The Creation Took SIX LITERAL DAYS - Discuss

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Well, the fact that Ichthyostega (a beast) predates archaeopteryx (a bird) by millions of years rather puts paid to the idea that the days of Genesis 1 represent a chronology.

Buck - please believe what you are convinced has to be the truth. My problems are only:

(a) making it compulsory - "you're not a proper faithful Christian if you don't believe as I do"

(b) bogus science, from the likes of AiG and ICR.

(c) putting the scientifically literate off of Christianity by associating it with a version of origins that they know isn't true - an unnecessary stumbling block.

 

[lucaspa]

i think they are reconsialable, but the curent theory of evolution has some problems with it as evedenced by the bible.

1. Scientific theories are not "evedenced [sic] by the Bible". Of course, you want them to be, but they never have been. Scientific theories are only referenced to what is found in the physical universe.

2. The problems only come with a literal interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible. See the second quote in my signature. Most Christian denominations accept evolution as how God created.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa What you are missing is that evolution is also a method of how God created
That is a LIE. Nothing more than a lie among lies. You put your entire faith on a lie and find fault with any who challenge you.

There are two issues here:
1. Whether evolution is accurate.
2. Whether evolution is viewed as a way God created.

I claimed the second. You are claiming the first. Evolution is not atheism. It has from the first been viewed by Christians as the method of how God created. See the second signature in my post. Also, here are Darwin's own words:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

It's clear that Darwin is having God be the Creator. He is just having God create by evolution rather than poofing things into existence.

The Bible challenges you and calls you a liar,[/'quote]

"The Bible" does not challenge me. You challenge me based on your fallible human interpretation of the Bible. But you and your interpretation are not "the Bible".

on my own accord it really doesn't matter to me since I did not author the Bible. I simply believe in God's word.

And here I submit you are either deceiving yourself or deceiving us. Maybe both. It does matter to you, as witness your passion in all your posts. Also, we are challenging your interpretation and it does matter to you that your interpretation be viewed as correct. This is indeed about you.

You believe in DarwinianISM, EvolutionISM, and absurdity so deep it will be the mockery of the Ages to come.

What are DarwinianISM and EvolutionISM?

The worst part of it all is the claim that this is how God works...it is beyond the worst of Divine misrepresentations.

I don't think so. It is exactly what God tells us in His Creation.

 

[lucaspa]

I comes down to who can you trust. Either I trust the Bible, and that it is simply the word of God, as it claims to be,

Please give me the verse where the Bible claims to be the word of God.

as it describes, in intimate, supernatural language, the Creator, and the creation; the Genesis and the Revelation, in unparalleled efficiency and intra-complimentary writings of inspired men in 66 books composed over thousands of years that make up the Bible.

You are aware that different Christian denominations have different number of books, aren't you?

Notice that you said "I trust the Bible". Why didn't you say "I trust God?" I think that phrasing is very significant. You are not trusting God. You are trusting the Bible. You have made the literal interpretation of Bible your god. The proper name for that is bibliolatry. And that is worship of a false idol.

Those that hold the Bible, find the answers in it to be sufficient.

And thus ignore God. Sad, isn't it?

God is not a man that He should lie,

Which is why we don't think He lied in His Creation.

He does not change,

You might want to read Acts 12 before you say that.

The Genesis account is as factual as the Resurrection account.

That's the crux of the matter. God in His Creation says that the literal interpretation of the 2 creation stories in Genesis is not "factual". So, now you have a problem.

Looking at it kindly, you have set God vs God. Being less kind, you have set you against God. In the first, God can only lose, which is why creationism is one of the biggest recruiting efforts for atheism. In the second, well, the Biblical record is that those who set themselves against God don't fare well. Perhaps you'll beat the odds.

There are NOT inconsistencies and bits and pieces of truth mixed among bits and pieces of lies in the Word of God. That claim is itself a lie.

There are contradictions between the two creation stories if you use a literal interpretation. We have listed those several times. This is an impassioned plea, Buck, but it doesn't address the data or arguments. It's all heat and noise and no light.

