- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,597
- 52,508
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
It'll take a lot more than evolution to get me to reject the Bible.
What would it take?
Indeed.Freedom is the freedom to believe that 2 + 2 = 5.
Do you know you are doing it, answering a question with a question,
... perhaps you know exactly what you are doing.
Do you know you are doing it, answering a question with a question, perhaps you know exactly what you are doing.
Well, that doesn't square with the cosmology the clerics were defending. It still allows for a moving sun and accepts a rotating earth. Those are the things the clerics denied, based on scripture. And they were wrong to do that, they were just as sincere in their day as the evolution deniers are today, they had exactly the same justification, and so we see how empty that same justification really is. It fails today as it did then. They fail to see that today as they failed to see that then.
I'm not sure who wrote the history book you worship and wallow in.
Go ahead and bath in sins of the what you read as history. Enjoy.
Nope.Don't you hate it when all the facts are against you?
Don't you hate it when all the facts are against you?
Nope. . . . .
Well, I suppose that explains things.
Should I hate it when "facts" point to the Gospels being written anonymously and centuries after the crucifixion?
Actually decades after the crucifixion. It is true, we only have copies of the gospels, starting centuries after the crucifixion.
Should I let those "facts" get in the way of my beliefs?
That is up to you.
Should I hate it when "facts" point to a local Flood, and not a global one?
Up to you.
Should I let those "facts" get in the way of my beliefs?
Up to you.
Should churches preach from the Bible, or Scientific American?
It depends on the church, since they all preach different things.
That is up to you.
Up to you.
Up to you.
Then I won't hate it when facts get in the way.
Facts can take a hike.
So "the only explanation for the differences that makes any sense is genetic descent."
And the only explanation for the similarities that makes any sense is genetic descent?
Hmmm. I'm stuck.
It seems that everything needs to fit your assumptions and faith right away.
We don't need to assume that life falls into a nested hierarchy. That is an observed fact. We also don't need to assume that evolutionary mechanisms would produce a nested hierarchy because we can observe that very thing in real populations.
The observations fit the mechanisms. Fact.
Really, the issue of evolution comes down to whether or not you believe:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
-2 Timothy 3:16-17
To believe in evolution, one must believe in the survival in the fittest, and that death is necessary to create modern life. By affirming this, you deny Scripture when it says:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned - To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyones account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
-Romans 5:12-14
This is a misrepresentation of what Day-agers believe. They see the word used for "day" (yom) in GEN 1 to be an indeterminate amount of time. Therefore it makes little sense to average it all out and claim that is what constitutes a "day" in GEN or even worse in other parts of the bible. In other contexts, "yom" does mean a 24 hr day.As for those who propose the Day-Age theory of what they deem Theistic Evolution, lets find out what a day roughly constitutes.
If Abraham was called at the age of 75, and my Lutheran Study Bible from CPH marks this call as c. 2091 BC (lets get rid of the c. so that we can hypothesize this math), then Abraham must have been born in 2166 BC.
....
Lets put the Scientific age of the Earth at 4.54 Billion Years for the sake of Argument. Subtract 6,127 years from Adam to the present, (4,540,000,000-6127) and you get 4,539,993,873 years left unaccounted for. Lets say that this is how long God took to create the Earth.
As Science says that Humans in their present form appeared roughly 36,000 years ago, I will instead substitute in 6,127 years, giving evolution a bit of a leeway, in order to calculate the length of one day in Gods eyes.
Thus, a single day in Gods eyes, would be roughly equivalent to the modern human notion of 648,570,553 (rounded) years. OK.
So if a day is 648,570,553 years, and the Bible is at least inspired by God, as its inerrancy was thrown out the window with this exercise, then Methuselah, the oldest man in the Bible, with a recorded age of 969 years, was in reality, 229,389,676,037,805 years old (353,685 days multiplied by the day of 648,570,553 years).
Methuselah was roughly 229 trillion years old. Thats roughly 50,526 times as old as Earth. Wow. This is all hypothetical, as God has not really given me the years, but you get the point.
See what how easy it is to knock down a straw man of your own making?See how this logic has to work?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?