Do you want to see Intelligent Design taught in universities and schools?

SkyWriting said:

I'm sorry but if you use the term "apes" then you are stuck
with the biological baggage that comes with the term.

Click to expand...

Only if you don't understand taxonomy. We are primates but we are not apes.

Jason0047 said:

I just do not see how you can believe in Darwin's lie of Macro-Evolution. It is 100% incompatible with the Bible. We see nothing in the Bible about how we evolved from monkeys. The first man was created out of the ground by God.

Click to expand...

That is only a problem if you take Genesis literally.

I do not.

SkyWriting said:

There seems to have been a lot of evolving goin on
since the Flood. And all pretty quick too. How many
different species fit on the Ark? All of them?

Click to expand...

While it is certainly possible that there may have been only one kind of dog breed in the past, we really cannot say with 100% certainty that this is the case before the flood without any observable evidence.

The exact number of animals required however is unclear. The famous book 'The Genesis Flood' by John C Whitcomb and Henry M Morris suggests approximately 35,000 animals would have been aboard the Ark. The Ark's dimensions, laid out by God in Genesis 6:15, translate to a volume of around 400,000 cubic metres - equivalent to around 570 modern railway boxcars. To give a modern comparison, the QE II measures 480,000 cubic metres in volume.

Another book, 'Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study' by John Woodmorappe suggests that only 2,000 animals would have been on board because the use of the word "kinds" in Genesis does not have the same meaning as the word "species" which we would use today.

Matthew J Slick, president of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, provides one of the larger estimates, placing the number of animals at 145,400 including, mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians who would be the only creatures in need of the Ark's shelter from the flood.

He suggests the Ark would need to contain 7,400 mammals, 120,400 birds, 12,600 reptiles, and 5,000 amphibians.

Whatever the number may be, we know the event happened.
The important thing to recognize is that animal kinds do not change into a completely different animal kind. Monkeys do not become humans and fishes do not become reptiles and then become birds. That is the lie of Darwin.

Inkfingers said:

That is only a problem if you take Genesis literally.

I do not.

Click to expand...

Do you take blue prints to a house or the building of a plane literally?
The rule of thumb when reading a text is that it is literal unless there is strong evidence in the context to suggest that it is speaking metaphorically. There is no indication in Genesis 1 and beyond are metahporical stories. I would be very careful in writing off what the Bible says as metaphorical when it is not clear that is what it is saying. For there is warning in 2 Timothy 4:4 about doing so?

Jason0047 said:

The important thing to recognize is that animal kinds do not change into a completely different animal kind. Monkeys do not become humans and fishes do not become reptiles and then become birds. That is the lie of Darwin.

Click to expand...

I don't let men tell me what is important about Christianity.
And your focus on stuff that preachers use to seperate you
from others is not healthy. The Bible actually has examples
of "natural selection" and how it can change animals.
"Each according to their kind" means that parents have children.

Jason0047 said:

The rule of thumb when reading a text is that it is literal unless there is strong evidence in the context to suggest that it is speaking metaphorically.

Click to expand...

Because, you know, I was not aware of that....

There is no indication in Genesis 1 and beyond are metahporical stories.

Click to expand...

You mean apart from the whole talking serpent bit and the fact that the sun was not even made until the third supposedly "literal day". Plus God walked in the garden but was not incarnate until Christ. Then of course there are the mountains of evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Sorry, no, Genesis is a poetic description of the world and of how rebellion against God is the nature of sin.

SkyWriting said:

So before God processed man into the image of God, we were just animals.
Animals don't have the breath of life in them. Most don't.

Click to expand...

No - we were never "just animals." Humans was a completely separate act of creation.

So "before God processed man into the image of God, we were just" ... lifeless dirt.

Psalm 103:14
For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust.

Inkfingers said:

No, we are not.

We WERE apes but we evolved OUT OF them into a new higher category;

Click to expand...

Human life was a separate act of creation, not tied into the apes or any other animals.

although granted when looking at 99% of the internet I find quite a bit of evidence that many missed the bus...

