If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[Romanseight2005]

It is all in how they define science. If science by its very definition must have a physical material explanation, then it automatically rules out creationism. Also, scientists have spent a lot of time and money promoting this theory that gives them an excuse to not be accountable to God, which is why I believe they work so hard to try to make it seem like its truth.

Rom 1:21-25

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
KJV

These verses come to mind when I am thinking of those who embrace evolution. The evidence for God is all around us. One has to close their eyes to believe in something like evolution with nothing to back it up except its own theory. The facts used to corroberate various so called facts of evolution are other so called facts with no real tangible proof to back them up.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is all in how they define science. If science by its very definition must have a physical material explanation, then it automatically rules out creationism. Also, scientists have spent a lot of time and money promoting this theory that gives them an excuse to not be accountable to God, which is why I believe they work so hard to try to make it seem like its truth.

Rom 1:21-25

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
KJV

These verses come to mind when I am thinking of those who embrace evolution. The evidence for God is all around us. One has to close their eyes to believe in something like evolution with nothing to back it up except its own theory. The facts used to corroberate various so called facts of evolution are other so called facts with no real tangible proof to back them up.

You can certainly find whatever you desire in the Scriptures and preach that found "truth".
However i would rather try to understand what it is that God wishes for me to understand from His word.

What are these verses you quoted from Romans talking about?

the big hint is:
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Paul is talking about the temples that existed all around him in the Greco-Roman world. Mystery cults, temples with statues, idols and images.

in:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
his is talking directly to ritual temple prostitution and sexual activity to mimic and encourage fertility.

i for one, think that calling Christians who understand the TofE idol worshippers is not just wrong and unChrist-like but says more about the speaker than about the supposed objects of his analysis.

but please, feel free to argue this way, i'm sure the lurkers understand what you are really saying, that you alone are a True Christian™ and the rest of us here who disagree with you are just deceiving ourselves with idol worship. This attitude towards others undermines your argument better than any of us "idol-worshippers" could possibly.

 

[Dannager]

It is all in how they define science. If science by its very definition must have a physical material explanation, then it automatically rules out creationism.

Yup! Science cannot accept a supernatural explanation, so the two do not ever coincide. Science cannot say that creationism isn't true or that it is true - only that it isn't science.

Also, scientists have spent a lot of time and money promoting this theory that gives them an excuse to not be accountable to God

I don't think very many scientists are doing their research to avoid accountability to God. Believe me, compared to the fear of accountability that the peer review process generates, I think tacking the fear of God on is rather superfluous.

which is why I believe they work so hard to try to make it seem like its truth.

Or maybe they're right and putting forth their evidence is the honest thing to do.

These verses come to mind when I am thinking of those who embrace evolution. The evidence for God is all around us.

Perhaps, but not the evidence for creationism.

One has to close their eyes to believe in something like evolution with nothing to back it up except its own theory.

Nothing to back it up except its own theory? How about taking a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ before saying that evolutionary theory is supported by the theory itself. Theories are supported by facts. A small sampling of the facts supporting evolutionary theory are contained in those links. I suggest checking into them.

The facts used to corroberate various so called facts of evolution are other so called facts with no real tangible proof to back them up.

I'm curious as to what you would consider "tangible proof" to be, since observed hard facts don't seem to be doing it for you.

 

[livingword26]

All science aside, I can probably post as many creationist sites as there can be posted evolution sites. If you study some of the scientific creationism rebuttals of evolution, it seems a litte clearer. But even that is not our real proof, the proof is in the bible.

Gen 1:5
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day .
KJV

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
KJV

Either God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh, which He called the sabbath, or He created it in six time periods and the sabbath is a time period, not a day, If you really study the bible, it is impossible to believe in evolution.

Gen 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
KJV

Why is it so hard, even for Christians, to believe the bible?

​

 

[KerrMetric]

That is one bizarre post.

 

[Mallon]

Why is it so hard, even for Christians, to believe the bible?

It probably isn't for those who aren't well-versed in science or hermeneutics.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Either God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh, which He called the sabbath, or He created it in six time periods and the sabbath is a time period, not a day, If you really study the bible, it is impossible to believe in evolution.


i'll repeat what i do everytime i hear this.
then why aren't YECists Sabbatarian and speaking to that issue, which is a religious one, rather than speaking to the age of the earth which is a scientific issue.

last time i posted this, to show exactly how wrong this argument is, no one knew what Sabbatarianism is (except one reformed poster) they all mistook it for the SDA position.

i agree, Gen 1 is about the Sabbath.
they why aren't you Sabbatarian?

