Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

[Greg1234]

If we know the Spirit of Christ in us, surely!

While I concurr that there is some truth in this, I wouldn't go so far as to say belief, and more importantly, adherance to any given interpretation of the Scripture, is tantamount to rejecting God. For God see's the heart!

So Augustine announced that a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is tantamount to rejection of the Allmighty?

If that's the case, then I would say he fell into the same pit he was attempting to escape from..

Einstein had a metaphor- "a storm broke loose in my mind." I'm going to now refute the theory of General Relativity.

"You literal literalists literally took Einstein literally when he spoke. General relativity is wrong. Einstein was not speaking literally. It's a metaphor for flying pigs."

If only it were that easy there. If only it were that easy anywhere.

 

[Papias]

Just to clarify, back earlier in this post, I made it clear that I didn't see one's origins position, by itself, as a salvation issue.

Papias

 

[Zeena]

Just to clarify, back earlier in this post, I made it clear that I didn't see one's origins position, by itself, as a salvation issue.

Papias

Good, but can we take this a bit farther?

What about a literal interpretation of Genesis? :o

 

[gluadys]

If we know the Spirit of Christ in us, surely!

While I concurr that there is some truth in this, I wouldn't go so far as to say belief, and more importantly, adherance to any given interpretation of the Scripture, is tantamount to rejecting God. For God see's the heart!

So Augustine announced that a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is tantamount to rejection of the Allmighty?

No, not quite. Here are his words:

“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”

– St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)


He is making several points here

First, there are several legitimate ways to interpret scripture; the literal meaning is not the only allowable meaning.

Second, in some cases, our actual experience of creation tells us the literal meaning is unreasonable.

Third, since the actual experience of creation is open to everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, many unbelievers know that some statements, taken literally are nonsense.

Finally, if a believer insists on a literal interpretation of scripture which is nonsense given our experience of creation, that believer is setting up a roadblock to conversion.


We might add that in modern times, the problem is not only one of bringing people to Christ. It is also one of keeping people in the faith. Any university chaplain can tell you of the agonies of young people who have been misled by trusted Christian leaders on various matters of science when they discover that their Christian teachers were wrong. The leaders are likely innocent of any ill intent, but their focus on a particular interpretation of scripture that conflicts with actual experience of creation is a source of genuine problems for students who go on to learn more about creation.

 

[Helpme123]

I

Read them and weep. One verse does not represent the whole claim. That's why you have to look at other ones. Genesis however has no verses that contradict each other and that's what make it literal. You can't prove Genesis is a metaphor. I can prove it's literal.
God and science.org


Also like I JUST said, Exodus 19:4 is contradicted by dozens of verses describing the red sea crossing. It is not the same thing as Genesis 1 and 2 cause your claim of that is faulty by my links. I have proof they're literal. You have no proof whatsoever they are metaphor IN the bible. You don't even have evidence of it OUTSIDE THE BIBLE. Just check the wall of links made by NON CREATIONISTS against evolution.


Cows are purple. Doesn't that sound solidly literal too?
You're talking about that one verse and ONLY that one verse. You disregard the dozens of verses written that contradict it as literal. The verse was made to symbolize the fact that God is so great he might as well have bored them on eagle's wings



read it and weep. It's interesting that you don't know something that I knew in Sunday school.

Go to God and science and type in genesis in the search then click the one that talks about the genesis 1 and 2 claim or go to the bible contradictions section.

Like I said go to god and science.org then the design vs evolution section






Since we're talking about God, events of human logic that make sense mean nothing to him. Plus the fact that Exodus 19:4 is one verse compared to Genesis one being whole book. Also your Genesis claim is faulty.



But how can you prove it is a metaphor? Your one genesis 1 and 2 claim was thrown out. The difference between exodus and genesis is exodus IS CONTRADICTED. Genesis IS NOT.



So God making the sun stay still for a day is illogical but a man coming back to life after 3 days isn't or a blind man seeing from MUD? Once again you make yourself vulnerable. This is what evolution has done to us. Since there are no verses that contradict the fact that the sun stood still, it is unchallenged.

Then maybe you should read the links from God and science because the writer isn't even creationist.




Evolution isn't the same as the DNA double helix, the force of gravity making the planets orbit the sun, electromagnetism, atoms, nuclear fission, penguins, Antarctica, Australia. These don't go against the bible. Evolution does. Evolution is too big that if it was true there would at least be a sign or hint of it.




Got any proof? Nope. Honestly all you've done is repeat that pathetic exodus claim over and over and used a mistaken Genesis 1 and 2 claim over and over.

Where does the bible mention the earth is an oblate spheroid or orbits the sun?

RIGHT HERE!

God and science then bible authenticity then science and the bible.





Got any proof? Nope. You're genesis 1 and 2 claim is faulty. Just check the link.


Jesus never mentioned evolution.

"Sorry, I have no idea what this means."

And that's why your claim is wrong. You constantly say genesis is a metaphor yet you can't even explain WHAT THAT METAPHOR IS. You're only believing it's a metaphor because science told you it was.

"Oh I think the flood was real, just not global. That is an idea people read into the text, not something the bible actually says. But this is probably an issue best addressed in a separate thread."

'sigh' Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before for the earth filled with violence through them and behold I will destroy them with the earth.

It's right there in black and white. Destroy the EARTH. NOT PART OF THE EARTH(you probably won't believe that though and you'll just pretend it's a metaphor). Why can't you




I dismissed exodus 19:4 because it's contradicted by dozens of other verses that all say it was the red sea crossing. GENESIS IS NOT. Are you even reading my whole comment?



Yet you have no proof. All I'm hearing is hot air dude.
That doesn't even make sense. Coming back to life doesn't happen by itself. Once again you show signs of dumbing down God. I find it odd that evolutionists like to beat around the bush.

Isn't believing God can do something that CAN'T be done without him make him stronger? If we believe God has to do things that can be done without him then that just helps atheists believe he doesn't even exist if he's bound by human logic.

Rejecting the literal interpretation of Genesis is not about what God could or couldn't do, but about evidence of what actually happened, evidence the earth is billions of years old and life evolved. I think TEs are much closer to the faith of the disciples here than creationists. Would John have believed the man born blind was miraculously healed if he kept walking into doors? Would Peter and John have believed in the resurrection if they had run to the tomb and found the dead body of a man who looked just like Jesus? Faith is believing God has done things that do not happen naturally, it is not about believing in things the evidence shows us didn't happened.

