Deceiving the Nations.

[Assyrian]

There is but one reality based upon one worldview.
The hermeneutic I use isn’t mine, it has been around for a long time and is a proven method. It isn’t influenced by the world, or worldly theories.
A non-Christian could never present a biblically strong position because the Holy Spirit doesn’t reside within them,

So if you share your literal hermeneutic with, say, a militant atheist, who also believe Genesis teaches the earth was made in six days, then that isn't a biblically strong hermeneutic and isn't from the Holy Spirit?

so their beliefs are not relevant and obviously not welcome.

Presumably not welcome because they show your hermeneutic gets along quite well without the Holy Spirit.

 

[Deamiter]

Evolution works very well for their purposes of promoting a lie, the biggest lie ever thrust upon and accepted by the church. Satan is very pleased.

If a Christian ascribes natural forces to Creation that indeed puts God on the sidelines instead of under center. How can God be in action if He isn’t in the game?

You have again and again ignored the comparison between evolution and gravity here. If God can keep the earth in orbit around the stars using natural forces would you then claim that that puts God on the sidelines? Of course most Christians believe that all natural laws are created and sustained by God including gravity and evolution.

You asked me earlier to show where you claim your interpretation of scripture is equivilant to scripture itself -- you've just done it again:

Ahh, but man’s evaluation of nature does exactly that, it voids the truth of Scripture.

It voids YOUR INTERPRETATION, but not in any way the spiritual truths that all Christians see in the scriptures.

Creationism is one of the great lies of our age and Satan is using it to corrupt the church and to cast doubt on God's Word in the mind of anybody who does bother to study God's creation. Creationism is the primary reason the educated in America reject Christianity whereas the opposite used to be true. It's a tragedy that somebody claiming to proclaim God's Word would tell somebody who has studied a particular part of God's creation for their entire life that they have no clue what they're talking about and should believe this book rather than their own eyes.

The Biblical prophets were tested by comparing their words to nature -- so interesting how creationists no longer submit their claims to any verification besides their own assumptions about Biblical interpretation.

 

[Assyrian]

Surface text is just the simplest and often the most obvious reading.

EG, some TE have denied that six 24 hour days is in the surface text. I don't think that argument is really worth debating, though I would say it is not unreasonable, scientifically or academically speaking, to debate whether the surface text is somehow overcome by a hidden meaning for things like "yom" in the context of Gen. 1.

Why do you think the surface text is not worth debating? You want to throw out a few hundred years of scientific research on the basis of the surface text.

Shouldn't we examine it first? Shouldn't we see if it actually is the surface text we should be reading? Or if we should actually be reading the figurative meaning, the way the rest of scripture interprets the snake and Moses himself interprets the days? Why should we accept a literal interpretation of days when the person who gave us the text, Moses, didn't?

Shouldn't we see if the surface text actually fits the 'day=24 hours' interpretation? Why are there three or four different uses of the word day in the first two chapters if the surface text is insisting of a six literal day interpretation? Why does God define day as the period of light and immediately give a different use of day as light and dark in the second half of verse 5? How can we have day and night before the evening and morning of day one if 'day one' was the very first day?
Why after describing six days of creation does the text describe the whole creation period as a single day?
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. What sort of day was God talking about when he warned Adam he would surely die the day he ate the fruit? Was God talking about death figuratively or was it the day that was figurative, and as the early church believed actually lasted almost a thousand years?

If Genesis is teaching six literal days, shouldn't it stick to the same meaning of day?

If it is meant literally, why are there glaring contradictions in a literal interpretation? Why do the first two chapters give completely different orders of events? How can you be talking about a literal evening and a literal morning before there is a sun? This is a very important point because it convinced the church for over a thousand years, from the time of Origen and Augustine, that the days were probably not meant literally.

CHAP. 7.--OF THE NATURE OF THE FIRST DAYS, WHICH ARE SAID TO HAVE HAD MORNING AND EVENING, BEFORE THERE WAS A SUN.

We see, indeed, that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting, and no morning but by the rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness, and called the light Day, and the darkness Night; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was, and .yet must unhesitatingly believe it. For either it was some material light, whether proceeding from the upper parts of the world, far removed from our sight, or from the spot where the sun was afterwards kindled; or under the name of light the holy city was signified, composed of holy angels and blessed spirits, the city of which the apostle says, "Jerusalem which is above is our eternal mother in heaven;"(1) and in another place, "For ye are all the children of the light, and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor of darkness."' Yet in some respects we may appropriately speak of a morning and evening of this day also. For the knowledge of the creature is, in comparison of the knowledge of the Creator, but a twilight; and so it dawns and breaks into morning when the creature is drawn to the praise and love of the Creator; and night never falls when the Creator is not forsaken through love of the creature.

For even those narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of His, the nature of which we have above explained. Whence also in, them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars--the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that any one eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it.

Why do the days in Genesis not fit biblical days which start in the evening. The Sabbath is based on the creation week. So why don't the two calendars fit? The Sabbath runs from evening to evening. The literal interpretation of Genesis has the days ending in the morning, then the next day starts.

But worse still, Genesis never says creation lasted six days. It doesn't say the days were consecutive or the only days in that period. We have seen there was already day and night before the evening of day one. The accounts of the different works of creation include things which take a long time to happen. In Gen 1:11&12 we read of trees producing fruit which is something that takes a long time to do. It doesn't say God created the fruit miraculously, but that the tree produced the fruit.

In Gen 1:14&15 we see God creating lights in the expanse of heaven, to be signs for seasons days and years... and it was so. Before we have morning and evening a fourth day, the sun moon and stars have been marking out days seasons and years. All in six days? No Genesis doesn't say that.

The worst thing from the point of a lawyer, is we have this expert witness, Moses, who either wrote the account, or is the one who edited a much older text and added it to his book, and the expert witness, the most highly regarded of all the OT writers, the only one in the whole bible who says anything about creation days, this expert witness didn't take God's days literally himself.

 

[shernren]

B. Physical observations are not to shake one's faith in the Word of God. God says he will part the seas. God says he made the earth in six days. Same thing.

