Evolution makes Jesus a liar

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

My apologies Karl.

I still disagree with you. The Creed was originally written in Greek, not Latin, and is stated as 'eternally begotten' not born.

Jesus Christ has always been, He doesn't have a beginning as the English word "born" indicates. He is begotten of the Father which means He exists because of the Father. It doesn't mean He has a birth before the creation of all worlds, it means He has always existed with the Father because of the Father.

Born, the english word, indicates that He is not eternally begotten. Whether it was you or the source you have pulled from that changed this, the fact remains that is has been altered. Born is not the correct english word for translation of this part of the Creed.

Thank you for your email, demanding me to come and apologize. I apologize that I said you changed it, but it has been changed, whether you did it or another.

By the way Karl, I never used vulgar or abusive language when I said I believe the Creed you presented has been changed. So, I never scurrilously accused you, but rather accused you. Again, for the record, my apologies.

Apology accepted. "Scurrilous" clearly has different connotations over there.

And I'm afraid the phrase is in the Greek version as well:

τόν Υιόν του Θεού τόν μονογενή, τόν εκ του Πατρός γεννηθέντα πρό πάντων τών αιώνων.

My Greek's poor, but this is easy stuff:

The son [of] God [,] the only-begotten, who out of the Father [was] γεννηθέντα before all the aeons.

It's not an addition, but a question of the translation of "γεννηθέντα"

In Matthew 2.1, it means born:

"tou de ihsou gennhqentos en bhqleem"

"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem"

So I'd say the Greek says the same as the Latin, which is translated accurately on my web page. No-one added anything. The Catholic church, whatever else you might think of it, is perfectly capable of translating from Greek to Latin.

 

[jaybee]

The whole Bible isn't prophecy

Agreed.

Scripture isn't the only source of prophecy.

But it is the primary source of prophecy, and prophecy is a foundation of doctrine, which we are talking about being sourced from an inerrant bible.

I mean the church as a whole. Not some poxy little demonination

Temper temper.

And no we don't get a vote. That's how it happened in the early church: they decided under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which was and wnich wasn't scripture.

You mean the same Holy Spirit you said couldn't even guide Gods holy men to write down scripture correctly ? Then how can you trust what the early church decided ?

Sola scriptura is not inerrancy. And I'm no Protestant.

Well, assuming Sola Scriptura really depends on believing whats in there doesn't it ? How can we say the scripture contains all we need to be saved and then that we don't trust some of whats in there ?

Here is what Luther said

Therefore no matter what happens, you should say: There is God's Word. This is my rock and anchor. On it I rely, and it remains. Where it remains, I, too, remain; where it goes, I, too, go. The Word must stand, for God cannot lie; and heaven and earth must go to ruins before the most insignificant letter or tittle of His Word remains unfulfilled WA, 10 III, 162 (Kirchenpostille-a sermon collection which Luther considered his "very best book"

Can you show me on what authority other than the bible as Gods revealed word we can rely upon ?

cheers - and hope things are ok over there in the UK... our prayers are with you all...

 

[PaladinValer]

For an answer about the "rabbit" here is a link...
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2192

Which relies on the fallacy of equivocation. Invalid.

And my point is who decides what is theology etc, and what to believe ? Are they superior to God in deciding what to believe in his book ?

The Holy Spirit told the Church even in the early years that not everything is literal. It told the Church that Scripture is inerrant on matters of salvation, faith, and doctrine. Not anything else.

So argue it with God I suppose.

or me the fact that the bible is inerrant is doctrine !

A recent one that has no historical background in ancient Christendom.

So who are we to decide what is right or not ?

Read above.

What if someone said that Jesus didn't really "rise" from the tomb, it was rhetoric to describe christianitys rise ?

Read my above.

Would they be right ? Wouldn't that affect our salvation ? In the same way if the bible is wrong occasionally then whats the point of reading it ?

For me, the bible is all or nothing, its all we have to tell us about God, and this is an important point. People often say, "Well it feels right", or " I trust my judgement". Well how ?