 

[nolidad]

Perhaps, but not the evidence for creationism.

Well Dannager it all depends with what mind set you look at things. Neither Creation nor Evolution in the "macro sense are provable for vboyth happened beyond the realms of testing according ot eh scientific method. It all boils down to who do you wish to beleive? The Scriptures (which if you read the YEC materials you would see a scientific basis for what we see in Scripture) or men who were unbeleivers and attempted to prove something with failed, flawed and assumptive methodologies

Dannager writes:

Science cannot say that creationism isn't true or that it is true - only that it isn't science.

They have concluded "absolutely" that they have totally disprove biblical creation, God had no part in the course of things (as shernren said). So they have stated their position.

Nothing to back it up except its own theory? How about taking a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ before saying that evolutionary theory is supported by the theory itself. Theories are supported by facts. A small sampling of the facts supporting evolutionary theory are contained in those links. I suggest checking into them

But for the umpteenth time-- no one is denying speciation-- what evolution has failed to prove is that from a single life source all diversity has sprung up by random chaotic mutation and natural selection. A close look at their articles on speciation and transitionals showe that these are articles of faith in the religion of evolution and not empirical scientific fact. All these articles are freely laced with such terms as "apparent" "it seems" "could" probably" et al. What has been seen , tested, repeated, reobserved, is that any and all variations that occur, occur within the species or genus and does not create a new genera or family or phyla, or order or kingdom. Evolution declares this occurred, but have still factually proved their very impressive paper theories with the needed evidence.


Shernren writes:

Nope, you said parabolic reading of Genesis 1 and 2 only started in the 1800s. As I have shown parabolic reading of Genesis 1 and 2 started long before then, long before there was "evolution" as any motive, and within the minds of fully Christian thinkers.

Well Shernren if you paid attention when you read my postings you clearly would have seen I was directly referring to theistic evolution and not a paraobolic reading of Genesis.

And not all western believers are stuck with a modernist postEnlightenment understanding of the Bible, thank God.

Yeah they are called liberals and heretics and even worse.

Actually, I am an easterner, a Chinese to be precise, who lives in Malaysia. Folklore and fables are very powerful communicative tools in my culture and I can fully appreciate the deep and powerful level of truth Genesis 1 and 2 would have communicated even as a fable

Well I have been to China twice on mission trips and I know that mythology is bigf there. BUT that doesn't make Genesis a myth, especially that it is the best scientific model to explain what we see on earth. Plus you need to understand the the ancient Hebrews were different from their neighbors, they weren't that big on folklore as a teaching methid till much later on.

Eight-year-old? Seriously. Even I can't fulfill all my criteria here.

Thats because you want a detailed technical reading whilke I was saying I can get an 8 year old to give a basic rudimentary nonscientific summary of evolutionary origins of both the universe and life. Tis you who want to force the minuntae in to vainly try to defeat a valid and real argument.

And YEC articles aren't full of escape clauses either? By your standard of evidential demand, the only thing that should satisfy critics is if you can find them a fossil man with a rib missing.

The big difference is that YEC scientistsa all say this is what "could" have been. They knwo special creation is true, but they are careful to say that all the models are "reasonable hypothesis" that may or may not be true, but seem reasonable. Evolutionists on teh other hand declare evolution as proven as gravity and beyind dispute. They consider it case closed and only debate about the Hows of this irrefutable fact has happened. So your false accusation doesn't fly!!

Sorry, different time. Guess what "futility" meant in contemporary literature.

Well concordance definitions are a good starting point, but when you get into actual grammar and historical and cultural idiomatic usages of the greek and Hebrew then you will change your tune here.

Actually, that's YECism. TEism believes that God can work through science. Most YECism believes that God can't work through science but whenever He intervenes He has to go supernatural and bust up the rules of science. Guess which theory gives God "divine dysfunction", as you so irreverently put it.

God is the author of science!1 Bu tyeah His Word clearly shows He butts in the laws He set up for nature when He feels like it. You know like raising HImself from the dead--there was a natural law followed if ever I saw one, or walkinig on water, or feeding @20,000 folk with 5 loaves and 2 fishes. God is not bound by the laws He put nature under, He created everything then put the l;aws in place to govern the creation.
from this ine post, I realize how little you really do know of YEC teaching.

Why does God have to break laws to intervene? If God wants something done by natural means, what stops Him from using the laws of nature to achieve what He wants?