(emphasis added) Basic grammar: one is in the future tense, one is in the past tense. There is no evidence that God will part the seas, and there is no evidence that He won't. Without knowing His character, we cannot decide between either; knowing His character, we can give Him the benefit of the doubt and say He will.

There is no evidence that God did make the earth in six days, but there is plenty of evidence that He did not. Without knowing His character, we would simply say He lied. Knowing His character, we'd better figure out what He meant!

Name me one deist or atheist from whom I accept pseudo-science from. If you can’t do that then retract the accusation.

Do you believe that if evolution is true, then there is no basis for morality?

Unfortunately there are countless others to whom it had the opposite effect.

Fires cause property damage, kill people, and ruin lives every day. Does that mean that we should ban fire and confiscate all known forms of fuel? Or does that mean that we make sure we know how to control any fires we start?
Electricity is deadly in almost any proportion that we use daily. Does that mean that we should sever our houses from the line and go back to the age of coal? Or does that mean that we keep our electricity supplies well regulated and make sure that only equipments which can harness and control electricity properly are able to access it?
Cars kill people every day. Does that mean we should ban cars and go back to bicycles and horses? Or does that mean that we make sure only people who know how to drive cars properly can drive cars properly?

Of course anything worth anything in this world can be abused to harm people. Even Christianity wrongly applied can harm people. Is it any wonder that evolution can? That does not make evolution bad, any more than the invention of fire was bad simply because it made arson possible. More often than not, evolution turns Christians away from the faith because it causes them to doubt their earlier creationist indoctrination - and whose fault is that, evolution's or creationism's?

I place nature on the same level as scripture. I place the study of nature on the same level as the study of scripture. I place nature and scripture on the same level because this seems to be what scripture teaches. Nature was spoken into existence by the very Word of God. Scripture was given by inspiration of God. Both are revealed by the Word and are testimonies to the Creator.

Wow, this is all based on what it seems to be to you. Thank you for your honesty, it is refreshing to see. As refreshing as that may be it doesn't change the fact that nothing within Scripture even remotely backs up that claim, it is solely a man-derived solution to the problem of evolution. Is it any wonder how we are so completely different in how we see the Bible and Christianity?

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
(Romans 1:18-20 NIV)

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
(Psalms 19:1-3 NIV)


I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men!
(Ecclesiastes 1:12-13 NIV)
Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.
For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.
(Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NIV)

What "matter" was concluded here? Was it a study of Scripture? No, it was a study of "all that is done under heaven", i.e. nature and human life.

And the Christian commitment to study nature is in no way a response to evolution. It was a response to geocentrism as well:

... I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sensory experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands. ...

From this I do not mean to infer that we need not have an extraordinary esteem for the passages of holy Scripture. On the contrary, having arrived at any certainties in physics, we ought to utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true exposition of the Bible and in the investigation of those meanings which are necessarily contained therein, for these must be concordant with demonstrated truths. I should judge that the authority of the Bible was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions which, surpassing all human reasoning could not be made credible by science, or by any other means than through the very mouth of the Holy Spirit.

Yet even in those propositions which are not matters of faith, this authority ought to be preferred over that of all human writings which are supported only by bare assertions or probable arguments, and not set forth in a demonstrative way. This I hold to be necessary and proper to the same extent that divine wisdom surpasses all human judgment and conjecture.

But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations. This must be especially true in those sciences of which but the faintest trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in the Bible.

Galileo wrote these words in 1615, more than 200 years before evolution ever appeared on the scene.

Studying the pot reveals much less about the Potter than His love letter.

Really? Romans 1 says that God's revelation is so obvious in nature that non-believers will have no excuse for rejecting Him. The Bible itself elevates nature to that level; I feel embarrassed at knocking nature down a notch, and so should you!

But even if I concede that a pot may not reveal enough about a Potter, it can certainly reveal enough about itself!

 

[gluadys]

And this is the key to error. A particular scientific understanding is NOT the same as the specific written love letter from God to His people.

Nor did I say it was. You are making the same erroneous conflation as Vossler. I said I place nature on the same level as scripture, not science, much less a particular scientific understanding. Science is an interpretation of nature and it goes on the same level as an interpretation of scripture, not on the same level as scripture itself.

The natural revelation is not as clearly understood as the specific revelation -- they differ in quality, understandability, usefulness, etc.

The natural revelation has a different purpose and scope than the special revelation. There are matters in special revelation which are not touched on by natural revelation and vice versa. But why would that make the natural revelation less clearly understood? After all, natural revelation is given to all people without exception. That is why it is also called general revelation. Special revelation is given to those chosen and prepared to receive it.

Studying the pot reveals much less about the Potter than His love letter.

And the point of science is to tell us about the pot, not about the Potter. The problem with YECism is that it wants to reject what we learn about the pot because it doesn't square with their interpretation of scripture. They help propagate the lie that if their interpretation of scripture does not align with science, either the scripture or creation must be rejected.

I do not say that one revelation will contradict the other. However, where there is a conflict we need to test BOTH of our interpretations and understandings.

Of course, the revelations will not contradict each other. Conflict only occurs in the interpretations of the revelations, so yes, it is the interpretations and understandings that need to be tested. In the specific matters of the age of the earth, the global extent of the flood and the evolution of species, these understandings have been thoroughly tested against the reality of nature. So we know the earth is old, the flood was not global in extent, and evolution is a natural process as old as life, from which new species emerge--including, in its time, humanity.

I do not blindly accept the consensus of a methodology that specifically excludes God acting supernaturally, especially when He has revealed that He has done just that within history.

Well, you err in saying the methodology specifically excludes God acting supernaturally. It does not. What it does is exclude science from investigating supernatural acts. That is a different matter. To equate this limitation of science with excluding God and God's supernatural actions from history is to accept scientism--the belief that science is the only acceptable avenue for acquiring truthful knowledge.

Where there is a perceived conflict between the explicit and the implicit revelation, I examine my understanding of both, but will rely much more on the explicit revelation.