The evidence? You mean evidence made by ATHEIST SCIENTISTS? Evidence OUTSIDE THE BIBLE. It's evidence in the same that the fact that the planets look like they're revolving around us was good enough for Galileo theory. Also it's not proven anyway. My links prove it.

Neither is mud, yet you have no problem believing God made man in his image from a lump of clay.

The bible says we came from clay. It does not say we came from apes.

No I just believe God often spoke in metaphors, so interpretations that treat Genesis as though God could only speak literally are based on a misunderstanding of who God is and how he speak to us. They treat God as though he were a toddler or autistic and couldn't possibly be speaking in metaphor. Stranger still these interpretation ignore all the metaphors and parables they see God speaking throughout the bible

[sign]citation needed[/sign]

You mean like Exodus 19:4?

Exodus 19:4 is contradicted by the red sea crossing. Genesis is not.

2000 years ago you had Philo of Alexandria interpreting Genesis allegorically, so no, people back then did understand metaphors and allegory. The scribe and chief priests understood the parable of the vineyard well enough (Mark 12:12 & Luke 20:19). People's problem with Jesus was not that the couldn't understand metaphors, but that they didn't always recognise when Jesus was speaking that way, or if they did, they didn't understand what the metaphor or parable meant.

Yet Peter and the disciples and Paul took it literally?



Should the church have waited until the last astronomer had abandoned geocentism before looking for better ways to interpret the geocentric passages? Or would the church have simply made itself look idiotic teaching the sun went round the earth until science made the case for heliocentrism watertight, which didn't really happen until sputnik and the interplanetary space probes showed gravity really did operate in space as Newton's law of gravity claimed?

Since when is the church the same as science? I thought religion wasn't allowed to be taught in schools? Once again you are contradicted by my links. The bible predicted a round earth way before science.


Like I said go to god and science.org then the design vs evolution section

I can't make links to it though


"Surely what evolution shows is how morality evolved, not that it is an illusion or that it isn't how God made man in his image?"

Evolution supports survival of the fittest. Evolution means species after species died for nothing. Millenniums of death is very immoral.

[sign]citation needed[/sign]

Since you have no proof that works that it's a metaphor then the only alternative is taking it literally.

Sorry I don't see the contradiction between God's love and intelligence. You are not denying God's intelligence are you? I even quoted you that passage in Isaiah where God tells us he is more intelligent than us. His intelligence doesn't mean he has to speak in metaphors, it just show the foolishness of limiting him to the literalist language development level of a toddler.

A toddler is innocent. A toddler takes it literally. If we are God's children then wouldn't that mean we are toddlers to him? Why wouldn't he speak to us as toddlers if we truly are toddlers. Like I said, the bible was written for God by man. Not for God by God. Also you still have no evidence that it's a metaphor IN the bible. You don't even have evidence that taking it literally is "primitive" to God.

No that is Christ's death and resurrection are for. You don't think you need to be a creationist to be saved do you? Wouldn't that be adding to the gospel?

Since scientists have said evolution leads to natural selection, this can lead people away.

You mean literalism isn't 'pathetic human logic'? It is how you read the book of Genesis so it couldn't possibly be wrong? The thread title says "Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution" it isn't about the requirement for salvation, but it is about the demands the new birth and being a disciple of Jesus put on our lives, which include honesty, integrity and the humility to recognise when we got things wrong, to admit we can get things wrong. The scientific evidence supports evolution so for Christian approaching the evidence with integrity means we need to admit we got it wrong, just as previous generations had to admit their geocentric interpretations missed the point.

What if evolution is just another missed point?

People believed the earth was flat and that they had evidence.
God and science then design vs evolution


Science proves it, my butt. Read the God and science.org ones first. You can't use the creationist card anymore cause guess what? The writer ISN'T A CREATIONIST!

You don't take the six day creation literally? But if you don't take the days literally, how can you possibly claim the earth isn't 4.5 billion years old? Or how can you claim Genesis can't be speaking metaphorically?

I DO TAKE THE DAYS LITERALLY. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT 6000 YEARS OLD SMART ONE.
I can claim it's not a metaphor because there's no contradiction to it. The scriptures themselves are evidence they are literal. How can you claim it's not? You can't. If you could you would have done something better than that the stupid genesis 1 and 2 claim.
WOW. Are you really this ignorant? Have you never heard of the gap theory? God made the universe in 6 days(each one being 24 hours). We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. Plus the gap between Genesis and the rest of scripture. Also how does believing it was MADE in 6 days mean I have to believe it's 6000 yr old? You do realize there are young earth creationists who think it's about 10,000 years(although I believe it's even older than that).


Why don't you put down the science books and pick up a bible?

-Isn't calling God metaphorical insulting to him? You're pretty much saying that God is talking the talk but not walking the walk. Without proof I might add.

- You're also dumbing him down by calling his miracles metaphors without proof. Jesus said knowledge is power but he also said knowledge used against his word is wrong. Why do you call the flood, Joshuas prayer, and the literal creation account illogical but believe a man comes back to live after 3 days? Which is more impressive? Making the universe in 6 days or millions of years? So why doubt that God can do that just cause primitive men in white coats tell you to?

- Assuming the only people against evolution are creationists. I'll post that link again to a non creationist

God and science then design vs evolution

-Assuming science has all the answers. Technically science can't even prove God because God is above pathetic human science and logic. Which means he's above evolution, the sun standing still, a flood not being able to engulf the earth and he's above death.

If you're just gonna repeat the same thing over to make it seem as you're typing a lot(seriously I'm getting tired of reading the title Exodus 19:4 over and over) then I really have no reason to continue this.

 

[Helpme123]

Well no, obviously Augustine is nowhere near as ancient as the God of all eternity, but he does show us an approach and attitude to science and bible interpretation that stretches back through the history of the church, an approach shared by modern TEs, that realised the universe is God's creation and the science teaches us about the world he created, that understood that if a scientific discovery contradicts our interpretation of the bible, then we need a better interpretation because that one is wrong.

