say about adding to the gospel.
Dude, take a break .. And your post 245, can you make it less than an essay ?
True enough... have you ever considered that we are judged by the company we keep? Then, ask yourself, how many atheists are Young earth Creationists? How many atheists make up the group pushing evolution?
Ill try.
In modern geology, sandstones (rocks of sand) are viewed as rocks that form in sandy environments (beaches).
Siltstones and clays are finer grained rock, viewed as rocks formed in shallow marine environments (shallow water where small sediment is deposited by the ocean).
Limestones consist of carbonaceous deposits (shells, "micro shellies") and form in the deep ocean.
Post 245 depicts a column,
repeat, repeat
unconformity
limestone
shale
coal
Sandstone
unconformity
Limestone
It is a sequence showing the ocean transgressing and receding in response to changes in sea level. And beyond that though, you have marine fossils appearing in marine rock (your limestones and shales), but disappearing as you move toward your sandstones.
A single global flood, simply could not explain this type of sequence of rock. But a very simple old earth explanation, can with ease. And in further support of old earth explanations, we can take a trip down to the beach and see deposition of these rocks occurring with our own eyes.
that's the simple version.
With Mt. St. Helens, the layers are all volcanic, ashy, brecciated, gravelly, igneous magmatic and pyroclastic rocks. They are rocks of a volcano, far different than rocks of other types.
Famous last words ''did God really say''
So while the Earth was submerged it was not subject to countless tides and cross currents while both flooding and receding ? Is anything comparable to severe hydraulic action and on a global scale ?
If the earth were submerged, just my opinion, but I don't see how, in a physical sense, it would deposit organized sequences of sediment. Unless the global flood ended, then started up again then ended again and started up again? Some say the sediment would be deposited by density, but in the case of a sequence, that doesn't make sense.
But there is one other thing I mentioned as well. Remember, we have trace fossils, fossils of animal foot tracks, fossils of burrows. Fossils of animal nests etc. ancient buried stream beads of meandering rivers etc. Fossils that indicate a normal every day life for animals of the past, in the same layers that are believed to be deposits of this same global flood. So we have a few questions (and I can certainly raise more).
We also have cross cutting relations, inclusions and the physics of orogenic rock deformation, but im trying to keep things simple here. I can turn up the heat if you would like. We can get into the physics behind how a rock breaks at different angles depending on how you apply pressure to it, and we can backtrack rock fractures to reconstruct mountain building events. But these things only make sense with old earth geology. Young earth geology will leave everyone confused and dependent on strange ideas about time dilation.
the most simple and straight forward explanation, is that just as we see today, right at our local beach, is what was occurring in the past, is what we see occurring now. Sandstone made by sands of a beach, igneous rocks (cooled magma) made by volcanoes (Like mt st Helens), silt and clays forming in shallow water, limestone (CaCO3 formed by small shellies (shells made of calcium carbonate)).
It sounds complex at first, but in understanding geology, you would find a very simple and straightforward explanation for the worlds geology that is uncontested.
Then you agree that God speaks only the truth , I agree
There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible, each of which violates natural law.
God, not physics, is Lord of the universe. If He wanted to created other earth exactly like this one He could do so simply by commanding it to exist.
Your opinion on mass fossil graveyards ? Where are my footprints I made as a child , a global flood and quick seal and burying is the only solution and guess what , there is a Biblical account and a world full of evidence and legends to boot .. Go figure
@4x4toy
I should also add that, in the case of the la brea tar pits, the fossils found were not completely random, but of terrestrial and young aged megafauna. Which are the kind of animals you would expect to get their feet stuck in tar. You wont find like a Fish in it or...A T rex or anything like that.
The topic is not science. It is the creation of Adam through evolution, of which the Bible does not state.So you know what science is better than the world's scientists? That's really your position? Exactly what expertise do you have in science?
In my religion, usually known as Christianity, the gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ offers life and salvation through his life, death and resurrection. If you think denying the validity of evolution is part of the gospel, I think you'd better go back and read what Paul had to say about adding to the gospel.
Evening and morning were the first day; a single rotation of the earth. Was it 24 hours? More likely closer to 23. The earth is slowing down.The guess that God didn't allow time to pass during Gen 1:1 is....
...a guess. Without basis even.
This is my own speculative framework for reconciling the evidence for evolution with the biblical truth of an historical Adam and Eve. This is just a brief sketch of the position, I plan to greatly develop this view in a proper essay when I get the time.
First off, what does the science tell us about human origins? Anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens emerged approximately 150-200,000 years ago, the human population was never at any time less than a few thousand individuals, and there is such a thing as a chromosomal Adam and a mitochondrial Eve from whom all individuals are descended. As Dr. Craig has pointed out, there are indications these days that this "Adam" and "Eve" may have been contemporaneous. My framework operates on the presupposition of the truth of this premise but is not inextricably bound to it.
