Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[BNR32FAN]

And we know by applying science that those are not true. One reason that many Christians do not follow a literal interpretation of the Bible is that they take the Earth to be God's creation. God's creation tells us that a literal interpretation cannot be true.

“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 ‭20:11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"Linear style theory"? Do you mean that "ascent of man" chart?

Darwin's model of evolution has always been a branching tree. His first evolutionary tree diagrams far predate the publication of his book.

Even the evolution of simple organisms to more complex organisms, sometimes it's not that simple.

Instead of a linear diagram, more of a tree or web like diagram.

 

[pitabread]

now this is getting ridiculous

No, it's just calling a spade a spade. Interpreting text, whether literally or not, is just something that everyone does. It's how reading works.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But the Bible claim is that Jesus was more than human.

The Bible also states that He was born from Mary and that He was a mortal man capable of dying.

 

[Strathos]

Actually you can trace the age of the Earth through the genealogies to around 6,020 something years. Sorry it’s been a few years since I calculated it.

You can, but that doesn't take into account potential gaps in the chronology such as between Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, it's just calling a spade a spade. Interpreting text, whether literally or not, is just something that everyone does. It's how reading works.

No what your talking about is searching for some sort of hidden meaning in something that is plainly written. It’s more like searching for ways to call a spade something else when it’s plainly a spade.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You can, but that doesn't take into account potential gaps in the chronology such as between Genesis 1 and 2.

There are no gaps in the genealogy

 

[pitabread]

No what your talking about is searching for some sort of hidden meaning in something that is plainly written. It’s more like searching for ways to call a spade something else when it’s plainly a spade.

I'm not suggesting any hidden meaning. Regardless of whether one reads Genesis 1 literally or applies a more figurative interpretation, it's still talking about the same thing: God creating everything.

The meaning is clear. The rest is just details.

 

[pitabread]

There are no gaps in the genealogy

That's just your interpretation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You can, but that doesn't take into account potential gaps in the chronology such as between Genesis 1 and 2.

The calculating process actually begins in Genesis 5 not Genesis 1

 

[Hans Blaster]

The calculating process actually begins in Genesis 5 not Genesis 1

Ah yes, the antediluvian chronologies with the ridiculous ages. Not very credible.

 

[Strathos]

There are no gaps in the genealogy

Many theologians throughout history disagree.

The calculating process actually begins in Genesis 5 not Genesis 1

Then it can't account for all the time before that.

 

[Hammster]

Such claims have no meaningful value. As I said, it just comes across like a cheap form of gaslighting.

Possibly. But not in this case.

 

[pitabread]

Possibly. But not in this case.

I have no reason to believe that though. Otherwise, why not believe that creationism is a satanic lie for the purpose of driving a wedge between the Bible and God's Creation and sowing confusion and doubt about Christianity?

It seems just as if not more plausible insofar as satanic deception goes.

 

[Hammster]

I have no reason to believe that though. Otherwise, why not believe that creationism is a satanic lie for the purpose of driving a wedge between the Bible and God's Creation and sowing confusion and doubt about Christianity?

It seems just as if not more plausible insofar as satanic deception goes.

The problem is that creation is supported in various ways throughout scripture. Scripture does not support evolution in any way.

 

[pitabread]

The problem is that creation is supported in various ways throughout scripture. Scripture does not support evolution in any way.

Sure it does. Genesis 1 speaks of an evolutionary process for the creation/diversification of species on Earth. It emphasis life coming forth from the Earth/waters, it places special emphasis on reproduction as a means by which life populated the planet, and it describes various life forms appearing at different stages.

All of this syncs up perfectly with what we know of the history of life on the planet.

 

[Hammster]

Sure it does. Genesis 1 speaks of an evolutionary process for the creation/diversification of species on Earth. It emphasis life coming forth from the Earth/waters, it places special emphasis on reproduction as a means by which life populated the planet, and it describes various life forms appearing at different stages.

All of this syncs up perfectly with what we know of the history of life on the planet.

Day one, light. Day 4, sun. That doesn’t jive with evolution.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Pitabread, just read all these posts. Are you getting any closer to an answer ?

 

[pitabread]

Pitabread, just read all these posts. Are you getting any closer to an answer ?

Nope!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that creation is supported in various ways throughout scripture. Scripture does not support evolution in any way.

So is the Flat Earth at the center of the universe. This is not the best argument to use.