Sadly the creationist approach to science goes back through church history too, the one that says science is just foolish human wisdom and if science contradicts scripture (or rather their understanding of scripture) then it must be science that is wrong because God cannot be wrong. Unfortunately you find this approach among those who rejected the earth being round as a pagan philosophy or called Copernicus a fool for contradicting scripture. Clearly modern creationists who accept the Greek science of a round earth and Copernican heliocentrism will think their rejection of evolution is different. Flat earth and geocentrism don't contradict their interpretation of scripture now, evolution does. Yet the only approach to science throughout church history that has proved its wisdom was that of Augustine and Aquinas, that realised interpretations can be wrong and if the scientific evidence contradicts our interpretation then it is God's own creation showing us we got it wrong.

my response is here except it's a wall of text. Plus the comment organizing got screwed up. Also please learn to quit repeating the same thing to make it seems as if you're writing a lot.

Also it's stupid to assume that just cause a small amount disagree with evolution that means evolution wins. Didn't the whole world use to think that Christians should be thrown to the lions?

 

[Helpme123]

No, not quite. Here are his words:

“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.”

– St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)


He is making several points here

First, there are several legitimate ways to interpret scripture; the literal meaning is not the only allowable meaning.

Second, in some cases, our actual experience of creation tells us the literal meaning is unreasonable.

Third, since the actual experience of creation is open to everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, many unbelievers know that some statements, taken literally are nonsense.

Finally, if a believer insists on a literal interpretation of scripture which is nonsense given our experience of creation, that believer is setting up a roadblock to conversion.


We might add that in modern times, the problem is not only one of bringing people to Christ. It is also one of keeping people in the faith. Any university chaplain can tell you of the agonies of young people who have been misled by trusted Christian leaders on various matters of science when they discover that their Christian teachers were wrong. The leaders are likely innocent of any ill intent, but their focus on a particular interpretation of scripture that conflicts with actual experience of creation is a source of genuine problems for students who go on to learn more about creation.

It's an allowable meaning by man. But is it by God?

Of course not every part is literal. But not every part is metaphorical. The verses that are contradicted by stronger verses are metaphors. Since Genesis is not contradicted by other verses it is meant to literal. That whole genesis 1 and 2 claim was contradicted by god and science .org. Just type the site then type genesis in the sites search bar then click the one that talks about genesis 1 and 2.

Given our experience? You mean the experience give by science. Not God.

Nonsense? Isn't the same reason atheists don't believe us is because they think it's nonsense? Don't think like an atheist. How is a 6 day creation nonsense but a man named jesus coming back to life isn't or walking on water? People seemed pretty fine about it before evolution also before you ask I was an evolutionist before a creationist.

That was before I went to God and science .org and went to the design vs evolution section and found out creationists aren't the only ones against evolution.

 

[Helpme123]

Jesus seemed to think his disciples could learn to understand his metaphors and parables by spending time with him. Paul also thought that understanding God's word was something we grow into as we mature as Christians. See the first few chapters of 1Corinthians, also Hebrew 5:11-15 But solid food is for the mature. So clearly not everything in the bible was addressed to toddlers or meant to be understood by toddlers, whether the spiritual or physical varieties. You also have the fact there are things we won't understand until we meet Christ face to face 1Cor 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

No, it is just against your understanding of scripture and there is no promise in scripture that God will vindicate our misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Check out where your 5% statistic is analysed. If you leave out people working in fields like computer science and mechanical engineering and look at scientists with training in the relevant fields, biology and the earth sciences, the percentage of creationists comes out at less than 0.15%. You also have to ask yourself if they believe in creationism because of the evidence, or because of their interpretation of scripture. If you get Christians across the spectrum from evangelical to liberal and traditional to modern, along with Muslims, Hindus, Shinto, Atheists, Agnostics and humanists all convinced by the evidence that evolution happened, while the only creationists are literalist Christians and Muslims strongly motivated to reject evolution by their belief in a particular interpretation of their scripture, how does the 0.15% of scientists who are creationists show the evidence supports creationism?


Because he created the universe?


Like literalism? Well actually the logic of literalism isn't primitive. Literalism is more modern idea that has grown out of materialism that devalues poetry and metaphor and see the only truth in cold hard facts. It is really quite alien to Christianity and would have seemed bizarre to people in biblical times, apart maybe from the Sadducees.

Admit it. Most people would be taking it literally if not for this evolution bs. I think the god and science/ evolution vs desgin speaks for itself.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Can you name one then? One who actually is a scientist and who is alive. I think you're the whose living up to your name. Insulting someone without proof would make that guy a very strangeperson.

I was actually pointing out you wrote "No scientists believes in Galileo theory." I guessing (well, hoping) you made a mistake. Galileo said the Earth revolves around the sun. And pretty much every single scientist, and anyone with basic common sense, knows this.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming when you say "Name one" you want the name of a scientist who is both an evolutionist and a Christian: Alister McGrath is a good example. He converted to christianity and frequently criticises Richard Dawkins for his atheist agenda. He also criticises creationism and the ID movement.

 

[Assyrian]

Well no, obviously Augustine is nowhere near as ancient as the God of all eternity, but he does show us an approach and attitude to science and bible interpretation that stretches back through the history of the church..

my response is here except it's a wall of text. Plus the comment organizing got screwed up. Also please learn to quit repeating the same thing to make it seems as if you're writing a lot.

Your problem here was pressing the quote button on the wrong post, in this case my reply to Zeena, rather than the post before it where I was replying to you. An easy mistake to make, one I have to watch out for myself.

Also it's stupid to assume that just cause a small amount disagree with evolution that means evolution wins.

Except, that wasn't my argument. I was addressing two arguments, one was the inflated number of scientists your source quotes, the 5% that is really less than 0.15% if you look at you look at scientists with training in relevant fields. Clearly your source is trying to play the numbers game if it throws in creationist engineers and computer programmers. But the main point I was addressing was your argument that because all these scientists believe in creationism, then there must be good arguments for creationism. Which as we have seen, simply does not follow, especially when this tiny minority all share a common motivation for their fringe views, their literal interpetation of the Bible or Koran, while no scientists without this motivation see any evidence in favour of creationism. Even scientists who are fellow believers who hold the bible as the inspired word of God see that theevidence supports evolution and the creationists arguments simply don't hold water. Is it isn't that there is strong scientific evidence for creationism, but that a tiny minority of scienists who cannot see past their particular interpretation do the Bible or Koran, want it to be true.

Have I repeated myself here? Probably, though not as you claim to
"to make it seems as if you're writing a lot"
but because you didn't actually address my argument.

