• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Do Baptists appear to be intellectually challenged baboons...?

MichaelKelley

Sinner Saved By Grace
Jul 28, 2010
455
18
35
Eads, TN
Visit site
✟23,186.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Do Baptists appear to be intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia when they argue against the theory of evolution?

This is not intended to be a thread about the merits of the theory of evolution; it is intended to be a thread about the quality of the typical arguments Baptists use when arguing against the theory of evolution, and the consequence of the use of those arguments. The wording of the question posed is not to be understood as insulting of anyone or anyone’s beliefs, but as light-hearted Baptist humor. The arguments used by Baptists to defend their core Baptists beliefs are excellent, solid arguments, but are the arguments typically used by the Baptists when arguing against the theory of evolution excellent, solid arguments?

The Answers in Genesis website is excellent and outlines all the problems with evolution. It's extremely user-friendly too (good for intellectually-challenged baboons like us, I guess). Just type anything about evolution into the search and click on the article and read. Click the link below. Also, below the link is Ken Ham's State of the Nation Address.

Answers in Genesis (AiG) Ken Ham

State of the Nation 2 Address Part 1 of 6
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist
The argument isn't over evidence since the same evidence is used btvboth sides. The argument is over interpretation. Do it is essentially a philosophical debate that's why the best argument is still Scripture.

Whether the Scriptures appear to teach contrary to the theory of evolution depends upon ones interpretation of the evidence in Scriptures. Any Christian who is familiar with the basics of biblical hermeneutics should be very capable of preparing a strong case for either view without making any appeals to the sciences of biology or geology.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist
The Answers in Genesis website is excellent and outlines all the problems with evolution. It's extremely user-friendly too (good for intellectually-challenged baboons like us, I guess). Just type anything about evolution into the search and click on the article and read. Click the link below. Also, below the link is Ken Ham's State of the Nation Address.

Answers in Genesis (AiG) Ken Ham

State of the Nation 2 Address Part 1 of 6

Ken Ham was a guest speaker in my Church not too long ago, and several of us were shocked by how very little Ken Ham knows about either Genesis or the theory of evolution. Indeed, when arguing against evolution, he mostly argued against things that evolutionists do not even believe. When he argued against things that evolutionist do believe, his arguments from science betrayed the fact that he has very little knowledge of science. Any middle school science teacher could very easily point out fatal flaws in his arguments. When he argued from the Bible, it was all too apparent that his knowledge of the Bible would not qualify him to teach a Sunday school class in my Church. Ken Ham was never invited back.

Ken Ham had been invited to my church especially for the benefit of the high school kids in our congregation in order to help them better understand the weaknesses in the theory of evolution, but when I saw that he knew virtually nothing at all about evolutionary biology, I inquired about what, if any, formal education he had beyond high school. I learned that his only formal education in biology was not in general biology in which one is taught a little bit about evolution, but in the area of applied environmental biology, an area of biology in which he was taught virtually nothing at all about evolutionary biology. Most of the middle school science teachers in my community know more about evolutionary biology that does Ken Ham—and of course, Ken Ham has no education at all in geology.

I suppose that Ken Ham means well, but I believe that Christians have an obligation before God to get a good education before they go about teaching others.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,057
57
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,962,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married

Whether the Scriptures appear to teach contrary to the theory of evolution depends upon ones interpretation of the evidence in Scriptures. Any Christian who is familiar with the basics of biblical hermeneutics should be very capable of preparing a strong case for either view without making any appeals to the sciences of biology or geology.
I'm familiar with the "Christians" who will deconstruct the biblical account. Sad.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist
The Answers in Genesis website is excellent and outlines all the problems with evolution. It's extremely user-friendly too (good for intellectually-challenged baboons like us, I guess). Just type anything about evolution into the search and click on the article and read. Click the link below. Also, below the link is Ken Ham's State of the Nation Address.