If the Bible is wrong, than find a new Jesus. Christ quoted the OT enough times to validate it just find for my skeptic mind...any real student of the Bible could see that one without any help.

We have looked at those quotes. Jesus is looking at the theological truths of the OT, not validating it as science.

Why dump the faith of Christ for the "faith" of something that Christ did NOT command you to accept?

Buck, no one here has dumped the faith of Christ. You have mistaken this for an atheist forum. You are not listening to what we are saying. You are so fixed in your mindset that evolution is atheism that you can't see beyond that.

No one here can claim to be an original thinker in evolutionary theory. Therefore you are buying into someone else's idea.

And are you claiming to be an original thinker in Biblical exegesis? Then you too are buying into someone else's idea, aren't you? Sauce for the goose.

What I can do is evaluate data and ideas for myself. I have done so and it is plain that creationism is a falsified scientific theory.

Actually, I'm not even sure that I'm not original. My stick vs spear essay seems to be original. So is my idea that the adaptation that separates humans and other species is the ability to make tools to make tools.

I cannot help but find amusement in the fact that you congratualte one another on being such intellectuals, but you do not seem to able to break from the lemming, cultic followership

that Biblical literalism demands. For someone living in such an obvious glass house, Buck, you seem determined to throw stones. In psychology, they call what you are doing "projection". Taking the weakness of your own position and projecting that onto your opponents.

that evolution demands of you to be in the "science club",

That doesn't hold. If it did, Steven Gould never would have taken Kurt Wise on as a graduate student. Gould was aware of Wise's creationist dogma before he became Wise's mentor and shepherded Wise thru his Ph.D.

nor have you recognized that Christ does not reward us according to our intellect, but our FAITHFULNESS.

Has it occurred to you that we are faithful to Christ but not faithful to you? Or rather, we are not faithful to your literal Bible god. But being unfaithful to a false idol isn't a problem, is it?

Eve was decieved by the serpent because she did not believe the word of God, and then bought into satan's lie when he told her that God did not really say what He said.

And you beleive that the serpent in the Garden was Satan? Not paying attention to your Bible and believing it, are you? The serpent can't possibly be Satan. You have either been deceived or are trying to deceive us.

Christ does not tell you that evolution is the truth, in fact, He tells you the opposite of evolution in EVERY TURN OF THE BIBLE.

Find us a quote from Jesus that evolution is not true. From the 4 gospels, please, since that is where Jesus is quoted.

Arguing otherwise requires you to abandon all rational thought and literalistic comprehension that even my two-year old can understand

We kept rational thought but abandoned literalism. And that's the problem, a two-year old literalistic understanding of Genesis 1-3 simply is not accurate.

and go onto say that "the day in this case is not a day at all, but millions of years";

We don't say that. Day-agers do. Try to keep the various interpretations correct. Theistic evolutionists say the days are there for a theological purpose and have no relation at all to the time that God took to create.

and "the flood was not worldwide, it was local, the text that says otherwise was mistranslated".

Luke 2:1 says the census was worldwide. Do you think it was? Why or why not? The Flood was their whole "world", but their world was not the entire earth, was it?

Am I missing something!?

Yes. That God really created! And that denying God is not a good thing.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

1. Scientific theories are not "evedenced [sic] by the Bible". Of course, you want them to be, but they never have been. Scientific theories are only referenced to what is found in the physical universe.

2. The problems only come with a literal interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible. See the second quote in my signature. Most Christian denominations accept evolution as how God created.

2.) most of anything does not prove a point. you can skew data however you like, it does not make you right; and you need to clarify your point to something cogent in order to even make a point at all of your 'most of' argument.



1.) when 'science' says no more than 10,000 Jews left Egypt, then i know the 'science' is wrong.. the scientist was not there, and has yet to find clues that, properly interpreted, would prove the bible correct.



of course that's of no consequence to someone that prefers to disagree with the bible whatever 'science' can suggest the possibility that it is.