Didn't the whole world use to think that Christians should be thrown to the lions?

Yes but it was hardly a sentiment based on solid scientific evidence. What we can say is that when Christians have argued against science because it contradicts their interpretation of scripture, whether these Christians were in the minority like the early church's flat earthers Cosmas Indcopleustes and Lactantius, or they were the majority like the geocentrists who thought Copernicus and Galileo must be wrong contradicting their interpretation of scripture, the ones arguing against science because of their interpretation of scripture are the ones shown to be wrong and have throughout history brought the church and the gospel into disrepute. Which is what Augustine warned about so long ago as glaudys has quoted.

 

[tyronem]

I was addressing two arguments, one was the inflated number of scientists your source quotes, the 5% that is really less than 0.15% if you look at you look at scientists with training in relevant fields.

Statistics, damned lies and statistics. It all depends on which university is surveyed / who answers / whether people think their jobs are in danger depending on how they answer. Surveys don't mean jack. In 2001 alone there was over 5000 registered scientists with PHD's all of whom signed up on the institute for creation research for belief in creation.

Clearly your source is trying to play the numbers game if it throws in creationist engineers and computer programmers.

The fallacy of appeal to authority whereby evolutionists think only evolutionists can have an opinion, there are lots of scientists in relevant fields such as geology and biology that disagree with evolution. Never mind that you agree with people who have exactly the same unrelated qualifications and think evolution is a fact, and you would never question them on their qualifications for having expressed a beleif in evolution.

But the main point I was addressing was your argument that because all these scientists believe in creationism, then there must be good arguments for creationism. Which as we have seen, simply does not follow, especially when this tiny minority all share a common motivation for their fringe views, their literal interpretation of the Bible or Koran, while no scientists without this motivation see any evidence in favor of creationism.

Everyone has presuppositions when it comes to evaluating the evidence. And most evolutionists come to the table with atheist presuppositions that the world evolved by natural means, which is a way of excluding God.

You can't see the evidence in favor of creation if you spend all your time ignoring that evidence and trying to interpret everything in an evolutionary world view.

There are plenty of good arguments for creation, both Biblical and Scientific. The Koran on the other hand is completely wrong as it talks about 7 heavens and a flat earth.

Earth is like a carpet, held in place by the heavy mountains, described as being like tent pegs, so that it won't move or shake (Surah 71:19-20, 78:6-7, 31:10)

Even scientists who are fellow believers who hold the bible as the inspired word of God see that the evidence supports evolution and the creationists arguments simply don't hold water. Is it isn't that there is strong scientific evidence for creationism, but that a tiny minority of scienists who cannot see past their particular interpretation do the Bible or Koran, want it to be true.

Quite wrong, I just finished reading the Biographies of fifty scientists who beleive in creation and the great majority believe in creation because there is evidence for creation, and deny evolution because of many scientific reasons including the unprovable assumptions that are accepted as fact when they should not be. There are some that just believe because that is what the Bible teaches, but they are the minority.

Yes but it was hardly a sentiment based on solid scientific evidence. What we can say is that when Christians have argued against science because it contradicts their interpretation of scripture, whether these Christians were in the minority like the early church's flat earthers Cosmas Indcopleustes and Lactantius, or they were the majority like the geocentrists who thought Copernicus and Galileo must be wrong contradicting their interpretation of scripture, the ones arguing against science because of their interpretation of scripture are the ones shown to be wrong and have throughout history brought the church and the gospel into disrepute. Which is what Augustine warned about so long ago as glaudys has quoted.

All the examples you have given are the results of incorrect interpretation of scripture that completely deviates from the written word and includes pagan ideaology. Flat earthers, geocentrists, all borrowed from sumerian cosmology, Greeks, Koran and the Jews in the Talmud

Correct interpretation of scripture through correct systematic theology and heumenutics only gives room for creation not evolution. Anything else is unbiblical.

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry I can't make head nor tail of you post. Try using the yellow quote icon

to wrap quote tags around what I said, so I can tell what you are replying to. Just make sure your first quote ends with and end quote tag [ /quote ] so the quotes don't get nested.

Read them and weep.

Read what and weep?

One verse does not represent the whole claim.

What verse what whole claim? Exodus 19:4 is certainly just one verse, but it still shows us how God talks using metaphors with no indication in the text that it is metaphorical.

That's why you have to look at other ones. Genesis however has no verses that contradict each other

You have an entire chapters contradicting each other, Chapter two as I said giving a completely different order of creation to chapter one. Why do you take the description of the exodus as 'proof' Ex 19:4 is a metaphor but ignore all contradictions in Genesis 1&2 instead of treating them as evidence the chapters are metaphorical? How do you know when to see contradictions as evidence of metaphor and when to hold rigidly to the literal interpretation and way to wriggle out of the problem? Why not find some literalist explanation to Exodus 19:4? I am sure if creationists applied their ingenuity to the texts they could find some way to have literal giant eagles.

and that's what make it literal.

No sorry that simply does not follow. You may only be able to spot metaphors that are clearly labeled or are contradicted by some other passage, but that does not mean the metaphors you can spot are the only metaphors in the bible. Nor is there anything in scripture that says we should only admit to metaphors where we see a contradiction.

Besides the bible has plenty of metaphor that aren't labeled or contradicted by some other passage in scripture.
Where in scripture are the talking trees in Judges 9 contradicted?
Where does the bible contradict Jacob's statement Benjamin was a ravenous wolf?
What about bread and wine being transformed into Jesus' flesh and blood?

You can't prove Genesis is a metaphor. I can prove it's literal.

You haven't so far, you have simply assumed it should be taken literally. On the other hand I have show you evidence supporting a metaphorical interpretation, in fact the sort of evidence you see in Exodus 19:4 as 'proof' the passage is metaphorical. I have also show you how a metaphorical interpretation is perfectly consistent with how God actually speak to us in scripture.

God and science.org

It is very hard to tell what your arguments are about when there is no obvious connection to anything I said. You can hardly be claiming
Evidence for God from Science proves Genesis is literal when the site supports the non literal Day Age interpretation of the Genesis days.

Also like I JUST said, Exodus 19:4 is contradicted by dozens of verses describing the red sea crossing. It is not the same thing as Genesis 1 and 2 cause your claim of that is faulty by my links.

Is there an argument here?

I have proof they're literal. You have no proof whatsoever they are metaphor IN the bible.

