God Made This

[essentialsaltes]

(flat earth) calendar = around 6000 + years.

OK, now where is this in Genesis?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Got any examples?

The use of outdated, 19th century terms like "missing link" is a sign that you don't really know as much about the subject as you think you do. The proper term is transitional fossil and we have tens of thousands of specimens from thousands of species. If you're specifically referring to hominids, we have hundreds of specimens from about 20 different species.

It is still not a fact that man evolved from primate.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

OK, now where is this in Genesis?

Chronology of Adam's offspring.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Can you explain to me why I should base my acceptance of scientific theory upon your self-declared ignorance?

I stated that I used loaded language.

These are just personal views. I may be mistaken in holding some of them.

Its actually a video of apologetics for Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[ViaCrucis]

My argument is that I claim the bible is truth simply presented and science interpretation of facts is wrong.

Unless science theory supports the chronology of Genesis, science has it wrong.

Your argument is that your positions about the Bible are true, and your interpretations of Scripture are true, and that unless science agrees with you then science is wrong.

This really has nothing to do with the Bible, it rarely does, it has to do with the subjective, fallible interpretations of the Bible. The problem with most Biblicists is that they can't make a distinction between what they believe the Bible says and what the Bible says, and so opinions and interpretations are presented as though they were what the Bible itself actually said.

For example, the Bible presents two contrasting creation narratives, the first begins in Genesis 1:1 and concludes in Genesis 2:4, the 2nd and quite different creation story begins in Genesis 2:5. For example in the first creation story the final thing God makes is human beings, this is after He created beasts , other animals, and plants; but in the second creation story God creates Adam before plants had been made, with the creation of Adam God then creates plants and makes a garden to put Adam in, then God brings forth animals, and finally Eve. That's, of course, what the Bible says; but I suspect your interpretation of what the Bible says would be to insist that, for example, plants did exist when God created man even though the text specifically says they didn't, "when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up".

The existence of these two quite different creation accounts is a significant reason for why many Christians down through history have understood these stories to be non-literal, they aren't meant to be taken that way and thus shouldn't be read literally which results in a rather significant contradiction that requires a great deal of mental gymnastics, and frequently, great amounts of eisegetic innovations in order to make the text "come out right"--so instead of letting the text be the text and go through the effort to try and understand what it might be saying as the ancients probably intended it; it is instead held captive to the forced interpretations of modern Fundamentalists. To which we can still hear the ancient voice of the great leader of the Christian catechetical school, Origen, pointing out, "For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is it? Still haven't seen non-life produce life.

Abiogenesis =/= evolution. Evolution only deals with what happens once life does exist, it says absolutely nothing on how life came to exist in the first place.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[I'm_Sorry]

apologetics
-CryptoLutheran

Are you saying a biblical contradiction of creation?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Abiogenesis =/= evolution. Evolution only deals with what happens once life does exist, it says absolutely nothing on how life came to exist in the first place.

-CryptoLutheran

So you argue God of the Gaps?
You're not going to be popular here.

Tell me how did Information DNA just "Poof" into existence to kick off Darwin's theory of evolution.

Hints of abiogenesis are false until proven otherwise in a lab.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

(flat earth) calendar = around 6000 + years.

You live in a country that has the oldest rock ever found (>4 billion years), with the oldest fossils (3.8 billion years) and with evidence of human habitation from at least 50,000 years ago. Yet you claim an age of 6000 years. You're not very patriotic, are you?

 

[Armoured]

Until you can demonstrate that life comes from non-life evolution "made" nothing.

Can you demonstrate that life comes from non-life made any other way?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are you saying a biblical contradiction of creation?

A plain, surface, wooden reading of Genesis 1 and 2 results in two completely conflicting and contradictory accounts of creation. Yes.

Did plants exist before or after Adam? Genesis 1 says they were created on the third day, three days prior to the creation of human beings, Genesis 2 says they were created after Adam.

Did God create human beings simultaneously or male and female at different times? Genesis 1 says they were created at once, on the sixth day; Genesis 2 has Adam created first, and only later does God pull a rib out from Adam to form Eve..