 

[Buck72]

Well, the fact that Ichthyostega (a beast) predates archaeopteryx (a bird) by millions of years rather puts paid to the idea that the days of Genesis 1 represent a chronology.

The millions of years assumption is wrong. The rest is probably really good science!

Buck - please believe what you are convinced has to be the truth. My problems are only:

I'll gladly tell you what I'm convinced of:

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

2Ti 3:14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

2Ti 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The Bible is the word of God. Evolution is neither the word, nor work of God.

(a) making it compulsory - "you're not a proper faithful Christian if you don't believe as I do"

Forget Buck's beliefs...what is truth and what is false? God's word is your compass, so that you can KNOW truth from lies.
Psa 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.

Christ decides what is compulsory...not Buck.

(b) bogus science, from the likes of AiG and ICR.

Bogus science!? Start with Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin...the Trinity of the evolutionist. Mind-numbing, godlessness and lies. And dare to agree that Haekel brought any benefit to science with his mockery of embryology that was proven wrong by his own university in the mid-1800's. Yet, his profane, satanic lies still exist in school textbook, and public museums, along with Lyell's stupid geologic column, invented based on pure dreamscape without substantiation from anything or anyone but his own apostate mind.

And you guys trust these kooks over the word of God?

(c) putting the scientifically literate off of Christianity by associating it with a version of origins that they know isn't true - an unnecessary stumbling block.[/QUOTE]
*MIRROR* - where is the real stumbling block to faith here? The Bible or the apostate lunacy that "evolved" into celebrated science.

People hate the Bible. There must be another alternative right!? Right?

 

[Buck72]

What if evolution is completely false? I mean the entire thing, save the misassociated variations within the kinds (different dogs; great dane, chihuahua, etc).

Would it be more difficult to admit it is false NOW, or simply hold firm to the hope that it is true in expectation of a lighter judgement from Christ on the day your breath is taken from you?

I'm holding to the Bible fellas. I know what evolution is about. I learned that the hard way in 8th grade after being removed from class for "disruptive behaviour" (yes, timid 'ol Buck here, srirring the pot as a pre-teen!). The discussion question from the Biology textbook was this:

Q: "Do you think humans are still evolving today?"

This was the kind of trash being asked of me in 1985 (heaven knows what is being asked of kids today!), as if there is a way to answer the question without agreeing with the "assumed fact" that evolution is a real event!

This is purely standard, Soviet-style indoctrination. This was not a science discussion. I objected to the idea that evolution was fact (and that was before I was saved!). Today, I am not only a HUGE skeptic, but convinced more so than ever, that evolution is not true as it is a non-process. It is nothing more than a RELIGION, that requires dutiful, ZEALOUS RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT.

I'm sounding the fire alarm here, but no one believes me. Oh well, all I can do is hold the sacred word and the rock upon which it is planted. I'm not throwing stones guys, but the house you're in is on fire...please get out.

Jos 24:15 "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

 

[MagusAlbertus]

I'm sounding the fire alarm here, but no one believes me. Oh well, all I can do is hold the sacred word and the rock upon which it is planted.

God bless you bro. I'm geting called a non-Christian for beliving the bible is true in other threads. The unChristian behavior of those of the evolutionary faith shows, if nothing else, the Godlessness of the faith.

OH.. and when i call into question their faith as simply a falable theory it realy upsets them.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The millions of years assumption is wrong. The rest is probably really good science!

Assertion. Mere assertion. The millions of years has a lot more support than your baseless comment that it's wrong.

I'll gladly tell you what I'm convinced of:

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

2Ti 3:14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

2Ti 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The Bible is the word of God. Evolution is neither the word, nor work of God.

No-one's denying the status of the Bible. You conflate your interpretation of it with the book itself.

Forget Buck's beliefs...what is truth and what is false? God's word is your compass, so that you can KNOW truth from lies.
Psa 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.

Christ decides what is compulsory...not Buck.

You've been told a billion times by Lucaspa especially that the Book of Nature also teaches us truth. And it shouts evolution in words a mile high.