I have already provided evidence from scripture, the contradictory order of creation in the two chapters, the two very different settings for creation, the reasons for there being no plants given in chapter 2 simply not working in the context of Genesis 1. If you want to can add further reasons from scripture, the book of Hebrews taking God's seventh day rest, not as 24 hours finished a few thousand years ago but as an ongoing rest we are commanded to enter into today. You can add the fact that God being a potter and making people from clay is a very common biblical metaphor that we never taker literally anywhere else in scripture he is the potter and we are the clay. Genesis 2 even uses the same Hebrew word for potter when it says God formed Adam from the dust of the ground. Then we have the snake that is interpreted throughout the bible, not as a clever talking reptile that Genesis describes but as an angel the guardian cherub we know as Satan. You have the promise that the redeemer would be bitten on the heel by this snake and that the redeemer would bruise the Eden snake's head. That never happened at Calvary, not literally anyway. Jesus didn't step on a snake in any of the gospel accounts, he did however fulfill the prophecy if it was a metaphor for his defeat of Satan on the cross. You also have the Tree of Life which if it is literal means the Jesus is not the only source of everlasting life as the NT teaches us. We could have everlasting life through Jesus and his death on the cross, or by eating from the Tree of Life that God has kept guarded. A literal Tree of Life is terrible theology, however it make a wonderful metaphor for the cross itself, the tree Jesus bore our sin on.

You don't even have evidence of it OUTSIDE THE BIBLE. Just check the wall of links made by NON CREATIONISTS against evolution.

You really need to come up with arguments here in the discussion rather than try to 'argue by web link', better still if you want to discuss creationist claims to disprove evolution why not start a new thread on the topic.

Cows are purple. Doesn't that sound solidly literal too?
You're talking about that one verse and ONLY that one verse. You disregard the dozens of verses written that contradict it as literal. The verse was made to symbolize the fact that God is so great he might as well have bored them on eagle's wings

I agree. Of course there a plenty of metaphorical meanings to Geensis if you look for them. What you need to deal with is the fact that this metaphor is spoke as though it was literal, which mean sounding literal to you is no evidence a passage has to be literal. You rely on the other descriptions of the Exodus which contradict the literal interpretation of the eagles, while you refuse to see the contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 which show us the same thing. Why the double standard here? Have you decided in advance which passages have to be literal and which you can take metaphorically? If so on what basis?

read it and weep. It's interesting that you don't know something that I knew in Sunday school.

Go to God and science and type in genesis in the search then click the one that talks about the genesis 1 and 2 claim or go to the bible contradictions section.

Why not address my points yourself rather than argue by weblink?

Like I said go to god and science.org then the design vs evolution section

Since we're talking about God, events of human logic that make sense mean nothing to him. Plus the fact that Exodus 19:4 is one verse compared to Genesis one being whole book. Also your Genesis claim is faulty.

But how can you prove it is a metaphor? Your one genesis 1 and 2 claim was thrown out. The difference between exodus and genesis is exodus IS CONTRADICTED. Genesis IS NOT.

If creationists put as much effort into reconciling the giant eagles with the exodus as they do trying to reconcile the obvious contradictions in Genesis I am sure they could come up with plenty of ad hoc answers there too, especially if they completely rearrange the story the way they do with Genesis 2. I prefer to take the two texts at face value and read what these simple and beautiful stories actually say. Creationists cannot do that because they approach the text with the conclusion they must be literal. Yet there is no reason to mangle the text that way when you already realise apparent contradiction may simply be evidence of metaphor.

So God making the sun stay still for a day is illogical but a man coming back to life after 3 days isn't or a blind man seeing from MUD? Once again you make yourself vulnerable. This is what evolution has done to us. Since there are no verses that contradict the fact that the sun stood still, it is unchallenged.

When you look up at the sky throughout the day and see the sun in different positions, is it because the sun has moved or because the earth beneath you feet is rotating? If the sun is not moving, how did Joshua make it stop? And how would Joshua commanding a stationary sun to stop result in a longer day?

It is not that God couldn't make the day longer, but that the literal explanation of what happened during the miracle simply would not work. Jesus could make a blind man see when he smeared mud in his eyes because ot two things, (1) he was God who had the power to perform this miraculous transformation and (2) the man was blind. If the man hadn't been blind then it wouldn't have been a miracle, and more than Joshua commanding the sun to stop that wasn't moving.

Then maybe you should read the links from God and science because the writer isn't even creationist.

No idea what you are talking about there.

Evolution isn't the same as the DNA double helix, the force of gravity making the planets orbit the sun, electromagnetism, atoms, nuclear fission, penguins, Antarctica, Australia. These don't go against the bible. Evolution does.

Unfortunately this is a different argument from the one you tried to use in the previous post that

Evolution is not in the bible so it is outside God.
​

This is clearly not true when, as I have shown, so many things that are real and are part of God's creation are not mentioned in the bible either.

Evolution does not go against the bible. It certainly goes against some people's interpretation of the bible, but so did a spherical earth and heliocentrism went against everyone's interpretation before Copernicus. Contradicting your interpretation is no evidence a scientific discovery is wrong.

Evolution is too big that if it was true there would at least be a sign or hint of it.

Yeah, that assumes you know what ought to be in the bible, how 'big' evolution is compared to other scientific discoveries, that you can even compare their 'size' and that above a certain size scientific discoveries are always mentioned in the bible. Is nuclear fission 'smaller' then evolution because atoms are smaller? Then what about the orbits of the planets and the earth around the sun, that is bigger than atoms and utterly revolutionary for both science and theology. No one was ever dragged before the inquisition for evolution. The only measure used consistently to decide what science God mentions in scripture and what is left out is that God doesn't seem to mention any science people hadn't already discovered. Size has nothing to do with it.

Got any proof? Nope. Honestly all you've done is repeat that pathetic exodus claim over and over and used a mistaken Genesis 1 and 2 claim over and over.

Where does the bible mention the earth is an oblate spheroid or orbits the sun?

RIGHT HERE!

God and science then bible authenticity then science and the bible.

No mention of the earth being a sphere let alone an oblate spheroid.

Got any proof? Nope. You're genesis 1 and 2 claim is faulty. Just check the link.

Sorry if you want to show genesis 1 and 2 are not contradictory you need to present some arguments yourself. The nice people of godandscience aren't here to discuss it for you.