Keep in mind that I'm going by a strict literal, surface reading.

Likewise, a strictly literal reading of Genesis does not teach creation out of nothing, according to Genesis 1 God took already existing material, as we see the Spirit of God "hovering" over the primordial ocean, that the earth was "a formless waste"; the act of creation in Genesis 1 isn't an act of creation ex nihilo, but the act of God molding, fashioning, and fattening (bara) the heavens and the earth into the shape He desires. Again, if we take the text literally.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[I'm_Sorry]

You live in a country that has the oldest rock ever found (>4 billion years), with the oldest fossils (3.8 billion years) and with evidence of human habitation from at least 50,000 years ago. Yet you claim an age of 6000 years. You're not very patriotic, are you?

Your dates rest of Geology and Cosmology.

You live on a flat earth. The above accepted theories within their fields fall apart.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

A plain, surface, wooden reading of Genesis 1 and 2 results in two completely conflicting and contradictory accounts of creation. Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

This is why there are so many denominations.

Time to get into apologetics?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Can you demonstrate that life comes from non-life made any other way?

God is life eternal. He created life.

Life begot life.

Something begot something.

Not

Nothing begot something.

Non-life begot life.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Your dates rest of Geology and Cosmology.

Indeed they do.

You live on a flat earth. The above accepted theories within their fields fall apart.

Non-sequitur. Topology of earth has nothing to do with age of earth.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Indeed they do.

Non-sequitur. Topology of earth has nothing to do with age of earth.

It sure does.

Because the earth didn't form from a massive sun, curved space time, sun centered solar system model.

No bombardment of earth, and the moon is not the remains of the biggest earth collision.

It doesn't have a core as descried in Geology.

If you can drill down and prove it, bring the evidence to the table.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you argue God of the Gaps?

Not at all, I believe in a God who is present and at work throughout His creation. Naturalistic explanations are not denials of the Divine, but descriptions of God's handiwork.

You're not going to be popular here.

I'm not usually very popular most places.

Tell me how did Information DNA just "Poof" into existence to kick off Darwin's theory of evolution.

At present we simply don't know. But it's doubtful it just went "poof" into existence. There was likely some sort of naturalistic cause; the universe is replete with evidence that it works through naturalistic cause and effect. Again, that doesn't remove God from the equation, because I don't make the assumption that nature and divinity are mutually exclusive, that seems to be a fairly modern way of thinking, and it isn't at all how Jews and Christians have historically thought; for whom God was immensely present throughout His creation. Naturalistic explanations are not denials of God, they are instead the very way by which God has established His creation and by which He causes things to be; He can of course abrogate such. This is where Luther's discussion of the difference between the "ordinary use" and the "extraordinary use" can be helpful in our thinking, of which Luther uses the example of Daniel's friends who were cast into the fiery furnace: We know that fire burns, and yet in this instance fire did not burn--the ordinary use or the ordinary way by which God acts and has established the natural world doesn't negate the extraordinary if God so chooses to act in such a way; but neither does the extraordinary negate the ordinary: just because Daniel's friends didn't burn in this one particular instance doesn't change the fact that fire burns, and one would be foolish to put their hand in a fire.

By the same, the naturalistic, ordinary working of the created order are what they are, observed as they have been, studied, and understood and explained through the scientific method. And we should be confident that nature is consistent, and its mechanisms are truthful. Because this is God's handiwork, this is how God has established His creation to function. God is not missing here, on the contrary, this is God's work.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It sure does.

Because the earth didn't form from a massive sun, curved space time, sun centered solar system model.

No bombardment of earth, and the moon is not the remains of the biggest earth collision.

It doesn't have a core as descried in Geology.

How does any of that demonstrate the age of the earth?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Time to get into apologetics?

As I see it, I have been doing apologetics. I believe offering a defense of the faith against those who would bring it to scorn by their ignorance is a quite valuable use of my time.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Not at all, I believe in a God who is present and at work throughout His creation. Naturalistic explanations are not denials of the Divine, but descriptions of God's handiwork.

That is called God of the Gaps to Atheists.

At present we simply don't know.
-CryptoLutheran

Cool, then God did it.