Answers in Genesis (AiG) Ken Ham

State of the Nation 2 Address Part 1 of 6

A search through the archives at “Answers in Genesis” brought this paragraph to my attention:
Based on my own biological research into created kinds, I would be even bolder than Nelson. Over the past decade, I have worked to develop new methods of studying created kinds using statistics.8 This research is still very new and preliminary, but a pattern is beginning to emerge. For land animals and birds, the created kind most often corresponds to the conventional classification rank called “family,” which includes many species. There is evidence that the camel, horse, cat, dog, penguin, and iguana families are each a created kind.9 Like Nelson, I would put the coyote, wolf, jackal, and dog in the same kind, and I would include the fox. I would put the lion and house cat in another kind, and the llama and camel in yet another kind. Today these species (i.e., llama and camel) look amazingly different, but they seem to have been generated after the Flood from information already present within their parent kind. Lions, coyotes, and dromedary camels were probably not on the Ark but were born to parents within the cat, dog, and camel kinds.
This paragraph appeared in a March 19, 2007 article entitled at “The Animals on Noah’s Ark” by Todd Charles Wood, Ph.D.


Now let us take a look at the article. Let us especially notice this sentence:

“For land animals and birds, the created kind most often corresponds to the conventional classification rank called “family,” which includes many species.”

Where in the Bible or in any science publication did Todd Wood find this information? The obvious answer is that he did not find it anywhere—he just made it up out of thin air!

Now let us take a look at this sentence:

“Today these species (i.e., llama and camel) look amazingly different, but they seem to have been generated after the Flood from information already present within their parent kind.”

Where in the Bible or in any science publication did Todd Wood find this information? The obvious answer is that he did not find it anywhere—he just made it up out of thin air! Much worse than that, however, is the fact that we know from the DNA from these two animals that they could not possibly have evolved from a common ancestor in a period of a few thousand years. Moreover, even if it were possible, Todd Wood is depending upon the theory of evolution to defend his few that the account of Noah’s Ark in Genesis is an accurate account of an historic event. If it was possible for camels and llamas to evolve from a common ancestor, it was equally possible for the “cat, dog, and camel kinds” to evolve from a common ancestor. Perhaps worst of all, however, is the fact that, in this sentence, Todd Wood knowingly, willfully, and dishonestly substituted the words “been generated” for the word “evolved” and left out the word “genetic” before the word “information.” He knows very well that he is teaching evolution rather than creation, but he attempts to hide that fact. Is this science? Is this defending the Scriptures, or is it making a mockery of them?
 
Upvote 0

faceofbear

Veteran
Aug 3, 2009
1,380
99
Texas
✟24,739.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Anyone who quotes Ken Ham, Norman Geisler, or any leading apologist for arguments against Evolution does, yes. Namely because they are relying on elementary science or freshman college philosophical arguments to refute evolution. Oh, not to mention that Ken Ham distorts science and historical facts. But, back on topic, I've heard the "second law of thermodynamics" argument way to many times (which people don't understand there is a law that overrides it much like the law of aerodynamics overrides gravity). Nor do people seem to understand that there wasn't an ape and then boom, a human. It'd be like saying one minute there is snow, then boom a river. I don't accept evolution (you can't "believe in evolution"), but the arguments people use against it are quite pitiful. And there is a lot of semantical issues of what a species actually is. Because speciation is a proven fact, but Christians deny it simply due to a lack of understanding of what speciation actually is, which it is a form of macro evolution, but has been proven and can be proven in a lab. So, I just wonder how people can say it's a lie when it's done in a lab. However, I'm not well read on it either. Simply because I don't really believe it's my job to sit there and argue against evolution, when in reality, evolution doesn't disprove God, nor does it have, I believe, an effect on the eternal destination of someones soul... that belongs in the hands of Christ. Not being a YEC. But it does, in some regards, remove the authority of scripture, I believe. I can accept things like speciation etc, but I do not believe in a common descent i.e. man evolving from ape-like creatures or primordial slime. I believe we just have a common Creator :)

Personally, I just wish people would actually read up on the topic from experts like Richard Dawkins, and then Christians intelligible to respond to someone like Dawkins (or a Creationist), and not rely on material which a 6th grader could refute. Sorry, it just bugs me when people act like an expert on something when it's clear they haven't read a single book on evolution. To see it comparably, imagine an agnostic reading material on Christianity solely from an atheist, and you get the same picture of a Christian who relies on Christian material to understand evolution.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kenrapoza
Upvote 0

MagusAlbertus

custom user title
Aug 25, 2003
1,019
24
Edinburg TX
Visit site
✟1,310.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
the typical arguments Baptists use when arguing against the theory of evolution
"God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith" and similar arguments, are so beyond anything anyone could consider a cogent thought that it not only makes baptist look bad but it also sends people to hell who might otherwise have come to know the Lord.