Fallacy of False Dilemma.

I don't know about the rest of you but I have gone out to buy something and ended up buying something I didn't need. I know that I am tempted when a girl in revealing clothing walks past... can I trust my own feelings and judgements ? NO ! And if I can't trust Gods word, what can I trust ?

Read my above to what the other same phrases referred to.

 

[jaybee]

Which relies on the fallacy of equivocation. Invalid.

How is it my arguements are invalid but yours aren't ? Hmmm....

A recent one that has no historical background in ancient Christendom.

Bad company fallacy. Invalid.

In the same way if the bible is wrong occasionally then whats the point of reading it ?

Thats my point.. there wouldn't be any.. we couldn't trust anything it said about anything including doctrine.

The Holy Spirit told the Church even in the early years that not everything is literal. It told the Church that Scripture is inerrant on matters of salvation, faith, and doctrine. Not anything else.

So argue it with God I suppose.

I guess I just can't believe that I have to defend the truth of the bible against other Christians....

 

[Micaiah]

Here are some of the basic assumptions I believe liberals work on when they interpret Genesis.

1. It is not an historical account of Creation.

2. It cannot be an historical account of creation because 'science' shows conclusively that the earth is very old, and everything evolved. People evolved from apes.

3. Because 'science' proves that the historical record of Genesis is wrong, the account must be considered a myth.

4. The author(s) of Genesis recorded the popular myth of the day about Creation under inspiration.

5. The author(s) of Scripture may have believed their account of Creation was factually correct even though it was wrong. Subsequent authors of Scripture who wrote about these events were misguided if they accepted these myths as fact.

6. The authors of Scripture wrote to the best of their ability, but sometimes made factual errors. Therefore the Bible contains a number of errors.

7. In spite of the errors, the account given in Genesis is what God inspired and intended.

8. The errors of Scripture do not prevent man from understanding the intended messages and doctrines of Scripture.

9. There is no way to be sure which parts of the Old Testament were myth, and which parts were history.

10. Miracles did happen in the Old Testament, though it is not possible to separate myth from miracle in what was recorded in Genesis. The main rule for determining this matter is that if scientific evidence proves that a miracle did not happen, then it didn't. For example, we know that the world was created many millions of years ago because if it was created only six thousand years ago then evolution couldn't have happened, and we know evolution is a fact. We know it is a fact because careful dating methods have established this to be the case. Any dating method that indicates that the world is about six thousand years old is wrong because we know evolution takes millions of years.

11. It is possible that a myth could have been incorrectly recorded, and that the erroneous record of the myth was factually correct providing it did not assert that the earth was created in six days, or that there was a world wide flood.


I believe understanding these underlying assumptions helps simple people who believe that to twist the plain meaning of words is lying, gain some insight into why it is not deceiptful to say the world was created in six days when it was in fact created in millions of years.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Here are some of the basic assumptions I believe liberals work on when they interpret Genesis.

you will have to define liberal.
there are theological liberals and there are cultural liberals, there is no necessary logical connection between the two.

1. It is not an historical account of Creation.

no, the more common idea is that Gen 1 is not a scientific account of Creation, and it is not an assumption but a conclusion, it is scientific order and timing that people disagree on not the bare fact of the historicity of it

2. It cannot be an historical account of creation because 'science' shows conclusively that the earth is very old, and everything evolved. People evolved from apes.

the issue is whether or not Gen 1 is intended by God to be a 20thC account of the scientific order of Creation of if it really is directed at its first readers who did not have a modern scientific worldview, this is the "easter egg" idea of the Scriptures, that God creates these supernatural "easter eggs" that open up centuries after the original texts were written and behold, modern science pops out like a modern software or game "easter egg"

3. Because 'science' proves that the historical record of Genesis is wrong, the account must be considered a myth.

it can not prove that it is wrong, especially if wrong means that God did not create the universe, since science doesn't do God-talk. it can only demonstrate evidence that the account is not a modern newspapermans account of the scientific origin of the universe.