He could have if He so chose to, but He told us how He did it! and after He did He told everything to reproduce after its own kind- for perpewtuity and guess what?? Every observation has shown that that has been true since it began 6-10K years ago!!! We see variation and some speciation but all that all falls within the bounds set forth in Mendels law.

Mercury writes:

God created the clock and he sustains the clock and he will accomplish his purposes for the clock. As for coming back from time to time, in general TEs focus more on God's continuing activity in creation than YECs. Many YECs insist that creation stopped about 6,000 years ago, while TEs see it continuing into the present, since what nature does describes some of what God is doing.

We say it because God said it and inspired His writers of
scripture to write it down!! He stopped creating and rested after the six days.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well Dannager it all depends with what mind set you look at things. Neither Creation nor Evolution in the "macro sense are provable for vboyth happened beyond the realms of testing according ot eh scientific method.

Macro evolution, i.e. speciation, has been proven... observed by scientists.

You must now shift the goalposts by redefining macroevolution to mean something else.

It all boils down to who do you wish to beleive? The Scriptures (which if you read the YEC materials you would see a scientific basis for what we see in Scripture)

Why must the Scriptures only be "believed" literally?

or men who were unbeleivers and attempted to prove something with failed, flawed and assumptive methodologies

Not sure which unbelievers you're talking about... YEC was originally disproven by Christian scientists who were attempting to prove it.

They have concluded "absolutely" that they have totally disprove biblical creation, God had no part in the course of things (as shernren said). So they have stated their position.

False, false, false.... all that has been proven is that God did not act in such a way as YECs zealously insist He did... or if He did, He did so and then quickly planted "evidence" that made it look like something completely different.

And Christian theology claims God wouldn't do that.

But for the umpteenth time-- no one is denying speciation-- what evolution has failed to prove is that from a single life source all diversity has sprung up by random chaotic mutation and natural selection. A close look at their articles on speciation and transitionals showe that these are articles of faith in the religion of evolution and not empirical scientific fact.

No, they are logical conclusions... the way things began unless someone can provide a valid reason why they didn't.

All these articles are freely laced with such terms as "apparent" "it seems" "could" probably" et al. What has been seen , tested, repeated, reobserved, is that any and all variations that occur, occur within the species or genus and does not create a new genera or family or phyla, or order or kingdom. Evolution declares this occurred, but have still factually proved their very impressive paper theories with the needed evidence.

Even if this were the case, it still places evolutionary theory leaps and bounds above Creationism, which has yet to offer up a shred of unrefuted scientific evidence.

The big difference is that YEC scientistsa all say this is what "could" have been. They knwo special creation is true, but they are careful to say that all the models are "reasonable hypothesis" that may or may not be true, but seem reasonable.

I've never seen a creationist do this. All I've ever seen is them punching holes in what they think evolutionary theory is.

Evolutionists on teh other hand declare evolution as proven as gravity and beyind dispute.

Actually, it is as proven and as beyond dispute as gravity... perhaps more so.

They consider it case closed and only debate about the Hows of this irrefutable fact has happened. So your false accusation doesn't fly!!

Feel free to scientifically refute evolution... there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you do.

God is the author of science!1 Bu tyeah His Word clearly shows He butts in the laws He set up for nature when He feels like it. You know like raising HImself from the dead--there was a natural law followed if ever I saw one, or walkinig on water, or feeding @20,000 folk with 5 loaves and 2 fishes. God is not bound by the laws He put nature under, He created everything then put the l;aws in place to govern the creation.

And when He chooses to break those laws, never once does He attempt to cover up His tracks to make it look like He hasn't, as He would have had to have done if Creationism is true.

He could have if He so chose to, but He told us how He did it!

He's done better than that... He's shown us.

and after He did He told everything to reproduce after its own kind- for perpewtuity and guess what?? Every observation has shown that that has been true since it began 6-10K years ago!!! We see variation and some speciation but all that all falls within the bounds set forth in Mendels law. [/QUOTE]

What bounds are those?

We say it because God said it and inspired His writers of scripture to write it down!! He stopped creating and rested after the six days.

And yet we see new things, new species, new creations, every day. God's not off the clock by a long shot...

 

[KerrMetric]

BUT that doesn't make Genesis a myth, especially that it is the best scientific model to explain what we see on earth.