Bogus science!? Start with Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin...the Trinity of the evolutionist. Mind-numbing, godlessness and lies.

Liar is a strong accusation. Unless you can subsantiate it, you stand condemned by the Ninth Commandment.

And dare to agree that Haekel brought any benefit to science with his mockery of embryology that was proven wrong by his own university in the mid-1800's. Yet, his profane, satanic lies still exist in school textbook, and public museums

No they don't. Find me a school textbook that puts forward Haeckel's drawings as fact. Find me a museum that does so. But most importantly, find me an evolutionary biologist who bases his work on them.

along with Lyell's stupid geologic column, invented based on pure dreamscape without substantiation from anything or anyone but his own apostate mind.

That is an very nasty and scurrilous villification. It is also quite untrue, as the geological column exists in its entirety in a number of locations - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html

And you guys trust these kooks over the word of God?

Nope. Both agree. The Bible is not a science textbook.

*MIRROR* - where is the real stumbling block to faith here? The Bible or the apostate lunacy that "evolved" into celebrated science.

I can tell you from my own conversion. Had Christianity been associated with the scientific nonsense that is YEC, I would never have considered it, deeming it as credible as the creation of the universe from the giant Ymir.

People hate the Bible. There must be another alternative right!? Right?

You misrepresent the argument. It's not about an alternative to the Bible - the Bible is not designed to answer the sort of questions that evolution does. The conflict is invented by literalists, and is quite unnecessary.

Finally, I will not take from you insults such as "apostate". I will not lie down quietly whilst you libel me with accusations that I follow any religion than Christianity, any God but God. These are disgusting and untrue allegations that you should be ashamed to level.

 

[Buck72]

Assertion. Mere assertion. The millions of years has a lot more support than your baseless comment that it's wrong.

You're right...millions of years is nothing but an assertion. Fossils do not have dates stamped on them, they are dated by Lyell's column...which is dated by the fossils.

Lyell hated the Bible. His writings in "Principles of Geology" are filled with rants against Christ, the Bible and Christianity. His motives are in question, as is his science. People now use his column to refute the Flood, which God's word and the entire face of Geography bears evidence of.

Lyell's layers could have been sorted in the Flood. I can demonstrate:

Take a jar of dirt.
Fill it with water.
Shake.
After a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, notice the dirt separates into layers.

It's called "hydrologic sorting". At a global level, it could have easily left the layers we find today that supposedly separate "millions of years"...except for among other things, they fail to mention the fact that there is no erosion between the layers.

The Flood made the layers, the Grand Canyon, and the oil. Lyell is wrong, and the Bible (while not a "Science book") is correct.

No-one's denying the status of the Bible. You conflate your interpretation of it with the book itself.

Does the status of the Bible referenced include: GOD'S WORD?

You've been told a billion times by Lucaspa especially that the Book of Nature also teaches us truth. And it shouts evolution in words a mile high.

A "billion times"? ROTFLOL

That number is pretty well-used isn't it? I'm only teasing Karl, it's too funny to pass up. Don't worry, Congress doesn't know how much a billion is either.

I'd be more impressed if Lucaspa used some Bible in his discussions.

Christ never mentioned the "Book of Nature". He made it an ETERNAL MANDATE to believe in His word, and He shouts creation a mile high when HE SPOKE IT INTO EXISTENCE.

See the dichotomy here!?

Liar is a strong accusation. Unless you can subsantiate it, you stand condemned by the Ninth Commandment.

No I don't. I'm standing on the Word of God! Evolution has added its own word to the Word by gleefully announcing the manner of how God used evolution when He already told us how He did it, but no one wants to believe Him.

Pro 30:6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Who's condemned by the ninth commandment?

People in Christ's time accused Him of the same thing...but they only had emotional provocation, not the Word of God.

No they don't. Find me a school textbook that puts forward Haeckel's drawings as fact. Find me a museum that does so. But most importantly, find me an evolutionary biologist who bases his work on them.

You claim to be an evolutionist and do not recognize Haeckel's work as "evidence" that we all share a common ancestor? Or the tiny "gill slits" on a human 'fetus'? Please.