Click to expand...

My grandad explained the theory of evolution thusly:

Man sprung from monkeys, but most forgot to spring.

Inkfingers said:

Because, you know, I was not aware of that....

Click to expand...

But you are not applying this truth to Genesis, though.

You said:

You mean apart from the whole talking serpent bit and the fact that the sun was not even made until the third supposedly "literal day". Plus God walked in the garden but was not incarnate until Christ. Then of course there are the mountains of evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Sorry, no, Genesis is a poetic description of the world and of how rebellion against God is the nature of sin.

Click to expand...

God does miracles. It is a fact of the Bible. Jesus (God) did many miracles, too. Does that mean we write off the ministry of Jesus as being poetic because He did miracles? No. God can create light without the use of the sun. In Revelation there will be no sun because He will be the light thereof (See Revelation 21:23).

As for God walking:

Moses was covered by God's hand and He only revealed His back parts.

17 "And the Lord said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." (Exodus 33:17-23).

In other words, God created man in His image (See Genesis 1:27).

As for a talking serpent:
This is not the first time the Bible refers to a talking animal.
There was a donkey that talked in Scripture (See Numbers 22:28).
Does that mean the story of Balaam is allegorical, too?
Surely not.
Also, Jesus encountered men who were possessed. It is not far fetched to say that the devil possessed the serpent so as to speak through it. In fact, Jesus cast a bunch of demons that were possessing a man into a herd of swine (pigs).

As for the so called evidence that the Earth is billions of years old:
Yeah, I just do not see that at all. The scientific evidence suggests the Earth is young and not old. The rotation of the Earth, the amount of life on the Earth (and it's fossils), blood found in a dinosaur bone, sea shells on tops of the highest mountains, etc.

Take for example the drifting moon.

The moon is going around the earth. As the moon goes around the earth, the moon is gradually getting farther away. We are slowly losing the moon. It is only a couple inches a year, no big deal. But the moon is getting farther and farther from the earth every year. Since the moon is getting farther from the earth every year, that means that it used to be closer. Well, if you bring the moon back in closer, you create a problem. The moon is what causes the tides. Most places don’t have to worry about the tides. However, if the moon was closer, the tides would be higher. There is a law in physics called the inverse square law, if you half the distance, you quadruple the attraction. A couple of billion years ago, the moon would have been in so close that the tides would be so high, that it would drown everything on earth twice a day. It just cannot be billions of years old.

Jesus referred to the beginning as the time of Adam and Eve.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6).

In fact, the genealogy of Jesus Christ goes all the way back to Adam and Eve.

23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:23-38).

Source used for one paragraph in this post:
Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth

SkyWriting said:

I don't let men tell me what is important about Christianity.
And your focus on stuff that preachers use to seperate you
from others is not healthy. The Bible actually has examples
of "natural selection" and how it can change animals.
"Each according to their kind" means that parents have children.

Click to expand...

After their kind is referring to it's own kind or species. Nowhere does the Bible say that an animal kind is related to another animal kind. On the contrary, it says,

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." (1 Corinthians 15:39).

As for calling Darwinism a lie:

Do you believe some things are a lie? Are there beliefs that you think certain self professing Christians hold to that are a lie?

Jason0047 said:

The moon is going around the earth. As the moon goes around the earth, the moon is gradually getting farther away. We are slowly losing the moon. It is only a couple inches a year, no big deal. But the moon is getting farther and farther from the earth every year. Since the moon is getting farther from the earth every year, that means that it used to be closer. Well, if you bring the moon back in closer, you create a problem. The moon is what causes the tides. Most places don’t have to worry about the tides. However, if the moon was closer, the tides would be higher. There is a law in physics called the inverse square law, if you half the distance, you quadruple the attraction. A couple of billion years ago, the moon would have been in so close that the tides would be so high, that it would drown everything on earth twice a day. It just cannot be billions of years old.

Click to expand...

"The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size"
How close was the Moon to the Earth when it formed? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

About 2 billion years ago the moon was about 10,000 miles closer.

