Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation

[EpiscipalMe]

You answer it

I do believe that we are justified by faith.

I am asking what you believe in that regard since you seem to think my belief in evolution will deny me entrance to heaven.

 

[4x4toy]

Old earth geology has been around since the late 1700s, and has only grown over time.

The alternative is taking a position that everything was created to look as if it were old, but is not really. In regards to the latter, if an old wrinkly, hunched over man walks past me at church, it is fair for me to assume that he is indeed old and wasn't born yesterday.

Yeah I could probably narrow it down to 5 or 10 years but Earth has a birth certificate signed by God ..

 

[4x4toy]

I do believe that we are justified by faith.

I am asking what you believe in that regard since you seem to think my belief in evolution will deny me entrance to heaven.

Who said that, now your trying to read my mind on top of trying to read Gods apart from his Word ?

 

[AlexDTX]

Did you forget what we were talking about? You claim that evolution is not science. If that is indeed your claim, I want to know why you think you understand science better than the all the scientists on the planet.

No. You are talking about science. I am saying evolution is an assault on the gospel in response to the topic how Adam was created by evolution. You are arguing over my sentiment on how scientists are the druids of the day. I am not going to argue that. If you are insulted that is your problem.

You failed to address my point: where do you get off adding "and you must believe that Genesis is an accurate, literal, historical account" to the gospel?

I don't think I said it the way you are citing it. Believing that Adam was the first man created by God and the Christ is the second Adam created by God is the point. If you don't believe that then you don't understand the Gospel.

SFS, I don't give a flying rip about this conversation. I have no desire to argue with you. I stated my point and if you reject it, that is your choice. My job is to speak the truth and let the Holy Spirit use it as He pleases. I am done with the conversation.

 

[JacksBratt]

Do you have any idea of what that common error may be? Or are you just randomly suggesting such a thing because it opposes your personal views?

What I'm saying is that God told us how He created the universe in six literal days. He goes to great lengths to describe "there was evening and there was morning, the first, second, third etc, days. He tells us how He created Adam and then, later, from Adam, He made Eve. Then He describes that after all this was done and "was GOOD" the first sin happened and then death entered the world.

He told us all of this, the way He did, for a purpose.

Then atheistic men come along and tell us that this is wrong. Christians fall for the trap and then call Genesis and other unexplained parts of the bible "allegorical" or "mythical" so they do not conflict with what they are being taught in their schools and other places of higher learning.

So, as a result, I believe the literal bible and the "wisdom of men" must be wrong. Thus they are missing something.

Every time we learn more in science, we are more aware of how little we know.

Let God's word be true and every man a liar...

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Who said that, now your trying to read my mind on top of trying to read Gods apart from his Word ?

You said it. You said that reading Genesis as allegory necessarily meant a disbelief in the Gospel:

You can study all the physics and science you want, I love it too and it intrigues .. But when you nullify Gods Word with it then what else creeps in now that you've OK'd a standard .. I see YEC scientifically , but also a starting/working point in time where God receives more glory with no help from you or yours . In my experience God will allow you to keep marching in the wrong direction if you insist , me too .. I've caught myself drinking poison a couple times then shock when I've realized I was off path and usually when I was fixin to go deeper with vain imaginations that seemed right. Unless you use the Word you can never see the warning, that's a big part what the Word does for us .. Did not many people began to lose faith when Darwin pied piped them away . Will God send a great delusion in the End time to deceive even the very elect if possible ? What you believe is none of my business, but try to understand my side, Not only have I come to be YEC with full confidence it was imo Gods opening the door for me .. What does he devil prefer you believe and even he knows better .. He's just looking for a little space to enter in and be co-pilot and unaware .. Foolishness ?

You still haven't answered my question.

 

[JacksBratt]

Out of curiosity, regarding the marine succession we had discussed yesterday, it sounded like you were somewhat receptive of the idea that it represented rising and dropping of sea level.

Do you still view that succession as something produced by the global flood and that it is less than 4500 or so years old?

Let me ask you a question.... are there fossils of sea life on the mountain tops?

Sounds like a global flood to me....

 

[4x4toy]

You said it. You said that reading Genesis as allegory necessarily meant a disbelief in the Gospel:



You still haven't answered my question.

Where did I mention Gospel

I'm answering, you just ain't getting your ears scratched to your satisfaction

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Let me ask you a question.... are there fossils of sea life on the mountain tops?

Sounds like a global flood to me....

Yes indeed- and he almost agreed accidentally - "...rising and dropping of sea level..."
it rose in a short time, over all the mountain tops,

exactly as written,

and all the evidence on earth and in heaven verifies this.

Only men controlled by the enemy reject truth, all their lives,

until YHWH grants them the grace to turn to Him, IF He does,

so they can believe the truth and no longer be subjects of the enemy.

i.e. SALVATION in JESUS MESSIAHKINGSAVIORREDEEMERHEALER

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Where did I mention Gospel

I'm answering, you just ain't getting your ears scratched to your satisfaction

All I wanted was a yes or no. Have you given me one?