Jesus never mentioned evolution.

Another non sequitur that doesn't address my reply. Would you care to defend your claim God should apologise if he used metaphors, or do you just change the subject?

"Sorry, I have no idea what this means."

And that's why your claim is wrong.

I am wrong because you don't write clearly?

You constantly say genesis is a metaphor yet you can't even explain WHAT THAT METAPHOR IS.

Well if you look in the bible the six day creation was used to teach the Israelites to observe the Sabbath, while in the NT the Sabbath itself was seen as a shadow (a metaphorical picture) of the rest and redemption we have in Christ. God forming Adam form clay is a common biblical metaphor for the care God shows in making all of us as well as our relationship to him as clay pots to the potter who made us. Being made from dust is a common biblical metaphor describing our frailty and mortality and the way we return to the dust when we die. Adam and Eve are seen throughout the NT as pictures of God's plan for marriage, and Eve being made from Adam rib, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone is a metaphor for the sexual union husband and wife being 'one flesh'. The creation accounts show God as creator of all, they show his care in creating us and his desire for us to walk in fellowship with him, they show how we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, while the tree of life and the seed of the woman bruising the snakes head are metaphorical pictures of the cross and our redemption. Adam may be an individual in the story but the name also means mankind and Genesis 5:2 tells us Adam was the name God gave the people he created, male and female, not just a single individual. Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

You're only believing it's a metaphor because science told you it was.

No I rejected the literal six day interpretation because science showed it was wrong. That is quote different form science telling me to interpret the bible metaphorically. It was the same when science show the church in the time of Copernicus that their literal geocentric interpretation was wrong. Science didn't tell them what new interpretation to adopt, they had to go back to scripture to find that. I interpret Genesis metaphorically because that is what the evidence from the text suggest.

End of part 1

 

[Assyrian]

Part 2

'sigh' Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before for the earth filled with violence through them and behold I will destroy them with the earth.

It's right there in black and white. Destroy the EARTH. NOT PART OF THE EARTH(you probably won't believe that though and you'll just pretend it's a metaphor). Why can't you

Perhaps if you have read more of your godandscience website which believes in a local flood you would realise the word translated earth here erets, can just as easily be translated land and in fact refers to a region or a land much more often than it means the whole planet.
The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

I dismissed exodus 19:4 because it's contradicted by dozens of other verses that all say it was the red sea crossing. GENESIS IS NOT. Are you even reading my whole comment?

Perhaps you shouldn't dismiss it but read what it says and understand how God is speaking to us.

Yet you have no proof. All I'm hearing is hot air dude.

That doesn't even make sense. Coming back to life doesn't happen by itself. Once again you show signs of dumbing down God. I find it odd that evolutionists like to beat around the bush.

Isn't believing God can do something that CAN'T be done without him make him stronger? If we believe God has to do things that can be done without him then that just helps atheists believe he doesn't even exist if he's bound by human logic.

Rejecting the literal interpretation of Genesis is not about what God could or couldn't do, but about evidence of what actually happened, evidence the earth is billions of years old and life evolved. I think TEs are much closer to the faith of the disciples here than creationists. Would John have believed the man born blind was miraculously healed if he kept walking into doors? Would Peter and John have believed in the resurrection if they had run to the tomb and found the dead body of a man who looked just like Jesus? Faith is believing God has done things that do not happen naturally, it is not about believing in things the evidence shows us didn't happened.

The evidence? You mean evidence made by ATHEIST SCIENTISTS? Evidence OUTSIDE THE BIBLE. It's evidence in the same that the fact that the planets look like they're revolving around us was good enough for Galileo theory. Also it's not proven anyway. My links prove it.

No idea what this section is supposed to be addressing.

The bible says we came from clay. It does not say we came from apes.

Again you switch arguments instead of addressing my reply. You tried to argue we couldn't have not have used evolution to create us because apes are not in the image of God, yet you have no problem with God using clay which isn't the image of God either. Why not defend your argument or admit it doesn't hold water?

Your new argument doesn't work either. The potter metaphors throughout the bible say God made each of us from clay and mention nothing about human reproductive biology and chromosomes gens or the DNA double helix, that doesn't mean the potter metaphor isn't a metaphor or that God didn't use biology to form us.

Exodus 19:4 is contradicted by the red sea crossing. Genesis is not.

Of course Genesis isn't contradicted by the Red Sea crossing, it is contradicted by two completely different orders of creation in the to chapters.

Yet Peter and the disciples and Paul took it literally?

Are you sure?
Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.
1Pet 3:20 These were the spirits of those who had not obeyed God when he waited patiently during the days that Noah was building his boat. The few people in the boat---eight in all---were saved by the water, 21 which was a symbol pointing to baptism

Should the church have waited until the last astronomer had abandoned geocentism before looking for better ways to interpret the geocentric passages? Or would the church have simply made itself look idiotic teaching the sun went round the earth until science made the case for heliocentrism watertight, which didn't really happen until sputnik and the interplanetary space probes showed gravity really did operate in space as Newton's law of gravity claimed?

Since when is the church the same as science? I thought religion wasn't allowed to be taught in schools? Once again you are contradicted by my links. The bible predicted a round earth way before science.

Unfortunately your link doesn't show the bible predicting around earth and you reference to the American school system completely fails to answer my point.

You claimed we should wait until the last creation scientist gives up claiming evolution is wrong before we accept evolution. How would this argument have served the church with geocentrism? Should the church have waited before they changed their interpretation of Joshua's miracle, should they have kept claiming the bible teaches the sun goes round the earth as long as here were still some geocentrists claiming heliocentrism was wrong? Or would that have kept making Christianity and the gospel look foolish when everyone but a handful of cranks accepted the fact the earth went round the sun? Was the church right to find a new interpretations for the geocentric passages once heliocentrism became the established scientific view?

Like I said go to god and science.org then the design vs evolution section

No reference to heliocentrism, geocentrism, Copernicus or Galileo that I can see.

I can't make links to it though

Probably a good thing, you need to learn to put an argument together here yourself.

Evolution supports survival of the fittest. Evolution means species after species died for nothing. Millenniums of death is very immoral.

So centuries of temple sacrifices and biblical sanctioned meat eating must be immoral too. I think God's attitude to the death of animals s different from yours.

Since you have no proof that works that it's a metaphor then the only alternative is taking it literally.