That is an very nasty and scurrilous villification. It is also quite untrue, as the geological column exists in its entirety in a number of locations - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html

These are all incorrect conclusions based upon Lyell's goal to "free science from Moses". Nevermind that Christ quoted Moses throughout the Gospel.

I can tell you from my own conversion. Had Christianity been associated with the scientific nonsense that is YEC, I would never have considered it, deeming it as credible as the creation of the universe from the giant Ymir.

Christianity is not about proof, Thomas...it is about faith. Christ warned against deception. Evolution is deception, but no one knows they are deceieved while they are being deceived, that is why it is called deception. The only way out of a deception is throught the Word of God. That is why He gave it to us and started out by telling us "in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth."

Evolution says, no, no, no...it was in billions of years. That is how we make time the Creator and we, the humans of planet earth can be God and rule over ourselves.

I notice that evolution rose from a period in history where there were lots of revolutions. I'm certain the Bible began to lose popularity with verses like:

1Pe 2:17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Hard to comply with that command if you are in the process of throwing him down. Self-determinism takes away the soverignty of God and puts us in His place. Yet, we were not created to wear the "Daddy pants". That is God's place, which is why David, a man after God's own heart, spared the life of Saul who was hunting him down to kill him...even though he was practically handed the opportunity!!

David recognized the need for total submission to God in all things.

Satan, on the other hand, has lusted for the Throne since the beginning. Satan wants to be God, and his desires to destroy all of humanity, to destroy the DIGNITY of humanity over the ages have nowhere been more clearly manifest than in the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Why do my Christian brothers fail to see this!!??

You misrepresent the argument. It's not about an alternative to the Bible - the Bible is not designed to answer the sort of questions that evolution does. The conflict is invented by literalists, and is quite unnecessary.

I'm pointing out Biblical facts in this thread...no misreps.

Finally, I will not take from you insults such as "apostate". I will not lie down quietly whilst you libel me with accusations that I follow any religion than Christianity, any God but God. These are disgusting and untrue allegations that you should be ashamed to level.

Once again...no name-calling to my brothers, only to Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin (okay, maybe Haeckel too). NOWHERE DID I CALL ANYONE IN THIS FORUM APOSTATE.

Please, I'm addressing the topic of evolution, not the salvation of Karl. That is personal between you and Christ. My attack is on the fact that evolution, through a myriad of intricate deceptions, reduces the Majesty of God to an accident attributed to an ill-defined source of 'Power' (mother nature), and reduces the majesty of man, being made in the image of God, to an ape; a tree-climbing, screeching primate. This is accomplished through political means in public schools, museums, and government. I have to tolerate the lie of evolution everytime I take my two-year old to see the fish at the city acquarium. Surely God did not glorify Himself in the detail of luminescent jellyfish, they are the work of happenstance over billions of years.

This is apostacy at its most prolific posture. Please pardon me while I take exception with Christ's kids for buying into this trash.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You're right...millions of years is nothing but an assertion. Fossils do not have dates stamped on them, they are dated by Lyell's column...which is dated by the fossils.

Misrepresentation. They are dated by index fossils, not the fossils being dated. There is no circularity. Moreover, the index fossil dating is absolutised and corroborated by other dating methods, such as isochronic.

Lyell hated the Bible. His writings in "Principles of Geology" are filled with rants against Christ, the Bible and Christianity. His motives are in question, as is his science. People now use his column to refute the Flood, which God's word and the entire face of Geography bears evidence of.

Lyell's layers could have been sorted in the Flood. I can demonstrate:

Take a jar of dirt.
Fill it with water.
Shake.
After a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, notice the dirt separates into layers.

It's called "hydrologic sorting". At a global level, it could have easily left the layers we find today that supposedly separate "millions of years"...except for among other things, they fail to mention the fact that there is no erosion between the layers.

But there is plenty of erosion between the layers! This is a common feature of the strata in the real world! Such features are called unconformities, and are discussed with examples here for instance: http://strata.geol.sc.edu/terminology/unconformity.html

The Flood made the layers, the Grand Canyon, and the oil. Lyell is wrong, and the Bible (while not a "Science book") is correct.