Read your post again - it's basically belief in science -> disbelief in Bible as a whole -> no savaltion. That assessment of yours is wrong.

I believe in evolution and the lessons from the Bible and the saving power of Jesus.

 

[4x4toy]

All I wanted was a yes or no. Have you given me one?

Read your post again - it's basically belief in science -> disbelief in Bible as a whole -> no savaltion. That assessment of yours is wrong.

I believe in evolution and the lessons from the Bible and the saving power of Jesus.

I like you EM but I am not your judge of whether or not you have received salvation, but calling God mistaken beginning the first chapter in his Word isn't exactly what I call getting off on the right foot .. You and I both will be held to account for every idle word we ever spoke ..

 

[Halbhh]

Well, if you look at the gospel account, Christ turned water to wine.... no grapes, no time, no aging and produced the best wine at that wedding. He healed lepers, deaf, dumb, crippled. One woman healed by touching his garment. He stopped a storm, walked on water, fed over 5000 people with two fish and five loaves or buns.... He predicted His own death and resurrection, had no bones broken but was beaten, flogged and died on a cross, only to show up 3 days later and appear to over 500 people.

Then, He ascended to heaven, in full view of many people and disappeared...

Believing these things is pertinent to being saved.

I have to ask how many of these accounts would be disputed today by man kind if it was not for one thing and one thing only>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you must believe them to be saved.


If salvation did not depend on these facts..........they would be explained away as allegorical, mythical and metaphorical........just like Genesis 1

You believe because you must.

You deny Genesis because you can say "my salvation doesn't depend on it..

Both are equally true and literal. One is tossed out because it's not necessary.

My own experience is that my faith increased because i read Christ's words in the gospel, and over time I gained more and more faith from His very Words right there in the gospels, and this eventually also converted me in a true way (better than my original belief when young, more full).

I can tell you I would believe even if not required.

 

[Job 33:6]

I've asked simple questions in this discussion and not one has been answered by any of the young earthers. I asked about the marine succession, no response. I asked about how independent labs give corresponding radioactive dating results, no response, I ask about the geology surrounding the radio halos, no response.

I answer question after question after question. Here is how blood vessels remain in T rex, here is why mt St. Helens is not comparable to the Marine succession, here is why animal graveyards are found.

One side has answers, the other side just keeps moving the goal post.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Let me ask you a question.... are there fossils of sea life on the mountain tops?

Sounds like a global flood to me....

CC364: Marine fossils on mountains

1. Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
   
   
2. A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
   • Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
   • In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
   • Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by the sea

 

[4x4toy]

I've asked simple questions in this discussion and not one has been answered by any of the young earthers. I asked about the marine succession, no response. I asked about how independent labs give corresponding radioactive dating results, no response, I ask about the geology surrounding the radio halos, no response.

I answer question after question after question. Here is how blood vessels remain in T rex, here is why mt St. Helens is not comparable to the Marine succession, here is why animal graveyards are found.

One side has answers, the other side just keeps moving the goal post.

You got nothing, I rarely ask a question I don't already have a pretty good handle on ..

 

[4x4toy]

CC364: Marine fossils on mountains

1. Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
   
   
2. A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
   • Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
   • In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
   • Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by the sea

And how high did the flood water rise above the tallest mountain according to the Word ?
You can use cubits, no need for conversion to ft and inches ..

 

[Job 33:6]

Let me ask you a question.... are there fossils of sea life on the mountain tops?

Sounds like a global flood to me....

Uplift. Another observable occurrence. Plate tectonics. Fossils of the sea are lifted along with the mountains as they are lifted. the fossils of sea organisms rest on drifting crust of the earth which by continental drift, pushes into other plates, resulting in the uplift of one over the other.

And this is observable, it isn't debatable, we can see it happening.

 

[Job 33:6]

You got nothing, I rarely ask a question I don't already have a pretty good handle on ..

Then what is your explanation for the marine succession we discussed yesterday? What is your explanation for correlating independent radioactive dating?

For the latter, you suggest something is wrong with it, but don't seem to know what is wrong with it, you just seem to have a gut feeling. But saying that your gut feeling suggests its wrong, isn't sufficient.

And as for the prior, I don't recall you responding to it at all, you appeared receptive of my commentary.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I like you EM but I am not your judge of whether or not you have received salvation, but calling God mistaken beginning the first chapter in his Word isn't exactly what I call getting off on the right foot .. You and I both will be held to account for every idle word we ever spoke ..

Fair enough.

One thing is certain - we will all have our chance to see if Genesis is literal and if God really cares if we are evolutionists, creationists or something in between. My guess is he won't, since the gospels and epistles teach us that faith in Jesus is what is important.

 

[4x4toy]

w

Uplift. Another observable occurrence. Plate tectonics.

All programmed in and planned .. Earthquakes , volcanos wonderous works of God .. And how about all that flood water safely tucked away by God in the Earth ..