I cannot see how anyone can make this statement and it be anything other than a lie. I don't think you even believe this yourself. It is a "sound bite" for effect and not pertinent in a rational discourse. If you do mean it then I can only conclude you never took or understood science beyond kindergarten level. In what sense can I be wrong in my statement?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I cannot see how anyone can make this statement and it be anything other than a lie. I don't think you even believe this yourself. It is a "sound bite" for effect and not pertinent in a rational discourse. If you do mean it then I can only conclude you never took or understood science beyond kindergarten level. In what sense can I be wrong in my statement?

Agreed... how Genesis can be used as any kind of scientific model, let alone "the best," is a complete mystery.

 

[nolidad]

mrwilliams11 writes:

the young in our society are FULLY technological in fact, they assume it at an extraordinarily deep level where adults who encounter the technology never do integrate to.

They now how to program a VCR yip yip yahoo. If they are fully tecnological as you say then have thenm explain to you how transistors and micro chips transfer electronic impulses and transform them to pictures and sound. No they do kno wthiese things but that doesn't make them "FULLY technological" it means they klnow how to set a VCR or push buttons ona keyboard ort move a mouse to get their favorite game on a PC-- but they don't have a clue as to the hows and whys these things work. Besides now show (if our kids are so scientific through inheritence or whatever,) how they are endowed with automatic knowledge of evolution before they are indoctrinated with uit in the government run schools. If they are soo fully technoligically adept show me a papert done by an 8 year old breaking down Dna.

but what is interesting is the thought that our young are like "primitive" people. or more accurately pre-scientific people. when in fact they are the complete opposite.....

Well then please show me one tome from an 8 year old explaining the principles of thrust and aerodynamics in aviation. Or if that is to tough without coaching them have one give me an everyday example of what AC/ DC means concerning powering devices. Every is prescientific until they are taught science methodology and theory. Just because a kid can push buttons on a VCR or DVD player doesn't make him technoligically adept. It just means He has seen others do it, had them teah him which buttons to push and they do it!! The whys of that only come when they are taught. Sorry but the Egyptians built a pyramid so precise that modern man was not able to reduplicate that feat until the advent of modern CAD design and computer driven machine tools. Not bad for a bunch of scientific illiterates huh????????

mrwilliams11 writes:

is this the result of reading the Bible "literally" or do you read the Bible this way because you lack imagination?

Well I read the bible literally cause it was written to be read that way ( and yes I knwo the parables and visionary languages found therin)

Yes I have a great imagination!!!!

Do you read a science textbook as something written to be a good yarn?? If not wehy?? Do you lack imagination?????


The LAdy Kate writes:

Conpletely relevent... if you're claiming that anything not literally true, but an allegory to express a spiritual truth, is the same as a lie... which you did.

I now need to ask a question: Is twisting a bible believinig Christians words out of their context something being taught?? I never said allegories to express spiritual truths are lies-- it is you falsely accusing me of that!!! Allegories are stories given to express spiritual truths by making comparisons with known things to helpo express unknown things.
when Jesus taught using the parables (which is an allegorical teaching method) He never used things opposite of his meanings. The comparisons were factually true in th ephysical and spiritual. He used things people could understand and compared them to the things they could not see. Compared is the operative word here!! Genesis is the diamtric opposite of the truth. It is not using things to make comparisons. Genesis 1and 2 are declarations of what God did! And if evolution is true thestatements of Genesis 1-11 are opposed to what actually happened. God said in many places He created the world in six days when He knew full well He didn't. He wasn't making comparisons He was lying! If He wanted to make a comparison when He told His hughest creation how He made all things He would have done like He did when He spoke all other parables in teh Bible-- the six days of creation are likened unto ........ He would have made clear that the things weren't meant ot be taken literally!
It is a very disingenious ploy that TEists and atheistic evolutionists use here.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

you are confusing levels of explanation with competence with using and integrating the tools into your thinking and way of life.



let me give you an example of what seems to be happening.

when bbs software first came out, i installed it on my computer, left the modem ready to receive and ran a little bbs for local friends. i got into fido mail and the bbs'ing as it was before the internet.

pagers were still rather new. they were still too expensive for us to have one.

i had some real serious trouble with the bbs. one of the guys on the my bbs volunteered to come by the house and help.

i watched as he used bbs software on both his computer at home and on a friends computer. as he used the pager in interesting ways that i could not have predicted. all of this to get my machine back online.

it got me thinking about things like the New Guinean cargo cults, about Innuit absorption of technology but mostly about how the young, who grow up in a culture with tools uses those tools in ways that the creators of them never could have predicted.

why?
because the tools are just that to them, things to get a job done, and they pick and choose from their toolboxes with an imagination that those of us introduced to the tools never seem to achieve.


a shame that you confused the levels of explanation for competent usage of tools. again i believe it is a lack of imagination on your part.