4. The author(s) of Genesis recorded the popular myth of the day about Creation under inspiration.

you are tying together loaded words: myth and and inspiration and trying to argue on emotional ladenness of the terms. shame on you. myth is a loaded term, plus it doesn't have a commonly shared meaning, especially not here. avoid it, be more specific about what you want to show

5. The author(s) of Scripture may have believed their account of Creation was factually correct even though it was wrong.

how do you know what the human authors of Scripture thought?

Subsequent authors of Scripture who wrote about these events were misguided if they accepted these myths as fact.

6. The authors of Scripture wrote to the best of their ability, but sometimes made factual errors. Therefore the Bible contains a number of errors.

again, with the loaded words, inerrancy is a emotionally laden term that really is polemical without being informative at all. For instance, is pi=3? no. is 1Kings7:23 factually wrong? depends, does it say that pi=3? but the solution to your problem of hermeneutics is that Scripture is written in the common everyday language of the people it was addressed to. This includes the science and technology of the day. Scripture is not teaching this understanding as binding on subsequent readers, it is using these ideas to transmit the things that God desires for us to know. Use is not teaching. that is why the Bible does not teach a flat earth but uses the idea, why the Bible does not teach a geocentric solar system but speaks as if the people writing it believed in such a universe, because they did.

7. In spite of the errors, the account given in Genesis is what God inspired and intended.

8. The errors of Scripture do not prevent man from understanding the intended messages and doctrines of Scripture.

not sure about this, since YECists have concentrated on the order of the 7 days they have missed the fact that it is about the Sabbath, it is about killing off the old polytheistic gods. etc. the discussions here are really missing the meaning of Gen 1 since so many people what to address 20thC ideas to Gen1 rather than letting the text speak., so i'd contend that YECists have missed the big message of Gen1 while seeking to find modern science there.

9. There is no way to be sure which parts of the Old Testament were myth, and which parts were history.

again with the loaded terms trying to make words do your arguing for you. plus the common tactic of radical polarization into two sides with an empty middle ground. simply not ture. it is not a simple choice between myth and history and stop trying to frame the discussion in these false dichomotmous terms.

10. Miracles did happen in the Old Testament, though it is not possible to separate myth from miracle in what was recorded in Genesis. The main rule for determining this matter is that if scientific evidence proves that a miracle did not happen, then it didn't. For example, we know that the world was created many millions of years ago because if it was created only six thousand years ago then evolution couldn't have happened, and we know evolution is a fact. We know it is a fact because careful dating methods have established this to be the case. Any dating method that indicates that the world is about six thousand years old is wrong because we know evolution takes millions of years.

dating technics don't care about your interpretation of Gen 1-11. they are interested in other things, get over it, science doesn't care about geneologies etc it has its own agenda and things it is responsible to. plus if Noah existed 6K years ago, YECists propose a microevolution that exceeds any scientific boundaries of speed by 5 orders of magnitude, plus the long walk for all marsupials to Australia without leaving any fossils of their travels there.

11. It is possible that a myth could have been incorrectly recorded, and that the erroneous record of the myth was factually correct providing it did not assert that the earth was created in six days, or that there was a world wide flood.


I believe understanding these underlying assumptions helps simple people who believe that to twist the plain meaning of words is lying, gain some insight into why it is not deceiptful to say the world was created in six days when it was in fact created in millions of years.

once again, the great confusion in a YECist mind between assumptions and conclusions. we really need to get this problem ironed out here. it is reoccurring at regular intervals. what appears to have happened is that the general evangelical community which is the YECist breeding grounds has learned of Van tillian presuppositionalism via F.Schaeffer and has misunderstood it as they apply it to the science of origins. sad Vantil is a very important modern theologian and it is a shame to see his ideas so misused.


....

 

[gluadys]

Here are some of the basic assumptions I believe liberals work on when they interpret Genesis.

Since rmwilliamsll answered most of these so well, just a few additional comments:

10. …. For example, we know that the world was created many millions of years ago because if it was created only six thousand years ago then evolution couldn't have happened, and we know evolution is a fact.