Hydrological sorting does not account for many features of the record. It does not explain why Tyrannosaur fossils are only ever found in Cretaceous strata, nor why Angiosperm remains are never found in more recent strata than Jurassic, and very very seldom before the Cretaceous. It does not explain fossilised sand dunes, burrows or many other features.

Does the status of the Bible referenced include: GOD'S WORD?

In a manner of speaking. This doesn't mean that it has to be interpreted the way you interpret it.

A "billion times"? ROTFLOL

That number is pretty well-used isn't it? I'm only teasing Karl, it's too funny to pass up. Don't worry, Congress doesn't know how much a billion is either.

It probably knows what hyperbole is though.

I'd be more impressed if Lucaspa used some Bible in his discussions.

The Bible is not a science book. Consequently, he doesn't use it when explaining science. You don't use it for refereeing cricket matches either.

Christ never mentioned the "Book of Nature". He made it an ETERNAL MANDATE to believe in His word, and He shouts creation a mile high when HE SPOKE IT INTO EXISTENCE.

See the dichotomy here!?

I see no conflict between believing in what Jesus said and that God spoke the universe into existence, and mainstream science. The conflict is a pure invention of biblical literalism, which I do not hold to. Your problem is, and remains, that you equate "believing the Bible" with "taking it literally", and cannot seem to cope with people who do not have this limitation.

No I don't. I'm standing on the Word of God! Evolution has added its own word to the Word by gleefully announcing the manner of how God used evolution when He already told us how He did it, but no one wants to believe Him.

Pro 30:6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

I do believe Him. I just don't think He's saying what you think He's saying. Moreover, I do not think that the Genesis narratives are as if written by God; they are written by men under His inspiration, men who grapple and struggle to carry theological truth within the limitations of their time. This they do remarkably well, but you do them a disservice by turning their theological writings into scientifically accurate truth-claims, because viewed this way the truth of Genesis 1-11 fails.

Who's condemned by the ninth commandment?

Anyone who falsely accuses. Like when you describe evolution as a religion, and thereby those who accept it as having another religion besides Christianity. Or when you call people liars without backing it up, as you did with Hutton, Lyell and Darwin.

People in Christ's time accused Him of the same thing...but they only had emotional provocation, not the Word of God.

Immaterial. That a person was accused of something falsely once does not mean another person is innocent of the same charge.

You claim to be an evolutionist and do not recognize Haeckel's work as "evidence" that we all share a common ancestor?

Correct. There are important clues and evidence for common ancestry in embryology, but Haeckel's over-egged pudding? No.

Or the tiny "gill slits" on a human 'fetus'? Please.

That is one of those clues. Along with the tail, of course.

These are all incorrect conclusions based upon Lyell's goal to "free science from Moses". Nevermind that Christ quoted Moses throughout the Gospel.

Lyell meseems had a good aim there. Science that assumes its conclusion (that Genesis 1-11 is literally true) is no science. The only thing to which science should be bound is evidence. Our Lord using the books of Moses theologically is completely irrelevant to science.

Christianity is not about proof, Thomas...it is about faith. Christ warned against deception. Evolution is deception, but no one knows they are deceieved while they are being deceived, that is why it is called deception. The only way out of a deception is throught the Word of God. That is why He gave it to us and started out by telling us "in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth."

And what does this deception, if that it were, achieve? Nothing, unless creationists create the incompatibility with Christianity where there is in reality none. You could render this "deception" harmless by saying "so what? It doesn't change the truth of Christianity one iota". Why do you prefer to side with the militant atheists and declare that evolution opposes Christianity?

Evolution says, no, no, no...it was in billions of years. That is how we make time the Creator and we, the humans of planet earth can be God and rule over ourselves.

There is no logical link here at all. Total logical disconnect. How does a change in the understanding of God's means make any difference to His status as creator?