 

[livingword26]

Either God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh, which He called the sabbath, or He created it in six time periods and the sabbath is a time period, not a day, If you really study the bible, it is impossible to believe in evolution.


i'll repeat what i do everytime i hear this.
then why aren't YECists Sabbatarian and speaking to that issue, which is a religious one, rather than speaking to the age of the earth which is a scientific issue.

last time i posted this, to show exactly how wrong this argument is, no one knew what Sabbatarianism is (except one reformed poster) they all mistook it for the SDA position.

i agree, Gen 1 is about the Sabbath.
they why aren't you Sabbatarian?

What do YECists or Sabbatarians have to do with weather or not we translate this part of Genesis literally or not. What does the scientific communities speculation of the age of the earth have to do with weather or not we believe in a 7 day creation or not. There is much science out there that gives altenate points of view on the age of the earth, not that this matters to me. I believe the bible regardless.

 

[shernren]

Well Shernren if you paid attention when you read my postings you clearly would have seen I was directly referring to theistic evolution and not a paraobolic reading of Genesis.

You aren't expecting me to interpret your posts non-literally, are you?

If God said He was spinning a yarn then fine but there is nothing at all within Scripture that says God was just making a parable of the first 2 chapters of Genesis to get a message across. This concept didn't occur until the late 1800's when sophists thought they knew better than God.

"This concept" obviously refers to the most recent concept before this sentence, namely the concept that God was just making a parable out of the first 2 chapters of Genesis to get a point across.

Yeah they are called liberals and heretics and even worse.

Not a single Christian before 1300 (or maybe even later) had a modernist post-Enlightenment understanding of the Bible. So how many 1st century Christians were liberals, how many 1st century Christians were heretics, and how many 1st century Christians simply have worldviews you don't understand?

Well I have been to China twice on mission trips and I know that mythology is bigf there. BUT that doesn't make Genesis a myth, especially that it is the best scientific model to explain what we see on earth. Plus you need to understand the the ancient Hebrews were different from their neighbors, they weren't that big on folklore as a teaching methid till much later on.

And you can prove that, I suppose. Oral tradition was a very important part of their culture.

Thats because you want a detailed technical reading whilke I was saying I can get an 8 year old to give a basic rudimentary nonscientific summary of evolutionary origins of both the universe and life. Tis you who want to force the minuntae in to vainly try to defeat a valid and real argument.

There you go. Even an 8-year-old kid today can't come up with anything better than a nonscientific summary. What more God speaking to a bunch of prescientific nomads.

The big difference is that YEC scientistsa all say this is what "could" have been. They knwo special creation is true, but they are careful to say that all the models are "reasonable hypothesis" that may or may not be true, but seem reasonable. Evolutionists on teh other hand declare evolution as proven as gravity and beyind dispute. They consider it case closed and only debate about the Hows of this irrefutable fact has happened. So your false accusation doesn't fly!!

False accusation? This just shows you don't understand how evolution works. Evolution the principle is proven beyond doubt. Evolution as history is simply a most reasonable hypothesis.

Well concordance definitions are a good starting point, but when you get into actual grammar and historical and cultural idiomatic usages of the greek and Hebrew then you will change your tune here.

Go on, prove me wrong. I'm really very rudimentary when it comes to Greek so instruction would be much valued!

God is the author of science!1 Bu tyeah His Word clearly shows He butts in the laws He set up for nature when He feels like it. You know like raising HImself from the dead--there was a natural law followed if ever I saw one, or walkinig on water, or feeding @20,000 folk with 5 loaves and 2 fishes. God is not bound by the laws He put nature under, He created everything then put the l;aws in place to govern the creation.
from this ine post, I realize how little you really do know of YEC teaching.

You can't have God "create, and then put in rules". Matter must always be bound by rules or else it de facto ceases to recognizably be matter. Rules bent, perhaps, but never broken until creation itself is broken. If you consider Genesis 1 a creation model then where in Genesis 1 did God declare that light must have a constant speed in the vacuum? Where did God declare that matter must occupy volume? Where did God declare that spacetime warps and quantum effects give discreteness to spacetime? The answer must clearly be before or during Day 1, because what God created after Day 1 was recognizably and uniquely what we see in the world today, and for God to have imposed the laws on some other day would have caused it to transform beyond recognition.