The question of the age of the earth is not actually tied to the theory of evolution. It is a matter of geological record. Even before Darwin was born, geologists considered the earth to be very old---on the order of hundreds of millions of years. And that conclusion was drawn from geological evidence alone before modern dating methods had been developed.

We know it is a fact because careful dating methods have established this to be the case. Any dating method that indicates that the world is about six thousand years old is wrong because we know evolution takes millions of years.

There is no scientific dating method which suggests a young earth.

11. It is possible that a myth could have been incorrectly recorded, and that the erroneous record of the myth was factually correct providing it did not assert that the earth was created in six days, or that there was a world wide flood.

There is no problem with a myth asserting that the earth was created in six days. One simply needs to understand that the days are part of the mythology.

The geologic record all around the world falsifies a global flood. This has nothing to do with evolution. It is a fact of geology established by 1831 by scientists who were both Christian and creationist.

 

[PaladinValer]

How is it my arguements are invalid but yours aren't ? Hmmm....

Because mine aren't logical fallacies. Why don't you actually give a logical argument instead?

Bad company fallacy. Invalid.

Spite is such a Christian virtue...

Thats my point.. there wouldn't be any.. we couldn't trust anything it said about anything including doctrine.

I never said what you replied to. That something that found itself out of a quotebox. In fact, you said it.

It is logical to deduce that, after a sudden reversal of direction, there must be a reason for it.

I guess I just can't believe that I have to defend the truth of the bible against other Christians....

No, you must defend your interpretation. Fallacy of Equivocation.

 

[PaladinValer]

Here are some of the basic assumptions I believe liberals work on when they interpret Genesis.

Liberals?

Just liberals...



If this is the YEC belief, then you are only shooting yourselves in the foot and giving credance to the idea that YECs aren't smart (not that I believe it).

1. It is not an historical account of Creation.

This sentence makes no grammatical sense. Please rephrase.

2. It cannot be an historical account of creation because 'science' shows conclusively that the earth is very old, and everything evolved. People evolved from apes.

1. Correct.
2. Incorrect. Science never said humans evolved from apes. That is what you YECs say. Not what science says. Please learn what science actually teaching before, again, you shoot yourself in the foot.

3. Because 'science' proves that the historical record of Genesis is wrong, the account must be considered a myth.

True, but then again, YECs unfortunately 999 out of 1,000 times don't seem to know what a "myth" is. So your implication is invalid.

4. The author(s) of Genesis recorded the popular myth of the day about Creation under inspiration.

They recorded what they honestly felt, just as the Egyptians, the "Chinese," the Urians, and the "Indians" did. Does that make them right too?

5. The author(s) of Scripture may have believed their account of Creation was factually correct even though it was wrong. Subsequent authors of Scripture who wrote about these events were misguided if they accepted these myths as fact.

Define fact. Fact in terms of literalness or fact in terms of dcotrinal/moral implications out of the stories? You are being willfully ambiguous to try and prove that TEs rejects parts of the Bible. How absurdly wrong you are.

6. The authors of Scripture wrote to the best of their ability, but sometimes made factual errors. Therefore the Bible contains a number of errors.

Sure it does. Does it matter though? What does God care about? Doctrine, salvation, and faith, or wordliness in His Holy Book?

7. In spite of the errors, the account given in Genesis is what God inspired and intended.

Due to the definition of "myth," you got it.

8. The errors of Scripture do not prevent man from understanding the intended messages and doctrines of Scripture.

Again, worldly errors. And yes, that is correct.

9. There is no way to be sure which parts of the Old Testament were myth, and which parts were history.

No, that is a YEC argument.

10. Miracles did happen in the Old Testament, though it is not possible to separate myth from miracle in what was recorded in Genesis. The main rule for determining this matter is that if scientific evidence proves that a miracle did not happen, then it didn't. For example, we know that the world was created many millions of years ago because if it was created only six thousand years ago then evolution couldn't have happened, and we know evolution is a fact. We know it is a fact because careful dating methods have established this to be the case. Any dating method that indicates that the world is about six thousand years old is wrong because we know evolution takes millions of years.