So it was 270,000 miles away from earth rather than 280,000 as it is now.

Inkfingers said:

"The rate is currently slowing down slightly, and it is estimated that in about 15 billion years the Moon's orbit will stop increasing in size"
How close was the Moon to the Earth when it formed? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

About 2 billion years ago the moon was about 10,000 miles closer.

So it was 270,000 miles away from earth rather than 280,000 as it is now.

Click to expand...

Notice how you just jumped to the science instead of addressing the Scriptures? The battle is not going to be won here by arguing Science. For there is a difference between Historical Science and Observable Science. We really were not there to observe it. We both could be wrong. But the amount of other evidences linked with this particular evidence along with Scripture says that the Earth is young and not old. Most people of the world are like sheep and they deny Jesus is God and they believe the Earth is old. This is from secular scientists who are trying to explain the universe without God and or having Jesus Christ in their life.

Jesus said God made them male and female in the beginning.

Jason0047 said:

We really were not there to observe it. We both could be wrong. But the amount of other evidences linked with this particular evidence along with Scripture says that the Earth is young and not old. Most people of the world are like sheep and they deny Jesus is God and they believe the Earth is old. This is from secular scientists who are trying to explain the universe without God and or having Jesus Christ in their life.

Click to expand...

Erm, no.

Quite a few scientists are Christian.

Inkfingers said:

Erm, no.

Quite a few scientists are Christian.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are Young Earth Creation scientists.

Jesus said God made them male and female in the beginning (See Mark 10:6).
Jesus is referring to Adam and Eve.
Jesus is referring to the beginning of creation.
For in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.

Jason0047 said:

Yes, there are Young Earth Creation scientists.

Click to expand...

No, I mean people who accept evolution and also are Christian.

Inkfingers said:

No, I mean people who accept evolution and also are Christian.

Click to expand...

Only God can make that decision - IMO.
While I do not see Creationism as a salvation issue at this time, that does not mean that it may not be. I say this because a Christian will grow and learn in their faith. I believe God will talk to a believer's heart about the truth in time. So if a Christian does hold to the error of Darwinism, it is only a matter of time before God will talk to their heart about it in how it is not true.

For me: Darwin's Evolution is the result of secular thinking and not a result of great men of God. They did not observe one animal kind transforming into another animal kind. They are only guessing so as to invent a universe that does not include God.

Jason0047 said:

Yes, there are Young Earth Creation scientists.

Click to expand...

Jesus said he made them male and female in the beginning. The "beginning" is clearly talking about Genesis 1. For it says in the beginning God created.... day one .... with an evening and a morning. Day two with an eventing and a morning. Etc., etc. Evening and morning lets us know what kind of day God is referring to.

Jason0047 said:

Darwin's Evolution is the result of secular thinking and not a result of great men of God. They did not observe one animal kind transforming into another animal kind. They are only guessing so as to invent a universe that does not include God.

Click to expand...

Darwin's error was in not recognising God at work in evolution (instead positing 'randomness' - which is anathema to science) but his work is well grounded beyond that. We don't get to see species turn into another because its a slow process over a tens of thousands of years but fossil evidence shows it happening (such as Archeopteryx bridging the gap from reptiles to birds, for example).

Inkfingers said:

Darwin's error was in not recognising God at work in evolution (instead positing 'randomness' - which is anathema to science) but his work is well grounded beyond that. We don't get to see species turn into another because its a slow process over a tens of thousands of years but fossil evidence shows it happening (such as Archeopteryx bridging the gap from reptiles to birds, for example).

Click to expand...

*Sigh* If Darwinism is true, then we would see tons of transitional fossils everywhere. But they are nowhere to be found. We do not see any half giraffe and half something else type bones. There is no slow progression of these fossils (Which should be discovered by us by now if Darwinism was true). But again, Jesus says, in the beginning God created them male and female. God creates male and female out of the ground as we see in Genesis. Jesus is not referring to poetry but a literal and real event.

Side Note:

Why are you not discussing the words of Jesus with me?