I notice that evolution rose from a period in history where there were lots of revolutions. I'm certain the Bible began to lose popularity with verses like:

1Pe 2:17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

It had rather more to do with Darwin's observations on the Beagle. Interestingly, of course, Darwin came from a country that was not undergoing any great revolution. Methinks you have nothing but the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy behind you here.

Hard to comply with that command if you are in the process of throwing him down.

Didn't bother your creationist president when he orchestrated a revolution in Iraq, did it?

Self-determinism takes away the soverignty of God and puts us in His place. Yet, we were not created to wear the "Daddy pants". That is God's place, which is why David, a man after God's own heart, spared the life of Saul who was hunting him down to kill him...even though he was practically handed the opportunity!!

David recognized the need for total submission to God in all things.

The relevance of all this to evolution is, of course, naff all.

Satan, on the other hand, has lusted for the Throne since the beginning. Satan wants to be God, and his desires to destroy all of humanity, to destroy the DIGNITY of humanity over the ages have nowhere been more clearly manifest than in the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Why do my Christian brothers fail to see this!!??

"Obviously the moon is made of marmalade. Why do my Christian brothers fail to see this!!?? "

I'm pointing out Biblical facts in this thread...no misreps.

You misrepresent evolution as being atheistic all the time. This undercurrent flows throughout your postings. For the umpteenth time - no-one - absolutely no-one - on this forum wants to replace the Bible with evolution, for the same reason that we don't seek to replace screwdrivers with oscilloscopes.

Once again...no name-calling to my brothers, only to Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin (okay, maybe Haeckel too). NOWHERE DID I CALL ANYONE IN THIS FORUM APOSTATE.

You repeatedly associate evolution with being another religion. That sounds like apostasy to me. But my comment was directed at this: "the apostate lunacy that "evolved" into celebrated science. ". If mainstream science is apostacy, then clearly those of us who accept it are apostate. Stop wriggling. We know what you think of us; the froth is showing.

Please, I'm addressing the topic of evolution, not the salvation of Karl. That is personal between you and Christ. My attack is on the fact that evolution, through a myriad of intricate deceptions, reduces the Majesty of God to an accident attributed to an ill-defined source of 'Power' (mother nature)

Halt. You appear to be describing some kind of Gaia hypothesis, not evolution. No-one has presented evolution on this forum as anything other than the way in which God has created.

and reduces the majesty of man, being made in the image of God, to an ape; a tree-climbing, screeching primate.

Man does not gain his Imago Dei dignity and majestry through his biological origin, but rather through what God deems him to be. Evolution has no comment on this. "Because of evolution, we are considered no more than animals" is something I hear from creationists all the time, but the scientists do not say such a thing.

This is accomplished through political means in public schools, museums, and government.

Like all that nonsense propaganda about wave particle duality and the germ theory of disease. You seem to have a problem with schools and museums promoting the best science has to offer. This is what they are going to do. If you think creation science is better, it's time someone actually demonstrated it was in a manner that held water for more than two seconds. Your desperate attempt earlier to replace mainstream geology with shaking mud in a jar does not qualify.

I have to tolerate the lie of evolution everytime I take my two-year old to see the fish at the city acquarium. Surely God did not glorify Himself in the detail of luminescent jellyfish, they are the work of happenstance over billions of years.

Both are true.

This is apostacy at its most prolific posture. Please pardon me while I take exception with Christ's kids for buying into this trash.

See? Again, you associate the science I accept with apostasy. And yet you complain when I say you accuse me of apostasy?

 

[lucaspa]

2. The problems only come with a literal interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible. See the second quote in my signature. Most Christian denominations accept evolution as how God created.
2.) most of anything does not prove a point. you can skew data however you like, it does not make you right; and you need to clarify your point to something cogent in order to even make a point at all of your 'most of' argument.

When the claim is that evolution and the Bible can't get along, finding that most Christian denominations accept evolution shows that there is really not a problem of evolution and the Bible. Rather, it is a problem, as I said, between a particular flawed human literal interpretation of the Bible.