This suggests that scripture is explicit revelation and nature is implicit revelation. I see no basis for this equation. To me they both have explicit and implicit aspects.

Specifically, saying "I place nature on the same level as scripture" equates their importance, etc. Just from nature we would not know the full nature and actions of the Redeemer.

I wasn't equating their importance. I was equating their reality and truth-value. I agree that special revelation is necessary because natural revelation is not sufficient to guide us to an understanding of sin and our need for salvation, much less to God's provision for salvation. While this makes special revelation more important in that regard, it doesn't make it more true.

The natural revelation is no less real or true than special revelation. It has a different scope and purpose, but within that scope and purpose it is as real and true as the revelation given in scripture. To reject the truths of nature is to reject the general revelation from God, just as rejecting the truths of scripture is to reject the special revelation from God.

 

[vossler]

So if you share your literal hermeneutic with, say, a militant atheist, who also believe Genesis teaches the earth was made in six days, then that isn't a biblically strong hermeneutic and isn't from the Holy Spirit?

How does a militant atheist believe in a creation of six days without believing in a Creator. Obviously he doesn't and therefore is easy to dismiss.

Presumably not welcome because they show your hermeneutic gets along quite well without the Holy Spirit.

Not welcome because they're not believers. Lots of non-believers believe in things that are biblical, that doesn't then make them welcome in the discussion discerning biblical truths. I pray that is also how you see this.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The point, vossler, is that a militant atheist believes that Genesis should be interpreted with a literal hermeneutic because it is much easier to deny it and God.

 

[vossler]

The point, vossler, is that a militant atheist believes that Genesis should be interpreted with a literal hermeneutic because it is much easier to deny it and God.

I understand that, but my point still remains. His 'strong' position isn't based on belief but disbelief and therefore will not be considered no matter what it is. He isn't of God and as such will use whatever will benefit his belief system.

 

[theFijian]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he meant for us to have babies and take over His Creation, obviously you must see this differently. As far as I can tell we've done a great job filling and subduing the earth, almost too good. This is another example of where the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense.

How can you subdue something you have not studied nor understood? Do you still not see why studying and understanding nature is part of the Creation mandate?

 

[theFijian]

1. Language Gap
2. Culture Gap
3. Geography Gap
4. History Gap

Ah I see, so you don't eschew worldly theories in interpreting the Bible then. As I was trying to explain, so many Creationists think that the truth of scripture leaps directly into their brain without any outside or 'worldly' theories interfering. But you have just told us here that you take these things above into consideration when interpreting scripture and thus employ any number of 'worldly' theories.

 

[vossler]

You have again and again ignored the comparison between evolution and gravity here. If God can keep the earth in orbit around the stars using natural forces would you then claim that that puts God on the sidelines? Of course most Christians believe that all natural laws are created and sustained by God including gravity and evolution.

God keeps the earth in orbit using the natural force, which He created, gravity. It isn’t a force under development, it exists now and has always existed in its present form just like man and all the animals. Evolution is a theory under development and runs its own course not under any divine manipulation or direction. It’s no wonder atheists are so drawn to this theory.

Creationism is one of the great lies of our age and Satan is using it to corrupt the church and to cast doubt on God's Word in the mind of anybody who does bother to study God's creation. Creationism is the primary reason the educated inAmerica reject Christianity whereas the opposite used to be true. It's a tragedy that somebody claiming to proclaim God's Word would tell somebody who has studied a particular part of God's creation for their entire life that they have no clue what they're talking about and should believe this book rather than their own eyes.

[FONT=&quot]emphasis mine.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At least your upfront and honest, I like that about you Deamiter. [/FONT]

 

[vossler]

[quote=shernren]Do you believe that if evolution is true, then there is no basis for morality?[/quote]What does that have to do with deists or atheists from whom I accept pseudo-science from?

More often than not, evolution turns Christians away from the faith because it causes them to doubt their earlier creationist indoctrination - and whose fault is that, evolution's or creationism's?

You’re really not asking me that question are you?

the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
(Romans 1:18-20 NIV)

It’s best not to read into a text like this and presume it say we are to study creation. If we’re honest, anyone with eyes to see can see the invisible qualities of God’s power and divine nature just by seeing. Scripture even emphatically states clearly seen, which tells us we don’t need a scientist or theory in order to see this evidence.

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
(Psalms 19:1-3 NIV)

I don’t know about you, but I’ve spent countless hours outside, both day and night, and have had no difficultly whatsoever in seeing the glory of God. Again, I don’t need a scientist or theory to help me with this either.

I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men!
(Ecclesiastes 1:12-13 NIV)

I’m very surprised at you for presenting these verses entirely out of context. This is not like you to do that. Had you gone ahead and read the rest of this chapter you would have seen these verses actually work against you and proves my point. So let’s do just that and read through verse 18.

I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted. I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.
​

This clearly shows that the pursuit of wisdom or knowledge among a host of other things, is futile.

Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.
For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.
(Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NIV)

What "matter" was concluded here? Was it a study of Scripture? No, it was a study of "all that is done under heaven", i.e. nature and human life.

Did you not catch the writer’s conclusion of the matter? Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. This was a summation of Solomon telling us the futility of wisdom, seeking pleasure, possessions, etc. The bottom line was for us to fear God and keep his commandments. So I ask you, does evolution or even studying nature in any way assist us in doing this?

And the Christian commitment to study nature is in no way a response to evolution. It was a response to geocentrism as well:

... I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sensory experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands. ...

From this I do not mean to infer that we need not have an extraordinary esteem for the passages of holy Scripture. On the contrary, having arrived at any certainties in physics, we ought to utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true exposition of the Bible and in the investigation of those meanings which are necessarily contained therein, for these must be concordant with demonstrated truths. I should judge that the authority of the Bible was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions which, surpassing all human reasoning could not be made credible by science, or by any other means than through the very mouth of the Holy Spirit.

Yet even in those propositions which are not matters of faith, this authority ought to be preferred over that of all human writings which are supported only by bare assertions or probable arguments, and not set forth in a demonstrative way. This I hold to be necessary and proper to the same extent that divine wisdom surpasses all human judgment and conjecture.

