Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Hieronymus]

I find the power of God to orchestrate the making of a universe taking 13.74 billion years to date AND forming man literal out of the dirt of the Earth through the evolutionary process FAR stronger than simply crediting God with being a quick fingered, fast talking hedge wizard or prestidigitator as the YEC crowd demands.

Bwaaah!
Okay buddy, have a nice day.

 

[Speedwell]

You haven't seen most of it debunked or put in proper perspective, because only fringe YEC goofs make themselves even less credible doing that.

that's because most of the people doing the debunking don't seem to know much about it. Cogent arguments directed against the real theory of evolution would be a welcome change and an interesting challenge.

 

[mark kennedy]

So anyway, i was checking out the whole topic because Archivist told me i should so i could see explanation, but i ended up quoting messages of 3 weeks ago and found nothing that explains where God is in the attempted evolution model.
So i'll call it quits here.
Sorry to have bored or annoyed any of you.

Sorry you didn't enjoy it more, it's kind of passe anyway.

Face and peace,
Mark

 

[Archivist]

The one who suggest Genesis can be mistaken for allegory. And this supposed majority of Christian Darwinians is a bigger myth then stone age ape men.

Genesis can't be mistaken for an allegory because it is an allegory. And do you have any proof for you claim regarding the number of Christians who believe that theistic evolution happened?

 

[stephen583]

Genesis 1 explicitly states God created everything and all organisms to reproduce after their kind.
Nowhere in Scripture is this disputed, many times it is confirmed and repeated.

Again. This has absolutely nothing to do with the terms of salvation outlined in the Bible. The belief or disbelief in evolution as science is an entirely separate and unrelated subject.

 

[Hieronymus]

that's because most of the people doing the debunking don't seem to know much about it.

I think that's a strawman argument, otherwise it's an ad hominem.
Perhaps both...

 

[Hieronymus]

Again. This has absolutely nothing to do with the terms of salvation outlined in the Bible.

Belief in God is irrelevant?

The belief or disbelief in evolution as science is an entirely separate and unrelated subject.

Unrelated even??

 

[Speedwell]

I think that's a strawman argument, otherwise it's an ad hominem.
Perhaps both...

Neither one, It's an observation--and true, unless you can show something to the contrary.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Bwaaah!
Okay buddy, have a nice day.

Can I call them or what?

 

[Hieronymus]

Neither one, It's an observation--and true, unless you can show something to the contrary.

It's not about the content what you use as an argument, it is not even relevant.
So iḿ afraid it's both.
But since you ask, here's my youtube apologetics playlist.
All kinds of topics among which also evolution debunkings and creation science.
Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W
(may be interesting for who is actually interested)

 

[Hieronymus]

Can I call them or what?

I don't know.
Do you have a phone?

 

[Speedwell]

It's not about the content what you use as an argument, it is not even relevant.
So iḿ afraid it's both.
But since you ask, here's my youtube apologetics playlist.
All kinds of topics among which also evolution debunkings and creation science.
Enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W
(may be interesting for who is actually interested)

Have you ever studied science? Have you ever read anything about evolution that didn't come from a Creationist propaganda mill?

 

[Hieronymus]

Have you ever studied science?

Do you even know what science is?

Have you ever read anything about evolution that didn't come from a Creationist propaganda mill?

Have you ever read anything about evolution that didn't come from the naturalistic propaganda mill?

Or ehrm, did you have anything substantial to discuss here?

 

[Speedwell]

Do you even know what science is?

Yes, I majored in it, in fact.

Have you ever read anything about evolution that didn't come from the naturalistic propaganda mill?

Books by Whitcomb & Morris, John Woodmorappe, Walter T. Brown, John Safarti, Michael Behe, Philiip Johnson and Werner Gitt, to name a few

Or ehrm, did you have anything substantial to discuss here?

Yes. Why do creationists misrepresent the theory of evolution? Why won't they argue against the real thing?

 

[rjs330]

I'm not missing anything. I do not believe that the use of Genesis by Jesus and the NT authors endorses the proposition that the text of Genesis can only be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.

Why not?

 

[rjs330]

But I have seen judges and others reference Uncle Sam as if he is a real person. In a 1936 opinion, the great Judge Musmanno wrote "Has anyone clapped eyes on Uncle Sam? But who dares to say that he is not a factuality? Uncle Sam, who wears in his hat the stars of the heavens which canopy our brave land, and who adorns his clothing with the red of the sacrifice of our martyrs, the white of the purity of our nation's ideals, and the blue of the devotion of its every citizen. Deny Uncle Sam and you deny the existence of the greatest nation of all history--the United States of America." Jesus and the others may well have been referencing the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory and nothing more.

​

But we are not talking about Uncle Sam are we. We are talking about the Son of God and the apostles chosen by God. There is no evidence that they were talking or ever do talk as if it's an allegory. None.

 

[rjs330]

No, Genesis 1 is an allegory that shows that God created everything. It is not history.

Prove its an allegory and do so scripturally.

 

[rjs330]

Really? Second creation story doesn't say creation in six 24-hour days.

You are not really studying the scriptures if you believe Genesis 2 is a different story and not a focused one.

 

[rjs330]

Have you ever studied science? Have you ever read anything about evolution that didn't come from a Creationist propaganda mill?

Evolutionary science comes,from a evolutionist propaganda mill. It's not real science.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, I majored in it, in fact.

Then you know that evolution is not empirical science and that we're only trying (or should be) to reconstruct events in the distant past with evidence of today.
And then the question boils down to: "Chance or design and manufacturing?"
Now the chance believers start out with a 19th century conjecture and try to build a model on that, the ToE.
They have decided it is the truth in the 19th century.
The design believers can't really make a model because there's only the product, not the factory to investigate.
They often debunk the chance beliefs with scientific evidence, or point out the lack of evidence for the chance model, or their problematic claims.

Books by Whitcomb & Morris, John Woodmorappe, Walter T. Brown, John Safarti, Michael Behe, Philiip Johnson and Werner Gitt, to name a few

I only heard of Behe, he's an ID-er.
I fail to understand how you can be so convinced of dead unconscious processes performing miracles.
Because it is a miracle when they can produce life as we know it.

Yes. Why do creationists misrepresent the theory of evolution?

They don't.
They just don't believe that procreated random mutations can write data for specialized organs.
It's never been observed either.
Obviously only the viable survive, but the changes are due to data corruption that don't get corrected.
This is how we get hereditary diseases and extinction.
The assumptions of extremely long periods of time aren't that scientific either.
The chance believers are not too honest about their evidence.

Why won't they argue against the real thing?

The real thing is creation.
Why don't you argue against that?