The same goes for most arguing we do that extends past what the first book of the bible teaches us: No one was there at the foundations of the earth except God and his book wasn't written as a science-text but so that people could understand his majesty.

"In the beginning" in genesis MUST not be the beginning of all creation as it could contradict the TRUE beginning, which is found in John 1:1.

Simple literacy tells anyone who can read the bible that Genesis does not talk about the beginning of all existence; so most of the arguments that churchies throw around ("I ain't no monkey's uncle" and "God put dinosaur bones there to test our faith" and the like) not only sound mindless ramblings but also show that someone lacks reading comprehension.


But people who lack faith in Christ often supplement that lack of faith with faith in religion: I am one such person, which is why I believe that the message is the ONE TRUE translation of the WORD OF GOD; no other scripture is double-rainbow inspired.
 
Upvote 0

faceofbear

Veteran
Aug 3, 2009
1,380
99
Texas
✟24,739.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
If you believe I'm a biologos follower, I'm not. I just wish people would actually understand what they're arguing before debating it, or simply don't debate it at all. It's not our fault (or maybe it is), that the majority of YEC information is a pile of junk of distorted half-truths (and I am a YEC!). Honestly, many of the Atheists I have talked to, find the arguments from Christians absolutely laughable because they (Christians) don't understand what they are arguing. We are supposed to be looked at as fools in this world, but you shouldn't be looked at as a fool for literally being a fool by lackadaisically reading through a Christian YEC book and never even picking up origin of species to actually understand what Darwinian evolution, somewhat, teaches.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Last edited:
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi PG,

You wrote:
I suppose that Ken Ham means well, but I believe that Christians have an obligation before God to get a good education before they go about teaching others.

Well, I'm not in agreement with that statement. Christians have no obligation to God to get any kind of worldly education. Look at all the great men of the Scriptures and you'll find a few who weren't particularly educated. Especially when we look among the 12 first disciples. Paul and Luke were probably the only two early disciples who had any real education. God had to break Paul down and strip him of all that he had learned in the great centers of education of that day in Israel.

God holds no child of His to any obligation or responsibility to 'know' the wisdom outside of the Scriptures. So, hopefully you can see that maybe, just maybe, your premise is based on faulty knowledge. Why do you think, supported by Scripture, that God holds any child of His to an obligation of gaining worldly knowledge?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi again PG,

I've posted this on another thread and maybe you've seen it, but I'll repeat it here. If we believe the Genesis account of the creation of Adam, then let's look at exactly what that would have meant to one of us, had we seen him the day after he was created.

We might have walked through this land of beautiful foliage and flowers and trees all around, bearing ripe fruit that we could just reach out and pluck and eat, and in our journey happened upon Adam. Adam would have stood probably 6' tall and would have probably had some chest hair and, based on all that we know about human growth, would probably have appeared to us to be 25 or 30 years old. Had we asked Adam how old he was and he responded, "Oh, I'm one day old today!" We would surely have mocked him and said something like, "Sure, what do you take me for an 'intellectually challenged baboon?" We'd maybe have prodded him in the side and asked, "No, come on, how old are you, really?"

On that same day we could have done all of the same testing of the earth that we do today and we would have the same results that we get today. The earth would have layers, just as it does today. It's how God made it. Radiometric dating would still show that substances that had not even existed one week before were billions of years old. That's how God made it. We could have picked up a rock and sliced off a sliver and done carbon-14 dating or whatever other respectable dating method we might choose and that rock would have given us back a reading that we would interpret as billions of years of age.