I have no proof Benjamin didn't turn into ravening wolf every full moon, no proof the passage is a metaphor that doesn't mean it is literal. I have no proof either the talking trees in Judges 9 is a parable, that doesn't mean they were literal walking trees discussing politics.

You see you make this completely unwarranted assumption that literalism is the default interpretation, and that unless a passage can be proven metaphorical by some arbitrary and highly variable standard of 'proof' then we must take it literally. There simply isn't any scriptural basis for that.

A toddler is innocent. A toddler takes it literally. If we are God's children then wouldn't that mean we are toddlers to him? Why wouldn't he speak to us as toddlers if we truly are toddlers. Like I said, the bible was written for God by man. Not for God by God. Also you still have no evidence that it's a metaphor IN the bible.

We are told to be as innocent as children, that doesn't mean being childish in our thinking 1Cor 14:20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.

You don't even have evidence that taking it literally is "primitive" to God.

I though I said literalism was a modern misunderstanding?

Since scientists have said evolution leads to natural selection, this can lead people away.

A lot of things can lead people away heliocentrism was a major stumbling block because up until then everyone had thought the bible said the sun went round the earth. Being a stumbling block didn't mean it wasn't true though. But what has that to do with your I believing in evolution to impress men and that it won't help me when I am dead, and my response that I am saved through Christ's death and resurrection? Or are you switching subject again?

What if evolution is just another missed point?

Then that is what the evidence will show us, and science will follow the evidence as it always has done. That is how science works. Though oddly, science doesn't ever seem to go back to an old idea that had been shown to be wrong, new ideas and new understandings, but the die hards clinging to the old ideas never seem to find the evidence coming back round to support them

People believed the earth was flat and that they had evidence.

No the earth looked flat so they assumed it was, when they used science to study the earth the evidence said it was round. It may not have been a sphere as the early Greek scientists thought, but rather an oblate spheroid, so their views were mistaken in part, or at least incomplete. New evidence and better more precise measurements challenged the spherical idea, but science never went back to the flat earth and the Christians who dismissed the spherical earth as pagan philosophy and supping at the table of devils (our friend Cosmas) were never vindicated by further scientific discoveries. Copernicus got it wrong too. The earth and planets do not travel in circles around the sun, but as Kepler showed in ellipses. The science changed as new evidence came in, but it never went back.

God and science then design vs evolution

Science proves it, my butt. Read the God and science.org ones first. You can't use the creationist card anymore cause guess what? The writer ISN'T A CREATIONIST!

What writer

I DO TAKE THE DAYS LITERALLY. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT 6000 YEARS OLD SMART ONE.
I can claim it's not a metaphor because there's no contradiction to it. The scriptures themselves are evidence they are literal. How can you claim it's not? You can't. If you could you would have done something better than that the stupid genesis 1 and 2 claim.
WOW. Are you really this ignorant? Have you never heard of the gap theory? God made the universe in 6 days(each one being 24 hours). We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. Plus the gap between Genesis and the rest of scripture. Also how does believing it was MADE in 6 days mean I have to believe it's 6000 yr old? You do realize there are young earth creationists who think it's about 10,000 years(although I believe it's even older than that).

Sure I have heard of Gap Theory though since most creationists I talk to are either young earth or day age, until you specifically mentioned it, I had no reason to suspect this was your view or address it. Gap theory takes the days of Genesis literally, just not the six days in Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. In fact God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days and and indeterminately long period between Genesis1:1 and 1:2. Have you read what your godandscience site says about the gap theory?

The idea of a Pre-Adamic flood has been around for some time, although it is difficult to support either biblically or scientifically.
The 'Gap' or 'three earth ages' Creation Model
​

However I do like the way believers in the beginning of the nineteenth century faced with growing geological evidence for an earth much older than Bishop Ussher claimed, searched for different ways to interpret he days of Genesis apart from the literal six day creation and came up with first the Gap Theory and later Day Age. It is not that the Gap Theory is the right answer, but that these men of God were right to search the scriptures for better interpretations when the last science showed their old interpretations were wrong.

Why don't you put down the science books and pick up a bible?

And yet I have been discussing scripture here that you have been unable to address.

-Isn't calling God metaphorical insulting to him? You're pretty much saying that God is talking the talk but not walking the walk. Without proof I might add.

Was Jesus talking the talk but not walking the walk when he spoke in parables and metaphors too? Do you actually think about these claim you make.

- You're also dumbing him down by calling his miracles metaphors without proof. Jesus said knowledge is power but he also said knowledge used against his word is wrong. Why do you call the flood, Joshuas prayer, and the literal creation account illogical but believe a man comes back to live after 3 days? Which is more impressive? Making the universe in 6 days or millions of years? So why doubt that God can do that just cause primitive men in white coats tell you to?

Perhaps you can go back to the place I discussed this before, quote it and address my point.

...
-Assuming science has all the answers. Technically science can't even prove God because God is above pathetic human science and logic. Which means he's above evolution, the sun standing still, a flood not being able to engulf the earth and he's above death.

And yet science has shown the church the sun did not stand still because it was already stopped. You may claim God is above science, but that does not mean your interpretations are above science. Science that studies the universe God created and if science contradicts people's interpretation it is their interpretation that is wrong. Science showed the early church flat earthers were wrong and all the geocentrists who claimed Copernicus was wrong for contradicting scripture. Science has shown young earth creationists are wrong too which is why the early fundamentalists turned to Gap and Day Age. Of course science contradicts your views of evolution, but this time it is different. Your anti science interpretation must be right even if every other anti science interpretation in the history of the church has been wrong.

If you're just gonna repeat the same thing over to make it seem as you're typing a lot(seriously I'm getting tired of reading the title Exodus 19:4 over and over) then I really have no reason to continue this.

Perhaps if you could deal with the issue instead of dismissing it?

 

[shernren]

Statistics, damned lies and statistics. It all depends on which university is surveyed / who answers / whether people think their jobs are in danger depending on how they answer. Surveys don't mean jack. In 2001 alone there was over 5000 registered scientists with PHD's all of whom signed up on the institute for creation research for belief in creation.

Actually, there are about 5.8 million researchers in science and engineering worldwide (OECD + China and some others), of which a quarter are in the US.

5,000 out of 5.8 million (world researchers) gives 0.09%, while 5,000 out of 1.45 million (US researchers) gives 0.34%.