Now that we have the basic scientific premeses out of the way, we need to establish the basic theological framework upon which this model is based. The evolutionary creationism i hold to is grounded in the reformed doctrine, best elaborated in the Westminster confession, that God foreordains "whatsoever comes to pass". Extrapolated into the sciences, this would mean that nothing is truly "random" but may merely appear that way. Each and every "random" genetic variation and environmental contingency, the backbones of descent with modification by means of natural selection, have been predestined by the creator. So based on this theological framework, we can put forward a model of evolutionary creationism wherby God, by means of predestination and divine providence, brought about by natural processes the whole of the diversity of life on earth. This process was wholly guided by God in that each and every event, down to the most miniscule, was foreordained, and yet all was accomplished by means of natural processes which God himself authored and used as the means of his creative work. This model of evolutionary creationism is completely consistent with the scientific record, and will serve as the foundation for our forthcoming speculations concerning human origins.
Before we may properly put forth a model of human origins we must first establish a basic theological framework for understanding the relationship of God and man. The basic theological principle which we shall here employ is the principle of covenant relationship. God enters into relationship with man by means of covenants. Following the classical reformed tradition, we can understand the relationship of God with the first man, Adam, as a covenant of works whereby eternal life is promised on condition of perfect obedience, while death is solemnly threatened on condition of disobedience. This understanding of the first covenant between God and man is essential to understanding Paul's exposition of the gospel in the epistle to the Romans and, as such, is key to our Christian faith. Though Christians may differ on the precise nature of this first covenant, it should at least be clear that an historical Adam is necessary for such a covenant to have existed at all, and is further rendered necessary by Pauls covenantal comparison of Christ and Adam in the epistle to the Romans.
All of this being said, we must conclude that bible-believing Christians must affirm the existence of a literal Adam whom God entered into a covenant with. Note that this is not to say that the early chapters of Genesis are necessarily a literal chronological account of these primevil events. Now here we run into a real issue; how can the scientific evidence of evolution and population genetics be reconciled with the biblically necessary truth of a first man, Adam, from whom all modern humans are descended? Given that we have already described the basic scientific data that lays before us, as well as the necessary theological foundations, we may now construct a model of the historical Adam within the context of our modern scientific knowledge.
My first presupposition is that the nature of humanity is most fundamentally theological not biological. This is critically important to my argument, as i will argue that an anatomically modern homo sapien sapien is not necessarily human in the full and proper sense. Rather, what makes a human a human is the image of God. Now the bible declares that God is spirit, so it is logical to conclude that the image of God is none other than a spiritual nature. So we can define a human as a homo sapien sapien that possesses a spirit, or a spiritual nature. So a human is a composit of a biological nature and a spiritual nature, and if either is lacking it cannot be said to be truly or fully human. This is also, as an aside, why bodily resurrection is so central to the record of divine revelation. This physical/spiritual composite nature of man is the anthropological basis of my model.
Now we get into the gist of the model itself. I will grant the conclusions of evolutionary biology and population genetics that homo sapien sapiens evolved by means of descent with modification from a common primate anscestor. I will also grant that the homo sapien sapien population was never less than a few thousand individuals. So where does the historical Adam and Eve come in?
Taking an initial localized homo sapien sapien population of a few thousand, in the very distant past, it is conceivable that God, wishing to create man and enter into covenant with him, elected one male and one female out of this population to be the subjects of his covenant. This would be Adam and Eve. He chose these two individuals and supernaturally infused a spirit, or spiritual nature, within them. Thereby it can be properly said, as Genesis 1 declares, that he made them male and female in the image of God. Being made in the image of God, this pair is now truly human and fitting subjects for Gods covenant. All modern human beings are descended from this historical pair. Over the course of time, by Gods providence, those homo sapiens who did not descend from this pair were rendered extinct. I will further presuppose that this pair corresponds to chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, though this may not be strictly necessary for the validity of the model.
This model simultaneously and rationally affirms a literal Adam and Eve from whom all modern humans are descended, while also affirming the reality of human evolution and the base population models of population genetics. Nothing in this model should contradict any piece of genetic evidence, as all descendents of Adam and Eve would share genetic traits all the way down the evolutionary chain, while still in reality being descended from two individuals.
This is a rough sketch of my model, which i hope to refine and further develop. I would greatly appreciate thoughts and constructive criticism. Thank you.
This is my own speculative framework for reconciling the evidence for evolution with the biblical truth of an historical Adam and Eve. This is just a brief sketch of the position, I plan to greatly develop this view in a proper essay when I get the time.
First off, what does the science tell us about human origins? Anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens emerged approximately 150-200,000 years ago, the human population was never at any time less than a few thousand individuals, and there is such a thing as a chromosomal Adam and a mitochondrial Eve from whom all individuals are descended. As Dr. Craig has pointed out, there are indications these days that this "Adam" and "Eve" may have been contemporaneous. My framework operates on the presupposition of the truth of this premise but is not inextricably bound to it.