If it is science, then it can potentially be explained. If it isn't science, then it is potentially a miracle.

11. It is possible that a myth could have been incorrectly recorded, and that the erroneous record of the myth was factually correct providing it did not assert that the earth was created in six days, or that there was a world wide flood.

There is no worldwide flood evidence. In fact, there evidence points to the contrary.

As I often say to most YECs, why don't you:

1. Learn what a "myth" is
2. Learn what science is and isn't
3. Learn what the evolutionary theory teaches and doesn't teach
4. Learn what TEs believe and don't believe

before you assume and shoot yourself in the foot?

 

[jaybee]

Spite is such a Christian virtue...

I actually meant what I said about the Bad Company fallacy... its a valid fallacy as you might know. What I am saying is that when you point back at the early christendom you just assume they are right.. its like reverse guilt by association.
Please try and be nicer when you are responding. You are very dismissive and sometimes attack peoples arguments without explaining fully what you are talking about. Not everyone on this board has the same education as you.
I don't understand why people have such confidence in the early christians who are guided by the Holy Spirit but not in the Holy Spirit who guided the holy men to write the bible ?

Spite is such a Christian virtue...

Is that a log in your eye ?

Science never said humans evolved from apes. That is what you YECs say. Not what science says. Please learn what science actually teaching before, again, you shoot yourself in the foot.

When you say science how do you define it ? Didn't Darwin propose the theory in "The Descent of Man".

As I often say to most YECs, why don't you:

1. Learn what a "myth" is
2. Learn what science is and isn't
3. Learn what the evolutionary theory teaches and doesn't teach
4. Learn what TEs believe and don't believe

before you assume and shoot yourself in the foot?

How very generous of you to give such advice to us poor YEC's, how would we ever get on.

There is no worldwide flood evidence. In fact, there evidence points to the contrary.

It seems to me that both YEC's, TE's and even athieistic evolutionists are all staring at the same evidence through different sets of beliefs that colours what they see. Which is another reason I take the bibles description of creation as literal. If God had evolved us over millions of years of struggle, survival of the fittest and death, would he then have said it was "good" ?

 

[gluadys]

It seems to me that both YEC's, TE's and even athieistic evolutionists are all staring at the same evidence through different sets of beliefs that colours what they see. Which is another reason I take the bibles description of creation as literal. If God had evolved us over millions of years of struggle, survival of the fittest and death, would he then have said it was "good" ?

A copmfortable YEC illusion. YECs don't actually look at all the evidence.

According to the bible, God is the one who told living creatures to be fruitful and multiply. He must have know this would lead to a struggle for survival. So, he did call the struggle for survival and all the consequences of that, including premature death, good.

 

[Scholar in training]

you will have to define liberal.

there are theological liberals and there are cultural liberals, there is no necessary logical connection between the two.

The word "cultural" is tripping me up (I'm used to associating cultural with moral, to some extent). What is the difference between theological and cultural liberals?

 

[shernren]

Come, it's time for a little de-myth-ologizing! Google's "define:" command defines Myth as:

[size=-1]Myth is a series of real-time strategy computer games, specifically, Myth: The Fallen Lords, Myth II: Soulblighter, and Myth III: The Wolf Age. The latter was developed by Mumbo Jumbo Software and published by Take 2 Interactive, the former developed and self-published by Bungie Software, now a division of Microsoft under the name Bungie Studios. Upon Bungie's sale to Microsoft in 2000, Bungie sold the rights to the Myth franchise to Take 2 Interactive.[/size]

Oops! Now, on a more serious note:

[size=-1]a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people

[/size][size=-1]A myth is often thought to be a lesson in story form which has deep explanatory or symbolic resonance for preliterate cultures, who preserve and cherish the wisdom of their elders through oral traditions by the use of skilled story tellers.