But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations. This must be especially true in those sciences of which but the faintest trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in the Bible.

Galileo wrote these words in 1615, more than 200 years before evolution ever appeared on the scene.

First of all this is interesting only so far as what a specific man said at a given point of history. It gives us a perspective of the mind of an important man in the field of science during that time. This in no way can or should be used to instruct us how we are to view Scripture.

Having said that I wish to address the areas of text I have highlighted. In the first I’d like to point out that he used the words ‘sensory experiences and necessary demonstrations’ and say that I think this is exactly where evolution falls on its face. It cannot show me, without speculation and conjecture, anything sensory or through necessary demonstration that the evolutionary process, goo to you, actually occurred.

In the second highlight, the word certainties is quite interesting. Again, evolution is filled with everything except certainties.

The third one I think speaks for itself. this authority ought to be preferred over that of all human writings which are supported only by bare assertions or probable arguments, and not set forth in a demonstrative way.

 

[gluadys]

Why do I need to know that? How does that assist me with my relationship with God? On what basis, within Scripture, can you make that claim? You can't!

You didn't include anything about your relationship with God or a basis in Scripture in your challenge. You simply asked for an example of something which, in my opinion, it appears you don't know.

However, given the scriptural and traditional understanding that created nature is God-given and a mode of revelation, it would seem that a stubborn insistance on believing falsities about it is, to some extent, a rejection of that revelation, and I cannot think that is good for one's relationship to God.

No, but we’ve given them a vehicle that promotes their own ill advised views and allows them to remain prideful and arrogant.

Evolution works very well for their purposes of promoting a lie, the biggest lie ever thrust upon and accepted by the church. Satan is very pleased.

That is exactly the problem. By not resisting the atheist lie that identifies "natural" with the absence of God, we give them a vehicle to promote their own views, to promote that lie. As long as YECs accept that lie and accept the definiton of "natural" as "sidelining God" or "taking God out of the picture" they assist in the promotion of the atheist agenda.

It is not evolution per se that promotes that lie. It is the attachment of it to atheist philosophy and the willingness of YECs to roll over and agree with the principle used by atheists that creates the problem.

When we view evolution and natural geological processes in the same way as we do gravity, electricity, and dozens of other manifestations of nature's working, there is no problem. Rightly understood and taught evolution is no more disrespectful of God's governance of his creation than a magnetic field is. Nor are the geology and physics that determine the age of the earth and its geological history.

If a Christian ascribes natural forces to Creation that indeed puts God on the sidelines instead of under center. How can God be in action if He isn’t in the game?

They do if they put God on the sidelines.

You see what I mean about agreeing with atheist principles? You are echoing the atheist lie and declaring it to be true.

So you are now taking a broad claim like studying Creation and comparing it to the specific exercise of slavery. BTW, slavery is adequately addressed in the Bible, all it takes is some effort to find the appropriate verses. 1 Timothy 1:10 specifically answers your question.

That verse condemns slave traders. I asked for a verse that specifically condemned ownership of slaves. For example, many slaves remained in the same household they were born in and were never traded. Where does scripture forbid ownership of such slaves? Many, in ancient times, became slaves when they could not pay debts. This was a judgment of the law and did not involve trafficking in slaves. Where does scripture forbid that?

You’re really stretching here. With those kinds of gymnastics you should be an Olympic athlete. I don’t believe the law of the Lord ever referred to creation and the study of it, that certainly isn’t supported here.
Psalm 77 and 143 are the laments of the psalmist’s troubles and temptation. The meditation is a work of remembrance of what God has done, and that included creation in order to experience comfort. It certainly wasn’t a call to study creation. There certainly weren’t any edicts passed by David to go out and understand creation as a result of these psalms.
Ahh again we conflate science and Scripture inappropriately. This verse has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with Scripture.

You see what is happening here? You are interpreting those verses in ways that exclude every possible reference you disagree with. I interpreted them more inclusively.

Now here is the rub. What can we test these interpretations against to find out which is more consistent with reality?

This is where scientists have an advantage. They have access to a physical reality against which to test their hypotheses. That physical reality is not the private preserve of any one person, or group of people. When a scientist makes a claim about nature, others can see for themselves, or take measurements for themselves, or re-do the experiments for themselves. They don't need a special set of "glasses" to determine whether the originator of the claim is right or wrong.

But when it comes to Scripture, we are not dealing with a reality we can perceive objectively. We have no direct access into the mind of the writer of scripture. We often require the illumination of the Holy Spirit, but we have no sure way of telling which claimant is truly guided by the Spirit. There are no observations we can make, no predictions we can test, no experiments we can do that will be acceptable to all--not even to all Christians.

So, you can scoff at my interpretations all you want, but you are only expressing a personal opinion on the matter.

You couldn’t come up with a single verse that commands us to study God’s creation and yet you wish to claim that this exercise is on the same level as studying Scripture, whew what’s next?

I certainly wouldn't say it is studying scripture. It does show the weakness of relying on proof texts and demanding them of others. I gave you several verses, but you handwave them away because you choose to interpret them differently. That is the nature of arguing through proof texts. One can always argue for a different interpretation. This is no new thing. Consider how differently Catholics and Protestants interpret Matthew 16: 18

So now evolution is necessary for the farmer to be a better tiller of the land and the keeping of his garden. I'd be willing to bet that if I polled a thousand farmers and asked them whether evolution has played a role in their success as a farmer everyone of them would say no. C'mon be honest with yourself and me, evolution plays no role here, you're just grasping for straws.

If they are knowledgeable about recent advances in agriculture, they would say yes. An understanding of evolution is crucial to the development of new and effective pesticides and new and better crop varieties. Some new varieties are even being generated through gene splicing, a process that would not even be possible if YECs were correct about the existence of impenetrable barriers between "kinds". So,no, I am a long way from grasping at straws.

Wow, this is all based on what it seems to be to you. Thank you for your honesty, it is refreshing to see.