Now that we have the basic scientific premeses out of the way, we need to establish the basic theological framework upon which this model is based. The evolutionary creationism i hold to is grounded in the reformed doctrine, best elaborated in the Westminster confession, that God foreordains "whatsoever comes to pass". Extrapolated into the sciences, this would mean that nothing is truly "random" but may merely appear that way. Each and every "random" genetic variation and environmental contingency, the backbones of descent with modification by means of natural selection, have been predestined by the creator. So based on this theological framework, we can put forward a model of evolutionary creationism wherby God, by means of predestination and divine providence, brought about by natural processes the whole of the diversity of life on earth. This process was wholly guided by God in that each and every event, down to the most miniscule, was foreordained, and yet all was accomplished by means of natural processes which God himself authored and used as the means of his creative work. This model of evolutionary creationism is completely consistent with the scientific record, and will serve as the foundation for our forthcoming speculations concerning human origins.
Before we may properly put forth a model of human origins we must first establish a basic theological framework for understanding the relationship of God and man. The basic theological principle which we shall here employ is the principle of covenant relationship. God enters into relationship with man by means of covenants. Following the classical reformed tradition, we can understand the relationship of God with the first man, Adam, as a covenant of works whereby eternal life is promised on condition of perfect obedience, while death is solemnly threatened on condition of disobedience. This understanding of the first covenant between God and man is essential to understanding Paul's exposition of the gospel in the epistle to the Romans and, as such, is key to our Christian faith. Though Christians may differ on the precise nature of this first covenant, it should at least be clear that an historical Adam is necessary for such a covenant to have existed at all, and is further rendered necessary by Pauls covenantal comparison of Christ and Adam in the epistle to the Romans.
All of this being said, we must conclude that bible-believing Christians must affirm the existence of a literal Adam whom God entered into a covenant with. Note that this is not to say that the early chapters of Genesis are necessarily a literal chronological account of these primevil events. Now here we run into a real issue; how can the scientific evidence of evolution and population genetics be reconciled with the biblically necessary truth of a first man, Adam, from whom all modern humans are descended? Given that we have already described the basic scientific data that lays before us, as well as the necessary theological foundations, we may now construct a model of the historical Adam within the context of our modern scientific knowledge.
My first presupposition is that the nature of humanity is most fundamentally theological not biological. This is critically important to my argument, as i will argue that an anatomically modern homo sapien sapien is not necessarily human in the full and proper sense. Rather, what makes a human a human is the image of God. Now the bible declares that God is spirit, so it is logical to conclude that the image of God is none other than a spiritual nature. So we can define a human as a homo sapien sapien that possesses a spirit, or a spiritual nature. So a human is a composit of a biological nature and a spiritual nature, and if either is lacking it cannot be said to be truly or fully human. This is also, as an aside, why bodily resurrection is so central to the record of divine revelation. This physical/spiritual composite nature of man is the anthropological basis of my model.
Now we get into the gist of the model itself. I will grant the conclusions of evolutionary biology and population genetics that homo sapien sapiens evolved by means of descent with modification from a common primate anscestor. I will also grant that the homo sapien sapien population was never less than a few thousand individuals. So where does the historical Adam and Eve come in?
Taking an initial localized homo sapien sapien population of a few thousand, in the very distant past, it is conceivable that God, wishing to create man and enter into covenant with him, elected one male and one female out of this population to be the subjects of his covenant. This would be Adam and Eve. He chose these two individuals and supernaturally infused a spirit, or spiritual nature, within them. Thereby it can be properly said, as Genesis 1 declares, that he made them male and female in the image of God. Being made in the image of God, this pair is now truly human and fitting subjects for Gods covenant. All modern human beings are descended from this historical pair. Over the course of time, by Gods providence, those homo sapiens who did not descend from this pair were rendered extinct. I will further presuppose that this pair corresponds to chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, though this may not be strictly necessary for the validity of the model.
This model simultaneously and rationally affirms a literal Adam and Eve from whom all modern humans are descended, while also affirming the reality of human evolution and the base population models of population genetics. Nothing in this model should contradict any piece of genetic evidence, as all descendents of Adam and Eve would share genetic traits all the way down the evolutionary chain, while still in reality being descended from two individuals.
This is a rough sketch of my model, which i hope to refine and further develop. I would greatly appreciate thoughts and constructive criticism. Thank you.
I also have thought of these 6 days as literal and also as 24 hour days, likely spaced apart in time. Fortunately it doesn't matter if we are correct in this, or mistaken! It matters that we believe in Jesus, as our redeemer, risen!Evening and morning were the first day; a single rotation of the earth. Was it 24 hours? More likely closer to 23. The earth is slowing down.
The word, yom, always means a twenty-four-hour literal day when it is used with a numeral—day one, day two, first day, second day, etc. There are no exceptions to this rule. In the Genesis Creation account, yom is used with a numeral, indicating that it intends the reader to understand that these are literal days of twenty-four hours. source
Man, male and female, was made in God’s own image from the beginning. The probability of a male and a female anything evolving at the same time so they are compatible to reproduce at least doubles the already astronomical probability that something would evolve in the first place. source
Exodus 20:8-11 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. [9] Six days you shall labor and do all your work, [10] but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. [11] For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 31:17 "It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed."
No doubt here.
I did not mean by God....but by society and other men and women....We aren't judged by the company we keep, but we will indeed be judged by whether we have done as Christ Saud to do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?