You see, friend, the one thing that science cannot explain is a miracle. As far as I know that's the only thing that science will never be able to explain. Now, today we've actually lost sight of what a 'miracle' really is. We see people who are cured of cancer and we say, "Oh, what a great miracle!" It may not have been, although there are some documented cased that may well be. There is the story of a young soldier during the civil war who was shot and the ball passed through his scrotum picking up some sperm and lodging itself down range in a young virgin's womb. The woman became pregnant and of course everyong proclaimed what a miracle it was. No, it isn't! When sperm, still warm and alive, has a chance to fertilize an ovum in a woman's womb there is often times a very good chance that a pregnancy will ensue. Now, the facts of this particular case, that some soldier just happened to get shot through the scrotum and that a fertile womb lay in direct line of the shot downrange from the soldier are certainly very long odds, but not miraculous odds. As a matter of fact, given the line up of events, the pregnancy becomes fairly understandable.

Friend, a miracle is something that happens outside of the natural laws. Something that happens that goes against every law of nature, every law of science, every law of rational thinking, every law. So, hopefully you might give understanding and wisdom to this: If an event can be explained by the natural scientific laws that we understand operate the creation, then it is not a miracle. So, what you believe about the creation is not a miracle. Oh sure, you may go back in your thinking processes and draw back to the 'big bang' or 'black hole' or 'quasar of energy' beginning and say that that was a miracle, but the Scriptures declare more than that as the 'miracle' of this creation. That in practically a moment God spoke into existence all the heavenly bodies. That in roughly the same amount of time God spoke into existence all the foliage upon the earth's surface. That in roughly the same amount of time God created all of the animals of both land and sea.

So, while you may rest your 'theory' of God and this creation that we live in on some very small minute miracle that occurred billions of years ago, I rest my 'theory' of God on a God who created all that is seen and unseen in this realm with a purpose. He began and in a matter of days made all that was necessary for Him to create man and to provide a place for him to live. My understanding of God and what He has done, is that He has created all, from one end of this universe to another, all, for my benefit. Everything is in it's place because God wanted to make a place where Ted could live. Where He could love Ted and provide and sustain my life. He did it all in a mere moment in time 6,000 years ago because He loves Ted.

But God's love is so great that He not only did it because He loves Ted, but because He loves all of us. After He created all things and then in anger destroyed all living things that walk upon the earth, save Noah and his family, He began working through a man named Abraham to raise up the nation of Jews to do His bidding in writing down all that He has done and sprinkling liberally throughout that writing all sorts of prophecies about one that He was going to send to make an atoning sacrifice for our sin. After it was all written down, which God did over 1500 years of carefully watching over and providing for these special people that He was entrusting with this very important documentary work, He sent that one.

So, hopefully you might understand that this 'intellectually challenged baboon' believes that the findings we get today from all the various forms of testing that we do, would have drawn the same results 6,000 years ago when the creation was only days old.

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe that if God created a tree that was fully grown and mature and produced fruit, that that fully grown tree would not have had any growth rings on the day it was created? Just consider, would the first tree have been one thick cellular mass with no growth rings, or would it have been like Adam, and displayed all the signs of a 25, 50 or 100 year old tree?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Hupomone10

Veteran
Mar 21, 2010
3,952
142
Here
✟27,471.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Anyone who quotes Ken Ham, Norman Geisler, or any leading apologist for arguments against Evolution does, yes. Namely because they are relying on elementary science or freshman college philosophical arguments to refute evolution.... I don't accept evolution (you can't "believe in evolution"), but the arguments people use against it are quite pitiful.

Personally, I just wish people would actually read up on the topic from experts like Richard Dawkins, and then Christians intelligible to respond to someone like Dawkins (or a Creationist), and not rely on material which a 6th grader could refute...

Bear,

For most of us, we are merely countering what we were falsely taught in school. Those concepts of evolution were neither intellectually sound nor very deep into science. They were, to quote you Bear, quite pitiful.