Of course, just as your interpretations of scripture are based on what it seems to be to you.

As refreshing as that may be it doesn't change the fact that nothing within Scripture even remotely backs up that claim,

So you interpret it, as seen above. But what makes your interpretation right? Of course, it is right in your opinion. But what other basis is there for it being right?

I see much in scripture to back up that claim. You don't see it because you adopt a hermeneutic that excludes it from your view.

Ahh, but man’s evaluation of nature does exactly that, it voids the truth of Scripture.

It voids your interpretation of the truth of scripture. Remember, nature cannot void the truth of scripture. Interpretations of nature can conflict with interpretations of scripture and in that case we have to recheck both sets of interpretations. On occasion a well-supported interpretation of nature can render an interpretation of scripture highly questionable, even untenable. But it is the interpretation that is void, not the truth of scripture.

Well if they had then the clergy would have probably documented it somewhere. They documented so many other things why not that?

I wouldn't necessarily count on that. Educated clergy generally shared the prejudices of most educated people of the day about the worthlessness of the opinions of the uneducated masses. They generally took note of them only when they became problematic, as in the cases of millennial fever that generated attacks on the privileges of the elite. When ordinary people went along with what the clergy were saying (whether in support or in opposition to the new science) there would be no particular reason to note it.

But what about the present? In the last 150 years there have been countless other findings and theories that no one seems to question, the only one that is continually questioned is evolution. The reason is because it just doesn’t make sense; it sounds completely idiotic and foolish, that’s why so many object.

Because those elements of the church that question science focus on evolution. When church and science agree, the general public is likely to agree as well. Also, in America, the media, especially radio and television, give much more prominence to creationist religious teaching than to other religious viewpoints. This is partly because that air time is purchased by various creationist ministries, and partly because when other Christian bodies do purchase air time, they deal with other topics and don't make an effort to counter-act creationist misinformation on evolution. And this happens in turn because, as religious teachers, most of them feel out of depth with the science, an inhibition which does not affect anti-evolutionists. Naturally, people are confused about what to think.

Well that is what evolution is, man's speculations on nature.

Scientifically, it can no longer be called speculation. It is well supported by observation, evidence and well-tested hypotheses.

Also, just because you put Scripture and nature on the same plane, I don't.

And on what scriptural basis do you reject God's general revelation in nature? What scripture says you can set God's revelation in nature aside and not deal with its truth?

So I really only have one term, Scripture, you're the one with three others.

Another demonstration of being in denial?

The problem I have with this statement is that you hold the study of Scripture and the study of nature to be of equal importance. For the Christian the study of Scripture is far, far, more important than nature.

No, I would agree the study of Scripture is more important, because Scripture deals with issues that are more important. But the study of nature yields truth just as the study of scripture does, and that truth cannot be rejected because we have a pet interpretation of scripture we are loath to give up.

Maybe you don’t believe it but when we stand before Him our worldview will be dramatically re-shaped.

Sure, I do. And I expect yours will be dramatically re-shaped by learning the geologists were right about the age of the earth and the flood.

Name me one deist or atheist from whom I accept pseudo-science from. If you can’t do that then retract the accusation.

I can't recall if you are one of the many creationists who has pointed to Fred Hoyle's dismissal of the big bang and his mathematical "proof" that evolution is impossible. If you are, that is one atheist from whom you accept pseudo-science, even if you acquired those notions second-hand without being aware of their source.

Likewise, although you stated you were not aware of Louis Agassiz, if you share his belief on the constancy of kinds and the impossibility of evolution, that is a deist who did much to promote those ideas in the US.

If you do not accept the ideas of these people, my apologies. But it is quite common to see creationists hold up atheists as examples to follow. Witness last year's kafuffle over Anthony Flew's endorsement of ID.

I find such instances very ironic when the same people then turn around and claim that interpretations of nature by those who do not share a Christian world-view are worthless. And doubly ironic when they then reject the scientific conclusions of their fellow-Christians.

Other than it isn’t observable. As far as I know all other natural forces like life, gravity, erosion, wind, water, etc. can be observed, evolution cannot.

On the contrary, it is observable and has been observed.

Unfortunately there are countless others to whom it had the opposite effect.

Which shows that the problem is not with the theory, but with how people mesh it with their philosophies/theologies. It is appropriate to protest when evolution is given an incorrect philosophical/theological twist. But bad philosophy or theology doesn't make the science incorrect.

Oh yeah, join the enemy in believing the lie so that we might promote another lie. Yikes.

Effectively, that is exactly what you have done.

 

[gluadys]

In the first I’d like to point out that he used the words ‘sensory experiences and necessary demonstrations’ and say that I think this is exactly where evolution falls on its face. It cannot show me, without speculation and conjecture, anything sensory or through necessary demonstration that the evolutionary process, goo to you, actually occurred.

Well, there is a problem right there. You are not correctly identifying the process of evolution. The process of evolution is not "goo to you". It is the introduction of variation into a species through mutation and the selection of some variations, sometimes by the chances of genetic drift (neutral evolution), sometimes because certain variations offer advantages to their possessors (adaptive evolution). Under suitable conditions, the combined process of variation and selection can lead to speciation.

Variation/selection/speciation. That is the process of evolution, and it has most certainly been shown through sensory experience and necessary demonstration.

 

[shernren]

Do you believe that if evolution is true, then there is no basis for morality?

What does that have to do with deists or atheists from whom I accept pseudo-science from?

It has everything to do with it. If you don't believe that "if evolution is true, then there is no basis for morality", then I don't see why you resist evolution so much. If you do, then you have bought into an atheist lie. Think about it: would any Christian who studies evolution believe such a thing and remain Christian?

You’re really not asking me that question are you?

I am. If a person who is exposed to evolution turns away from the faith as a result of creationist indoctrination, whose fault is it? I freely confess that I have worded the question to make it sound like the creationist is to blame ("as a result of creationist indoctrination"); but go ahead and try to make a case for the alternative.