How do you know that God can't work through natural occurrences? The explosion of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima all but ended WWII and it was a strictly natural scientific process. And yet no Christian historian denies that it was the grace of God that Hitler and the Japanese empire lost and the Allies won. So which is it? Did God work through the atom bomb, even though it was a purely natural process; or did God not work through the atom bomb, and leave the matter of who wins WWII to chance? The question is not so much "can God break laws?", but "does God have to break laws all the time to effect His will?"

He could have if He so chose to, but He told us how He did it! and after He did He told everything to reproduce after its own kind- for perpewtuity and guess what?? Every observation has shown that that has been true since it began 6-10K years ago!!! We see variation and some speciation but all that all falls within the bounds set forth in Mendels law.

State Mendel's laws. Where in them is found the boundary to evolution?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I now need to ask a question: Is twisting a bible believinig Christians words out of their context something being taught??

Ok then, put the paranoia into low gear and let's look at this again.

I never said allegories to express spiritual truths are lies-- it is you falsely accusing me of that!!!

I said low gear...

Allegories are stories given to express spiritual truths by making comparisons with known things to helpo express unknown things.

The meaning and purpose of Creation = unknown
A story involving a six day creation = knowable.

when Jesus taught using the parables (which is an allegorical teaching method) He never used things opposite of his meanings. The comparisons were factually true in th ephysical and spiritual. He used things people could understand and compared them to the things they could not see.

And people could understand the Babylonian Creation myth... it would be easy for the Hebrews to re-write it saying, "their story was close, but they had the wrong God running the show. THIS is who's really in charge..."

Compared is the operative word here!! Genesis is the diamtric opposite of the truth. It is not using things to make comparisons. Genesis 1and 2 are declarations of what God did!

Because you declare it so?

And if evolution is true thestatements of Genesis 1-11 are opposed to what actually happened.

God created the world.
Man sinned.
Man is separated from God.
Everything wrong with us can be traced back to this.

How does evolution say this didn't actually happen?

God said in many places He created the world in six days when He knew full well He didn't. He wasn't making comparisons He was lying!

If you want to look at it that way, then you might want to retract your previous statement about imagination.

If He wanted to make a comparison when He told His hughest creation how He made all things He would have done like He did when He spoke all other parables in teh Bible-- the six days of creation are likened unto ........ He would have made clear that the things weren't meant ot be taken literally!

Perhaps He did... just not clear enough for your satisfaction
.

It is a very disingenious ploy that TEists and atheistic evolutionists use here.

Following YEC statements to their logical conclusions? Perhaps not disingenious, but apparantly pointless.

 

[Dannager]

What do YECists or Sabbatarians have to do with weather or not we translate this part of Genesis literally or not. What does the scientific communities speculation of the age of the earth have to do with weather or not we believe in a 7 day creation or not. There is much science out there that gives altenate points of view on the age of the earth, not that this matters to me. I believe the bible regardless.

A literal interpretation of Genesis is usually what defines YECists.

I'm not familiar with any science that gives alternate points of view on the age of the earth, especially a 6,000 year-old view. Could you please tell us what this science is?

 

[livingword26]

A literal interpretation of Genesis is usually what defines YECists.

I'm not familiar with any science that gives alternate points of view on the age of the earth, especially a 6,000 year-old view. Could you please tell us what this science is?

I can't seem to post links here so I will say to try the following to web sites: answersingenisis.org, and drdino.com. There is lot of information on these to sites. You can also do a google search for "creation science" and get a lot of information, some good and some not so good. The two sites listed above refute a lot of what is taken for granted about evolution. Once some of the lies and half truths are made appearent about evolution, it just kind of falls apart and one can begin to see the truth of God speaking the universe into existance, just like the bible says.

 

[KerrMetric]

I can't seem to post links here so I will say to try the following to web sites: answersingenisis.org, and drdino.com. There is lot of information on these to sites.

A word of advice. Those sites aren't going to pass muster on here. drdino is just bizarre by the way. I think most of us regulars on here have probably read most if not every page on AIG.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Hovind and Ham don't pass the mustard here because they dont' agree with TE's so they claim that the scientific practices of Hovind and Ham are "flawed" and "Filled with lies" and "hypocritical" and "falsified"

much the same that creationists believe that evolution is the same...and a religion as well

welcome to the never-ending cycle of accusation, word twisting and subject changing of the Origins Forum.

Be prepared for every word you type to be taken out of context, every source to be denounced as "unscientific" and every truth...even the word of G-d to be called allegory or fiction or mythical...


edited to add: They even say their own definition of evolution (using their sources) isn't the definition of evolution...so beware...that also changes as often as the subject