Therefore, since some of our beliefs were influenced or even molded by this elementary, pitiful, incorrect, and void of scientific evidence material, we are not trying to dissuade the Richard Dawkins's of the world, nor do we need to appeal to their level of learning.

We need to merely understand enough of the argument to counter this shallow defense of evolution that most of us were exposed to. And leave it to the intellectually giant Christians to debate the intellectually giant evolutionists.

In other words,

A simple argument is enough when the science used to establish the premise is simple, and fraudulent in many cases.

When I stopped to think about the process, creature with no eyes evolving into creature with fully formed eyes, that was enough for me. I can go on and get a PhD in optometry and one in Creation Science; but it doesn't change the fact that a fully functional eye is the only eye that works. A partly formed eye is no good, and brainless Nature would not favor it. It's easy to start with a fully formed eye and conclude it must have evolved. The problem is starting with no eye and trying to get where we are.

A partly formed nub is no good; only a fully formed limb is any good and non-intelligent Mother Nature would not favor the growth and progress of a nub toward becoming an arm or leg, one small permutation and lengthening at a time, no bones to part bones, part bones to bone marrow, you get the picture.

Having PhD's would be great; but sometimes it only makes one blinder in what one wants to believe. "knowledge puffs up" (somewhere in scripture). And all I need to do is slow down my thought process enough to see the implausibility and even ridiculousness of what they are proposing. The fact that a smarter man can come up with a biased way to explain that doesn't change things.

No matter how smart, people believe what they do because of need, inner needs that drive them.

The evidence is important; but you will never convince someone who has an emotional need to believe they are not responsible to a Creator. Those that break through that barrier will be open to true science, creation science. The more they know & smarter they are, the more they will need. But what they mostly need is humility and an attitude of being open to the truth.

The argument for macroevolution is ridiculous, and always was. Eventually this theory will be replaced with the theory that life was seeded here from space, and conveniently ignored as to where it came from before that.

The fact is, for myself I just don't have enough blind faith anymore to believe evolution.

Blessings,
Former Theistic Evolutionist,
Currently Creationist,
H.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist

No, it is not a good website for arguments against the theory of evolution because, as is the case with “Answers in Genesis,” the Institute for Creation Research is wholly dependent upon scientists who do not have an education in evolutionary biology. Several times, over a period of years, I researched all of the scientists that they claim believe in young earth creationism and, therefore, disbelieve in the theory of evolution, and I learned that not one of them is a specialist in the field of evolutionary biology. Furthermore, all of their “scientists” interpret their data based upon their personal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 rather than up the sciences of biology and geology. Even more disturbing is the fact that they willfully and deliberately misrepresent to the public their scientists’ education and academic appointments in an attempt to deceive the public into believing that reputable scientists today are divided over the issue of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science based upon ones personal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is not science, it is religion.

In pursuit of their religious objectives, they search for tidbits of anomalous data that do not appear to fit easily into models of evolutionary biology, and then argue that these tidbits of data disprove the conclusions drawn from massive amounts of data that perfectly fit into models of evolutionary biology. This is obviously a very poor approach to scientific investigation, and the absurdity of it is magnified by the fact that they lack an education in evolutionary biology, and therefore are not aware that their anomalous pieces of data sometimes do fit perfectly well into models of evolutionary biology. The tidbits that do not fit require further, objective investigation.

Their arguments from geology are based upon tidbits of anomalous data that are difficult to explain in terms of millions rather than thousands of years while totally ignoring massive amounts of data that cannot be explained in terms of thousands rather than millions of years without concluding, as some other creations have, that God created the earth with the appearance that it is, at the very least, hundreds of millions of years old.

Christians who believe that the theory of evolution weakens the authority and truthfulness of the Bible and hence desire to find information that may disprove the theory of evolution with not find that information on creationist websites. A very much more productive approach is to prayerfully consider whether the theory of evolution actually weakens the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. My position is, after many years of prayer and studying the Bible, that the theory of evolution does not weaken the authority and truthfulness of the Bible when the Bible is prayerfully and carefully studied, and that when witnessing to people who believe in evolution, the gospel should be presented to them in a manner that is in harmony with their belief if evolution. This can be done very easily without compromising to even the smallest extent the truth of the gospel or its efficacy in the salvation of the souls of men.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist
Hi PG,

You wrote:
I suppose that Ken Ham means well, but I believe that Christians have an obligation before God to get a good education before they go about teaching others.