It’s best not to read into a text like this and presume it say we are to study creation. If we’re honest, anyone with eyes to see can see the invisible qualities of God’s power and divine nature just by seeing. Scripture even emphatically states clearly seen, which tells us we don’t need a scientist or theory in order to see this evidence.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve spent countless hours outside, both day and night, and have had no difficultly whatsoever in seeing the glory of God. Again, I don’t need a scientist or theory to help me with this either.

And science to me enhances these things. Understanding evolution increases my bewonderment at life and existence. For God to have poofed everything into existence as-is would have been an impressive enough trick - but for God to make it all work from a single cell, or from even less! I have respect for the pool player who can pot balls without missing, but I would have even more respect for the pool player who could pot everything on the table with a single, well-aimed and well-timed strike.

I’m very surprised at you for presenting these verses entirely out of context. This is not like you to do that. Had you gone ahead and read the rest of this chapter you would have seen these verses actually work against you and proves my point. So let’s do just that and read through verse 18.

I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted. I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.
​

This clearly shows that the pursuit of wisdom or knowledge among a host of other things, is futile.

And I'm not surprised that you conflate wisdom with knowledge. Are you concluding that it is not good for us to be wise? Why, then, should Proverbs say that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", and tell us that "wisdom is more precious than rubies"? Indeed, they both from the hand of the same man, and from the hands of a man whom the Bible describes as the greatest naturalist of his time!

Did you not catch the writer’s conclusion of the matter? Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. This was a summation of Solomon telling us the futility of wisdom, seeking pleasure, possessions, etc. The bottom line was for us to fear God and keep his commandments. So I ask you, does evolution or even studying nature in any way assist us in doing this?

In the first place, whether or not evolution is true would not rest for one bit on whether or not it helps us fulfill God's commands. Newton's Laws will tell a sniper how to aim his bullet so that he can murder his target; does their assistance in his sin render them null and void? Even if evolution had only ever been used for evil and injustice in this world (and it has been used for far more good), it would be true if it conforms to physical observations and false if it does not.

But I say that studying nature and studying evolution assists me in my knowledge of God, His ways, and the Bible. My appreciating evolution makes me praise God in His ineffable wisdom; surely anything which can provoke that response in me must be beneficial for me!

First of all this is interesting only so far as what a specific man said at a given point of history. It gives us a perspective of the mind of an important man in the field of science during that time. This in no way can or should be used to instruct us how we are to view Scripture.

You claimed that putting science and Scripture on equal footing was only a human response to evolution; I was showing that it goes back far further.

Having said that I wish to address the areas of text I have highlighted. In the first I’d like to point out that he used the words ‘sensory experiences and necessary demonstrations’ and say that I think this is exactly where evolution falls on its face. It cannot show me, without speculation and conjecture, anything sensory or through necessary demonstration that the evolutionary process, goo to you, actually occurred.

In the second highlight, the word certainties is quite interesting. Again, evolution is filled with everything except certainties.

The third one I think speaks for itself. this authority ought to be preferred over that of all human writings which are supported only by bare assertions or probable arguments, and not set forth in a demonstrative way.

Seeing this come from you is a bit of a surprise for me. I remember you saying before that you had rejected evolution on faith, without defending the scientific creationists or looking at the evidence for evolution; I respected you for being honest. So now have you examined the evidence for evolution and found it wanting? Are you ready to say that?

 

[vossler]

You didn't include anything about your relationship with God or a basis in Scripture in your challenge. You simply asked for an example of something which, in my opinion, it appears you don't know.

Isn’t everything in Scripture and nature ultimately in some way shape or form concerned about my relationship with Him? I asked the question with that understanding because I assumed that was the reason for both. Do you have another one? Now if there is something concerning nature that I need to know that will assist me or play a role in my relationship with God, that in your opinion I don’t already know, please tell me.

However, given the scriptural and traditional understanding that created nature is God-given and a mode of revelation, it would seem that a stubborn insistance on believing falsities about it is, to some extent, a rejection of that revelation, and I cannot think that is good for one's relationship to God.

So believing what God said is a “stubborn insistence on believing falsities”, interesting, this is getting more and more fascinating.

That is exactly the problem. By not resisting the atheist lie that identifies "natural" with the absence of God, we give them a vehicle to promote their own views, to promote that lie. As long as YECs accept that lie and accept the definiton of "natural" as "sidelining God" or "taking God out of the picture" they assist in the promotion of the atheist agenda.

I just quoted that so that it could be seen again. It really says a lot.

It is not evolution per se that promotes that lie. It is the attachment of it to atheist philosophy and the willingness of YECs to roll over and agree with the principle used by atheists that creates the problem.

Wow, that one deserves another viewing too.

When we view evolution and natural geological processes in the same way as we do gravity, electricity, and dozens of other manifestations of nature's working, there is no problem. Rightly understood and taught evolution is no more disrespectful of God's governance of his creation than a magnetic field is. Nor are the geology and physics that determine the age of the earth and its geological history.

I would say that when we at last view evolution for the lie that the truth of Scripture is supreme then we can finally put the lie to bed. However I suspect that won’t happen until Jesus’ return. I’m hopeful that it will be sooner.

You see what I mean about agreeing with atheist principles? You are echoing the atheist lie and declaring it to be true.

Whew, where in the world did you pull that one out of? Have you forgotten that the atheist doesn’t believe in God so he can’t put something on the sideline that doesn’t exist? Now the TE certainly puts God on the sidelines and that fits in real well with the atheist. If you don’t believe me just head on over to the C&E forum and see who’s sleeping with whom.

That verse condemns slave traders. I asked for a verse that specifically condemned ownership of slaves.

How about Exodus 21:16:

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
​

Is that clear enough for you?

You see what is happening here? You are interpreting those verses in ways that exclude every possible reference you disagree with. I interpreted them more inclusively.

No I’m interpreting those verses as countless respected theologians have always interpreted them. Are you saying that Psalm 77 and 143 are not the laments of the psalmist’s troubles and temptations and that his meditations are not a work of remembrance? Please tell us how you interpret those Psalms.

Now here is the rub. What can we test these interpretations against to find out which is more consistent with reality?