[/size][size=-1]An anonymous tale emerging from the traditional beliefs of a culture or social unit.

Myths use supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. They may also explain cosmic issues like creation and death. Collections of myths, known as mythologies, are common to all cultures and nations, but the best-known myths belong to the Norse, Roman, and Greek mythologies.
[/size][size=-1]
An unverifiable story based on a religious belief.
[/size][size=-1]
Legendary narrative, usually of gods and heroes, or a theme that expresses the ideology of a culture.

[/size]

This is the sense in which TEs use the term "myth". We never equate mythicism to falsehood or distortion! Don't take CARM's word for it: there's a reason why they're so far down on the list of definitions. A myth is simply a story that conveniently and compactly encapsulates a society's worldview and the origins of that worldview.

10. Miracles did happen in the Old Testament, though it is not possible to separate myth from miracle in what was recorded in Genesis. The main rule for determining this matter is that if scientific evidence proves that a miracle did not happen, then it didn't.

Hmm. I'm not sure which TE you're describing because it isn't me. You're describing the naturalistic worldview of atheism. But I wonder, because actually, what you quoted is more descriptive of creation science than TEism! Why do I say that?

The thing is, creation science seems to be one big frantic chase for scraps of evidence that might point to any scientific validity in their model. Why do they do so? Because deep down they are afraid that if they don't find scientific evidence for what they think the Bible said, they might not have any reason left to believe it. Hmm. If YECism is really so strong it should be able to say "We believe that God created in 6 days 6000 years ago. We do not need any scientific evidence that He did this. Fullstop." and channel money from AiG to Africa.

The supernaturalistic worldview on the other hand says that if an unscientific event happened, it, well, happened. But don't expect to predict future events based on it. More importantly, what motivation would God have to step in and tear apart the laws of nature? He needed a virgin birth to have a sinless Saviour. He needed a resurrection to bring salvation. But what need would He have to create a universe, step back, and then erase all evidence of its youth and plant overwhelming evidence of it being aged?

For example, we know that the world was created many millions of years ago because if it was created only six thousand years ago then evolution couldn't have happened, and we know evolution is a fact.

No, the proof of the age of the earth is independent of evolution. Why do you think it goes like "Evolution is true > therefore the earth is old"? It's more like "The earth is old > therefore evolution is not necessarily false". The proofs for Earth's age are actually more convincing than the proofs for evolution, to me.

Any dating method that indicates that the world is about six thousand years old is wrong because we know evolution takes millions of years.

Name me one.

 

[shernren]

The word "cultural" is tripping me up (I'm used to associating cultural with moral, to some extent). What is the difference between theological and cultural liberals?

I'm assuming theological liberals are those who abandon well established theology; while cultural liberals are those who abandon well established culture. I would say I'm a theological liberal, not accepting YECism and soul/body dualism; but I'm definitely not a cultural liberal - I'm completely against abortion and homosexuality!

 

[Scholar in training]

I'm assuming theological liberals are those who abandon well established theology; while cultural liberals are those who abandon well established culture. I would say I'm a theological liberal, not accepting YECism and soul/body dualism; but I'm definitely not a cultural liberal - I'm completely against abortion and homosexuality!

OK. I wouldn't consider young earth creationism well-established or necessarily orthodox anyway, though.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The word "cultural" is tripping me up (I'm used to associating cultural with moral, to some extent). What is the difference between theological and cultural liberals?

depends on what country you are in.
in the US a cultural liberal is usually Democratic or left in politics, mildly critical of large scale capitalism, pro choice, pro welfare etc.

in the US a theological liberal would see much of Genesis as myth or figurative language, not literal.

the tendency in the US is to be both culturally and theologically liberal. Hence the rightwing associations of conservative Christians with Republican ideology.

I would say I'm a theological liberal, not accepting YECism and soul/body dualism; but I'm definitely not a cultural liberal - I'm completely against abortion and homosexuality!

that is why simply stating conservative or liberal is not sufficient. i'm the opposite, theologically conservative and culturally liberal.
....