Meanwhile, there are about 2.5 million PhD holders in the US. 5,000 out of that gives 0.2%.

So whatever you may think about academic consensus, it is a numerical fact (using the number you provided) that less than 1% of scientists believe in creationism. In fact Assyrian's answer of 0.15% is uncannily close considering the fact that he gives no evidence for it.

Sources:
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/cps2006/tab01-01.xls - US PhD holders (Excel file)
AAAS R&D Program - Guide to R&D Funding Data - International Comparisons - science and engineering R&D workers in OECD; the 25% figure for US workers comes from the second pie chart.

 

[tyronem]

Part 2

Perhaps if you have read more of your godandscience website which believes in a local flood you would realise the word translated earth here erets, can just as easily be translated land and in fact refers to a region or a land much more often than it means the whole planet.
The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

Perhaps you shouldn't dismiss it but read what it says and understand how God is speaking to us.

First off the Psalms is poetry, Genesis is Literal, this has already been confirmed by prose analysis of these chapters

Secondly GodandScience.org has it wrong, Psalm 104 does not specify that the waters it talks about is creation week or flood week. There are a number of facts that preclude he is talking in fact about the flood in that passage.

6Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

The waters stood above the mountains. In creation week there was no mountains, God caused the earth to rise up above the water, not the water cover the mountains. - Don't believe it? re-read genesis.

7At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

In reference to Genesis flood the Bible clearly says the waters asswaged - that means they rushed out once the flood was finished. - Again in Genesis

8They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

The waters receded into the valleys - Again in Genesis

9Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

God promised to never flood the earth again, and therefore set a bound that they may not pass over. - Again in Genesis

It makes absolutely perfect sense this in fact is reference to the Genesis Flood and not creation week.

You only come to any other conclusion by denying scripture. Scripture isn't hard, it is what it is and as such is undeniable.

 

[shernren]

In creation week there was no mountains, God caused the earth to rise up above the water, not the water cover the mountains.

I see your theory and raise you the Bible:

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear."
(Genesis 1:9, NIV)
​

Sorry buddy, in a literal interpretation, it was the water moving not the earth rising.

 

[tyronem]

Actually, there are about 5.8 million researchers in science and engineering worldwide (OECD + China and some others), of which a quarter are in the US.
5,000 out of 5.8 million (world researchers) gives 0.09%, while 5,000 out of 1.45 million (US researchers) gives 0.34%.
Meanwhile, there are about 2.5 million PhD holders in the US. 5,000 out of that gives 0.2%.
So whatever you may think about academic consensus, it is a numerical fact (using the number you provided) that less than 1% of scientists believe in creationism. In fact Assyrian's answer of 0.15% is uncannily close considering the fact that he gives no evidence for it.

I was not quoting statistics, I was merely stating that 5000 people with science PHD's had publically declared (in 2001) that they believed in creation and not evolution.

It in no way makes an account for statistics around what percentage of scientists believe in creation. Let alone your PHD numbers that appear to number from all disciplines including business etal

It would be a fallacy to compare one gathering of like minded individuals as an entire population sample.

It is no numerical fact because you base your conclusion on grossly ridiculous figures.

That completely aside, it is a gross fallacy to which all evolutionists seem to ascribe in their appeal to both popularity and authority with these ridiculous surveys that purvey nothing but confusion.

The most ridiculous thing about these surveys when they put them forth is they never ask if they believe in evolution because they deny God, or because they think everyone else does, or because their personal study into it gives them the assurance it is true.

If most were being honest then option 1 and 2 would be most popular, because the reality is people deny creation and God because they are walking after their own lusts and seek only to look after the flesh, denying God and His works because the Bible and God chaps their hide. That is the real reason people reject God, and you can ask any evangelist worth their salt and they will tell you the same thing.

The second most ridiculous thing about evolution is that it is a secularist world view that seeks to explain life without God, yet the only way the huge leaps of development that defy real scientific laws, common sense and real science in what is observed today in variation requires God to have done it, and as such the secularist world view blows itself up, you end up at God did it all and leaves no reason to deny special creation as is literally defined within Genesis.

 

[tyronem]

I see your theory and raise you the Bible:

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear."
(Genesis 1:9, NIV)
​

Sorry buddy, in a literal interpretation, it was the water moving not the earth rising.

So how do you propose, on a level earth (or even a mountainous earth) covered by water, that waters gather in one place without earth rising and falling causing valleys and hills / mountains while living within the constraints of the laws of physics and gravity?

I would very much like to see an experiment that managed this

 

[shernren]

It is no numerical fact because you base your conclusion on grossly ridiculous figures.

Hey, no skin off my back - it was your number I was using.

The most ridiculous thing about these surveys when they put them forth is they never ask if they believe in evolution because they deny God, or because they think everyone else does, or because their personal study into it gives them the assurance it is true.

If most were being honest then option 1 and 2 would be most popular, because the reality is people deny creation and God because they are walking after their own lusts and seek only to look after the flesh, denying God and His works because the Bible and God chaps their hide. That is the real reason people reject God, and you can ask any evangelist worth their salt and they will tell you the same thing.

The second most ridiculous thing about evolution is that it is a secularist world view that seeks to explain life without God, yet the only way the huge leaps of development that defy real scientific laws, common sense and real science in what is observed today in variation requires God to have done it, and as such the secularist world view blows itself up, you end up at God did it all and leaves no reason to deny special creation as is literally defined within Genesis.

I know of a scientific theory about the nature of the universe which claims that matter is being continually created from nothing. Its founders explicitly state that they came up with this theory precisely because the notion of a universe with a beginning in time sounds too much like the creation story of Genesis 1. Therefore, despite the fact that it contradicts the conservation of matter and energy, and despite the fact that it explains no significant astronomical fact discovered after about 1995, this theory states that the universe is eternal in time, and the only reason things look older the further away they are from us is because the very matter they were made from was poofed into existence earlier.

What would you think of someone who supports such a theory? Would you say the same harsh things about them?

 

[shernren]

So how do you propose, on a level earth (or even a mountainous earth) covered by water, that waters gather in one place without earth rising and falling causing valleys and hills / mountains while living within the constraints of the laws of physics and gravity?

I would very much like to see an experiment that managed this

Hey, it's not called a miracle for no reason, right?

If you get to ignore the laws of physics when invoking a Flood, I get to ignore the laws of physics when describing the creation. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.