First of all, Scripture and what it states is reality. If we want to test the realities of Scripture we do those through our faith in Him. One way is to present our concerns to Him and ask Him to clarify the situation or enlighten our understanding. Most of the time, if we’re in good standing with Him, He does exactly that.

This is where scientists have an advantage. They have access to a physical reality against which to test their hypotheses. That physical reality is not the private preserve of any one person, or group of people. When a scientist makes a claim about nature, others can see for themselves, or take measurements for themselves, or re-do the experiments for themselves. They don't need a special set of "glasses" to determine whether the originator of the claim is right or wrong.

That’s exactly what has happened and why evolution has been rejected by the majority of people in the U.S. The scientists advantage is that they can make a lot of claims by using big words that fool people because no one can see evolution, it is only a speculative theory. You are right about one thing though, scientists don’t need a special set of glasses because their imaginations will help them see whatever it is they are looking for.

But when it comes to Scripture, we are not dealing with a reality we can perceive objectively. We have no direct access into the mind of the writer of scripture. We often require the illumination of the Holy Spirit, but we have no sure way of telling which claimant is truly guided by the Spirit. There are no observations we can make, no predictions we can test, no experiments we can do that will be acceptable to all--not even to all Christians.

Scripture is reality and reality isn’t speculative but objective and true. You seem to live by the mantra of if it isn’t scientific it isn’t real.

So, you can scoff at my interpretations all you want, but you are only expressing a personal opinion on the matter.

Of course, every interpretation of Scripture is a personal opinion and thereby irrelevant. Look, I scoff at them because they have no biblically accurate hermeneutic to support them, even you, if you were honest, would have to admit that.

I certainly wouldn't say it is studying scripture. It does show the weakness of relying on proof texts and demanding them of others. I gave you several verses, but you handwave them away because you choose to interpret them differently. That is the nature of arguing through proof texts. One can always argue for a different interpretation. This is no new thing. Consider how differently Catholics and Protestants interpret Matthew 16: 18

Well if you go into reading Scripture looking to find something to support your personal view, guess what you’ll eventually find it. Homosexuals do it so why can’t evolutionists.

If they are knowledgeable about recent advances in agriculture, they would say yes. An understanding of evolution is crucial to the development of new and effective pesticides and new and better crop varieties. Some new varieties are even being generated through gene splicing, a process that would not even be possible if YECs were correct about the existence of impenetrable barriers between "kinds". So,no, I am a long way from grasping at straws.

That knowledge you call evolution which helps the farmer I see as adaptation. Yes adaptation does what you state, evolution doesn’t.

Of course, just as your interpretations of scripture are based on what it seems to be to you.

No it is based on a long history of biblical truth and doctrine, on hermeneutics that use the Bible as the foundation and not as an equal to anything else.

So you interpret it, as seen above. But what makes your interpretation right? Of course, it is right in your opinion. But what other basis is there for it being right?

The Bible itself supports it.

I see much in scripture to back up that claim. You don't see it because you adopt a hermeneutic that excludes it from your view.

Tell me what your hermeneutic is based on, that would interesting.

When ordinary people went along with what the clergy were saying (whether in support or in opposition to the new science) there would be no particular reason to note it.

Probably because it had no significance to their lives.

Because those elements of the church that question science focus on evolution. When church and science agree, the general public is likely to agree as well.

The Catholic church doesn’t question evolution and they’re the biggest denomination.

Also, in America, the media, especially radio and television, give much more prominence to creationist religious teaching than to other religious viewpoints.

Not public or commercial television, they most definitely side with evolution. I’ve not once heard 6000 years mentioned on public or commercial television but millions of years are constantly mentioned.
It is only religious television that fits your description.

Naturally, people are confused about what to think.

On that I think we can both agree.

Scientifically, it can no longer be called speculation. It is well supported by observation, evidence and well-tested hypotheses.

Like I said before, if it is so well supported by observation then there wouldn’t be any controversy, would there?

And on what scriptural basis do you reject God's general revelation in nature? What scripture says you can set God's revelation in nature aside and not deal with its truth?

I don’t reject general revelation in nature. I never said that.

Another demonstration of being in denial?

Not being in denial, but denial.

No, I would agree the study of Scripture is more important, because Scripture deals with issues that are more important. But the study of nature yields truth just as the study of scripture does, and that truth cannot be rejected because we have a pet interpretation of scripture we are loath to give up.

Then are you saying that where Scripture and nature conflict, Scripture is supreme?

I can't recall if you are one of the many creationists who has pointed to Fred Hoyle's dismissal of the big bang and his mathematical "proof" that evolution is impossible. If you are, that is one atheist from whom you accept pseudo-science, even if you acquired those notions second-hand without being aware of their source.

Nope! I’m not familiar with Fred Hoyle.

Likewise, although you stated you were not aware of Louis Agassiz, if you share his belief on the constancy of kinds and the impossibility of evolution, that is a deist who did much to promote those ideas in the US.

So what? That still doesn’t mean I have accepted pseudo-science from him. Even if we share a belief doesn’t mean I accept anything from him. That’s an absurd analogy or inference.

If you do not accept the ideas of these people, my apologies.

Apology accepted.

On the contrary, it is observable and has been observed.

It must only have been observed by the more advanced and evolved eyes of the evolutionist. If true then the unadvanced will surely die off soon and the problem will disappear. Isn’t evolution neat?

Which shows that the problem is not with the theory, but with how people mesh it with their philosophies/theologies. It is appropriate to protest when evolution is given an incorrect philosophical/theological twist. But bad philosophy or theology doesn't make the science incorrect.

That’s certainly one way to justify it.

Effectively, that is exactly what you have done.

Interesting to know how you think.

 

[vossler]

Well, there is a problem right there. You are not correctly identifying the process of evolution. The process of evolution is not "goo to you". It is the introduction of variation into a species through mutation and the selection of some variations, sometimes by the chances of genetic drift (neutral evolution), sometimes because certain variations offer advantages to their possessors (adaptive evolution). Under suitable conditions, the combined process of variation and selection can lead to speciation.