 

[jaybee]

Hey all,

According to the bible, God is the one who told living creatures to be fruitful and multiply. He must have know this would lead to a struggle for survival. So, he did call the struggle for survival and all the consequences of that, including premature death, good.

Well I have to disagree with you here.. he created all things perfect and it was good, until Adam and Eve fell, then he cursed the ground and Adam and Eve were told they would have to suffer and toil in the world.

The thing is, creation science seems to be one big frantic chase for scraps of evidence that might point to any scientific validity in their model

Sometimes it looks that way to me too, and I am a YEC. Then again, it is also evolutionists that creat a big fuss when they find a single bone that may hold up their theories...

Because deep down they are afraid that if they don't find scientific evidence for what they think the Bible said, they might not have any reason left to believe it.

Well, this may be true for some YEC's but not for all of us.. a lot of generalisation has been happening in this thread about YEC's ! For my part, if the bible tells me something is so after i study it out, and there is evidence that seems to contradict it, then we are misinterpreting the evidence. (Which, lets face it, is always a possibility in science ).

Rom 3:3-4 ,
3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

The reason why some YEC's scurry about is to find evidence to show to TE's that Gods word is true, as TE's don't accept the bible as 100% true and reliable.

and then erase all evidence of its youth and plant overwhelming evidence of it being aged?

Its hard to see evidence in a different light other than the one that we believe. Then again, science used to believe that the world was flat, so why should we believe what science has to say ? Wouldn't God be right above man ?

How very generous of you to give such advice to us poor YEC's, how would we ever get on.

hey Paladinvaler... sorry about this, I was a bit snippy wasn't I ! Sorry if I got carried away....

 

[lawtonfogle]

I know God created Adam and Eve, and I know that God could have created the world as old as he wanted. I know God created the animals, and the fish, and ect. I do not know if God only created 20 species and the rest evolved, or if he created millions.

I do know in 500 years humans have advance quickly and I do know that due to wars or accidents, many inventions of around the 1500s had something almost identicle made alot earier. (watch the history chanel alot and you will see what I am seeing) My point is humans have advance alot, and could have advanced even more quickly. I do not know if evolution happened, but I do know all the evidence could be explained in more than one way. It may seem like a puny excuse, but then again it a viable excuse. God could have created them to test us.

What I do know, I'm a christian, and I'm going to heaven.

 

[PaladinValer]

I actually meant what I said about the Bad Company fallacy... its a valid fallacy as you might know.

No, it isn't. Invalid argument.

What I am saying is that when you point back at the early christendom you just assume they are right.. its like reverse guilt by association.

No, you are wrong.

I have chosen not to copy and then reply to the needless sections.

I don't understand why people have such confidence in the early christians who are guided by the Holy Spirit but not in the Holy Spirit who guided the holy men to write the bible ?

You've contradicted yourself.

((Ignores the ad hom))

If you have a problem, report it.

When you say science how do you define it ? Didn't Darwin propose the theory in "The Descent of Man".

I define it as it is properly defined, not how some non-expert does.

And Darwin may have proposed the hypothesis, but you, like a lot of people it seems, forget that hypotheses and theories adapt to new evidence.

How very generous of you to give such advice to us poor YEC's, how would we ever get on.

Who said I was talking about all YECs? You?

It seems to me that both YEC's, TE's and even athieistic evolutionists are all staring at the same evidence through different sets of beliefs that colours what they see.

I've been posting on CF long enough to know this is not so.

Which is another reason I take the bibles description of creation as literal. If God had evolved us over millions of years of struggle, survival of the fittest and death, would he then have said it was "good" ?

"Good" is an imperfect translation. The actual Hebrew implies something else. "Good" is a very rough translation.

 

[gluadys]

I do not know if evolution happened, but I do know all the evidence could be explained in more than one way.

Not true. Scientific method is a very good way of testing different explanations and weeding out those that are wrong. Evolution is the only theory that explains much biological and paleontological evidence. It is the only theory about the origin of species which has not been falsified by the evidence.