Well, I'm not in agreement with that statement. Christians have no obligation to God to get any kind of worldly education. Look at all the great men of the Scriptures and you'll find a few who weren't particularly educated. Especially when we look among the 12 first disciples. Paul and Luke were probably the only two early disciples who had any real education. God had to break Paul down and strip him of all that he had learned in the great centers of education of that day in Israel.

God holds no child of His to any obligation or responsibility to 'know' the wisdom outside of the Scriptures. So, hopefully you can see that maybe, just maybe, your premise is based on faulty knowledge. Why do you think, supported by Scripture, that God holds any child of His to an obligation of gaining worldly knowledge?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Several people in this thread are confusing knowledge with wisdom. Knowledge is what is known; wisdom is understanding what is known. If one wants to understand criminal law in order to become an attorney specializing in criminal law, one must first obtain knowledge of criminal law. Where does one obtain knowledge of criminal law? The best source, of course, is from one of our best law schools; it is not from the Bible or a Christian website. If one wants to understand medicine in order to become a physician, one must first obtain knowledge of medicine. Where does one obtain knowledge of medicine? The best source, of course, is from a one of our best medical schools; it is not from the Bible or a Christian website.

Moreover, let us not confuse a good secular education, such as a good education in criminal law or medicine, with a worldly education. Secular does not mean worldly, it simply means that which is not sacred.

If one wants to understand the theory of evolution to become an apologist for creationism, one must first obtain knowledge of the theory of evolution. Where does one obtain knowledge of the theory of evolution? The best source, of course, is from one of our best universities having an outstanding department of life sciences with a large number of faculty members specializing in evolutionary biology; it is not from the Bible or a Christian website.

I believe that Christians have an obligation before God to get a good education before they go about teaching others criminal law, medicine, or the theory of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

phoenixdem

Newbie
Nov 28, 2010
1,158
34
South Dakota
✟24,080.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
"My position is, after many years of prayer and studying the Bible, that the theory of evolution does not weaken the authority and truthfulness of the Bible when the Bible is prayerfully and carefully studied, and that when witnessing to people who believe in evolution, the gospel should be presented to them in a manner that is in harmony with their belief if evolution."

I believe that statement is untrue. In the Book of Genesis, the creation of Adam and Eve and their fall talks about the creation of man in God's image. Is that image one of an amoeba or even an ape? I don't think so.

Evolutionists preach their version of creation and Christians preach creation by God. The two just won't fit together regardless of how much we wish to appear intellectual in our arguments on the Holy Bible and our belief in God and the Holy Bible.

Once, people begin to pick and choose what they want to believe in the Holy Bible, the entire thing had might as well be tossed out. If scoffers and "intellectual believers" want to appear intelligent, they begin throwing in bits of doubt about parts of the Holy Bible. I want to stress one important thing for those who want to change what is clearly taught in the Holy Bible and that is,

Revelation:

22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this​
book.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist
Hi again PG,

I've posted this on another thread and maybe you've seen it, but I'll repeat it here. If we believe the Genesis account of the creation of Adam, then let's look at exactly what that would have meant to one of us, had we seen him the day after he was created.

We might have walked through this land of beautiful foliage and flowers and trees all around, bearing ripe fruit that we could just reach out and pluck and eat, and in our journey happened upon Adam. Adam would have stood probably 6' tall and would have probably had some chest hair and, based on all that we know about human growth, would probably have appeared to us to be 25 or 30 years old. Had we asked Adam how old he was and he responded, "Oh, I'm one day old today!" We would surely have mocked him and said something like, "Sure, what do you take me for an 'intellectually challenged baboon?" We'd maybe have prodded him in the side and asked, "No, come on, how old are you, really?"