Variation/selection/speciation. That is the process of evolution, and it has most certainly been shown through sensory experience and necessary demonstration.

Does evolution claim that everything has a common ancestor? Last time I checked it did. That means everything came or evolved out of some sort of primordial soup.

Goo to you, yep I think that describes it in layman terms quite well.

 

[vossler]

It has everything to do with it. If you don't believe that "if evolution is true, then there is no basis for morality", then I don't see why you resist evolution so much. If you do, then you have bought into an atheist lie. Think about it: would any Christian who studies evolution believe such a thing and remain Christian?

My beliefs on evolution have nothing to do with atheists and everything to do with God and His Word. I trust only Him and His Word.

As far as your question, sure Christians buy into all sorts of lies and still remain Christians. Since TEs and atheists are bedfellows with one another in science it isn't difficult to see how they might become atheists themselves. I know I've heard the testimonies of atheists who came from such a background.

I am. If a person who is exposed to evolution turns away from the faith as a result of creationist indoctrination, whose fault is it? I freely confess that I have worded the question to make it sound like the creationist is to blame ("as a result of creationist indoctrination"); but go ahead and try to make a case for the alternative.

I would submit if that happened they were never in the faith to begin with and the blame, if there is one, should rest on the person or persons who led this person to believe something that wasn’t true. They would be a false convert.

...I would have even more respect for the pool player who could pot everything on the table with a single, well-aimed and well-timed strike.

Isn’t that what ‘poofing’ everything into existence is?

And I'm not surprised that you conflate wisdom with knowledge. Are you concluding that it is not good for us to be wise? Why, then, should Proverbs say that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", and tell us that "wisdom is more precious than rubies"? Indeed, they both from the hand of the same man, and from the hands of a man whom the Bible describes as the greatest naturalist of his time!

Wisdom isn’t the issue here, it is the pursuit of it while losing touch with reality. Besides, these aren’t my words, they are God’s

Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.
​

In the first place, whether or not evolution is true would not rest for one bit on whether or not it helps us fulfill God's commands. Newton's Laws will tell a sniper how to aim his bullet so that he can murder his target; does their assistance in his sin render them null and void? Even if evolution had only ever been used for evil and injustice in this world (and it has been used for far more good), it would be true if it conforms to physical observations and false if it does not.

Adaptation has been used for good, evolution hasn’t.

But I say that studying nature and studying evolution assists me in my knowledge of God, His ways, and the Bible. My appreciating evolution makes me praise God in His ineffable wisdom; surely anything which can provoke that response in me must be beneficial for me!

So to you studying nature and evolution are necessary for knowing God and this knowledge has improved your relationship with Him. Quite fascinating, maybe we should all become scientists so that we may do likewise.

You claimed that putting science and Scripture on equal footing was only a human response to evolution; I was showing that it goes back far further.

I don’t think that this put them on an equal footing. It just demonstrated how science can be used to support Scripture, not supplant it.

Seeing this come from you is a bit of a surprise for me. I remember you saying before that you had rejected evolution on faith, without defending the scientific creationists or looking at the evidence for evolution; I respected you for being honest. So now have you examined the evidence for evolution and found it wanting? Are you ready to say that?

First and foremost evolution doesn’t comply with Scripture and that is my primary reason for rejecting it. So yes I reject it on faith that God didn’t lie and the Bible is true. Secondly, and this one carries little weight, I reject it because it lacks evidence and is found wanting.

 

[Xaero]

Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.

How about that: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
A honest Christian working in an evolution-related field must acknowledge that the evidence for an old earth + evolution jumps at you when looking at certain data and it has therefore deep theological implications (a deceiving god) when someone is assuming a 6*24h creation.
The evidence for TOE is overwhelming, anyone with a PhD in that field who knows about the data and denies it's obvious conclusion is deceiving himself.

It’s best not to read into a text like this and presume it say we are to study creation. If we’re honest, anyone with eyes to see can see the invisible qualities of God’s power and divine nature just by seeing.Scripture even emphatically states clearly seen, which tells us we don’t need a scientist or theory in order to see this evidence.

Everyone is astonished by the size and beauty of galaxies but we only see their beauty with modern technology: http://www.birderblog.com/bird/Places/California/SantaCruzIsland/Andromeda.jpg
It's true, you don't need to be a scientist to enjoy the beauty of god's creation and getting in awe. But what should the christian scientist say when he looks at the clear data? He would also say "yes, god's power and glory is clearly seen by the things that are made: god created life via evolution". There are examples that are so easy that even child can understand that our earth is old and we share common descent with apes.


(1Pe 3:15) "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"
When you give witness and it comes to Genesis you must give an answer, so you also must be well versed in the Creation/Evolution debate. We have to deal with the issues of our times.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves" (Mat 10:16)

 

[Assyrian]

How does a militant atheist believe in a creation of six days without believing in a Creator. Obviously he doesn't and therefore is easy to dismiss.

We are looking at his hermeneutic, how he interprets Genesis, what he thinks it says. Sure you believe it and he doesn't. But you think the Holy Spirit has inspired your interpretation, the one who know the mind of God revealed the meaning of God's word to you. It is not just a question of our receiving this truth, we are supposed to have the Spirit of God transforming us and helping us understand God's word. But when you have the same interpretation as as someone without the Holy Spirit, then your interpretation is no more inspired.

You said: A non-Christian could never present a biblically strong position because the Holy Spirit doesn’t reside within them, If you share the hermeneutic of militant atheists, then it is not a biblically strong Holy Spirit revealed position.

Not welcome because they're not believers. Lots of non-believers believe in things that are biblical, that doesn't then make them welcome in the discussion discerning biblical truths. I pray that is also how you see this.

Rom 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
How are we supposed to obey this is we don't have any idea what the world is like and when we are being conformed to its patterns?

We point out that your interpretation of Genesis is worldly and show how is is conformed to the world by pointing to the militant atheist who has the same interpretation. You reject this evidence that your interpretation is worldly and uninspired because the militant atheist is worldly? It would be funny if it wasn't tragic.