On that same day we could have done all of the same testing of the earth that we do today and we would have the same results that we get today. The earth would have layers, just as it does today. It's how God made it. Radiometric dating would still show that substances that had not even existed one week before were billions of years old. That's how God made it. We could have picked up a rock and sliced off a sliver and done carbon-14 dating or whatever other respectable dating method we might choose and that rock would have given us back a reading that we would interpret as billions of years of age.

You see, friend, the one thing that science cannot explain is a miracle. As far as I know that's the only thing that science will never be able to explain. Now, today we've actually lost sight of what a 'miracle' really is. We see people who are cured of cancer and we say, "Oh, what a great miracle!" It may not have been, although there are some documented cased that may well be. There is the story of a young soldier during the civil war who was shot and the ball passed through his scrotum picking up some sperm and lodging itself down range in a young virgin's womb. The woman became pregnant and of course everyong proclaimed what a miracle it was. No, it isn't! When sperm, still warm and alive, has a chance to fertilize an ovum in a woman's womb there is often times a very good chance that a pregnancy will ensue. Now, the facts of this particular case, that some soldier just happened to get shot through the scrotum and that a fertile womb lay in direct line of the shot downrange from the soldier are certainly very long odds, but not miraculous odds. As a matter of fact, given the line up of events, the pregnancy becomes fairly understandable.

Friend, a miracle is something that happens outside of the natural laws. Something that happens that goes against every law of nature, every law of science, every law of rational thinking, every law. So, hopefully you might give understanding and wisdom to this: If an event can be explained by the natural scientific laws that we understand operate the creation, then it is not a miracle. So, what you believe about the creation is not a miracle. Oh sure, you may go back in your thinking processes and draw back to the 'big bang' or 'black hole' or 'quasar of energy' beginning and say that that was a miracle, but the Scriptures declare more than that as the 'miracle' of this creation. That in practically a moment God spoke into existence all the heavenly bodies. That in roughly the same amount of time God spoke into existence all the foliage upon the earth's surface. That in roughly the same amount of time God created all of the animals of both land and sea.

So, while you may rest your 'theory' of God and this creation that we live in on some very small minute miracle that occurred billions of years ago, I rest my 'theory' of God on a God who created all that is seen and unseen in this realm with a purpose. He began and in a matter of days made all that was necessary for Him to create man and to provide a place for him to live. My understanding of God and what He has done, is that He has created all, from one end of this universe to another, all, for my benefit. Everything is in it's place because God wanted to make a place where Ted could live. Where He could love Ted and provide and sustain my life. He did it all in a mere moment in time 6,000 years ago because He loves Ted.

But God's love is so great that He not only did it because He loves Ted, but because He loves all of us. After He created all things and then in anger destroyed all living things that walk upon the earth, save Noah and his family, He began working through a man named Abraham to raise up the nation of Jews to do His bidding in writing down all that He has done and sprinkling liberally throughout that writing all sorts of prophecies about one that He was going to send to make an atoning sacrifice for our sin. After it was all written down, which God did over 1500 years of carefully watching over and providing for these special people that He was entrusting with this very important documentary work, He sent that one.

So, hopefully you might understand that this 'intellectually challenged baboon' believes that the findings we get today from all the various forms of testing that we do, would have drawn the same results 6,000 years ago when the creation was only days old.

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe that if God created a tree that was fully grown and mature and produced fruit, that that fully grown tree would not have had any growth rings on the day it was created? Just consider, would the first tree have been one thick cellular mass with no growth rings, or would it have been like Adam, and displayed all the signs of a 25, 50 or 100 year old tree?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hello again, Ted!

Thank you for sharing with me your interpretation of Genesis and your thoughts regarding miracles. I disagree with your interpretation of Genesis largely because I share the same view that you do regarding miracles.

If one interprets the first eleven chapter of Genesis to be an accurate, literal account of historic events, it would be impossible for any of the trees in the garden to have any growth rings because growth rings in trees are the result in fluctuations in rainfall and other climatic conditions over a period of years. In a garden with perfect climatic conditions, no growth rings would be produced.

May God bless you also, Ted.

Because He lives,
PrincetonGuy
 
Upvote 0