1.) when 'science' says no more than 10,000 Jews left

Egypt, then i know the 'science' is wrong.. the scientist was not there, and has yet to find clues that, properly interpreted, would prove the bible correct.

Actually, it is historians and theologians who have proposed the idea that no more than 10,000 Jews left Egypt. I don't recall the Bible giving a number. It does give an idea of how long the column was, but that could be either exaggeration or straggling.

I'm surprised you said that the scientists "has yet to find clues that, properly interpreted, would prove the bible correct". You just admitted that all creation science is improperly interpreted. Thank you. Of course, in the other thread you just admitted that creation science cannot confirm the Bible, either, since if the "you were not there" argument holds, none of the creation scientists were there. Which, of course, goes entirely against what AiG and ICR state. They state that science can show a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is correct! Particularly they say that science can show the Flood happened. Now you say science can't show that. Nice of you to cut the rug out from under creationism like that. Thank you.

of course that's of no consequence to someone that prefers to disagree with the bible whatever 'science' can suggest the possibility that it is.

Magus, you missed the point. Again, it's not science that is suggesting that 10,000 Jews left Egypt. Altho I can't see the problem with that. What is your problem with that, anyway? After all, for those days, 10,000 people is a lot of people. The entire population of the world wasn't 20 million.

Is your hatred of science so great that you will commit false witness against it?

I have seen a hypothesis by some Biblical scholars that very few people left Egypt and that they didn't conqueor Canaan so much as foment a revolution there. Now, if evidence strongly support this, this would be disturbing because it would contradict the Exodus. And the Exodus is essential for Judaism.

 

[lucaspa]

The millions of years assumption is wrong.

It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion! A conclusion from the data.

I'll gladly tell you what I'm convinced of:

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

2Ti 3:14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

2Ti 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Look at this. Paul is very careful to say what scripture is good for: teaching wisdom that leads to salvation and for training in righteousness. It does not say the Bible is accurate in everything. But only for training in righteousness. This is even more remarkable when you consider that Paul was referring to the Pentateuch, since there was no NT when he wrote this. So Paul is specifically excluding Genesis as a means of instructing you in how God created! Thank you for such a good quote illustrating our point.

The Bible is the word of God. Evolution is neither the word, nor work of God.

Evolution is from the word of God in His Creation. It is figuring out how He created.

Forget Buck's beliefs...what is truth and what is false? God's word is your compass, so that you can KNOW truth from lies.

Again, you are leading us away from Christianity. For Christians, the Living Christ is "God's word", not the Bible. The Bible helps but is not "the word". You want us to worship the Bible instead of God. Any wonder that we are resisting?

Bogus science!? Start with Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin...the Trinity of the evolutionist.

Yes, modern creationism is bogus science. All you mentioned above is accepted science and backed by data. I have news for you about Lyell. Lyell never argued against God. He never even argued that the Flood happened. In fact, he only tangentially mentioned the Flood in his Principles of Geology. He argued for a local Flood and noted where such could have happened:
"It had long been a question among the learned, even before the commencement of geological researches, whether the deluge of the Scriptures was universal in reference to the whoel surface of the globe, or only so with respect to that portion of it which ws then inhabited by man. If the latter interpretation be admissible, the reader will have seen, in the former parts of this work, that htere are two classes of phenonmena in the configuration of the earth's surface, whidch might enable us to account for such an event. First, extensive lakes elevated above the level of the ocean; secondly, large tracts of dry land depressed below that level."

In Volume II of his Principles Lyell talked about transformation of species and specifically about Lamarck.
"Each species 'was endowed at the time of its creation, with the attributes of organization by which it is now distinguished." Only limited variations within a type have ever occurred. Each species, itself immutable, probably takes its origin frmo a single pair, such pairs having "been created in succession at such times and in such places as to enable them to multiply and endure for an appointed period, and occupy an appointed place on the globe." CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology 130-131.

His views about species are very much those of creationists today!

And dare to agree that Haekel brought any benefit to science with his mockery of embryology that was proven wrong by his own university in the mid-1800's. Yet, his profane, satanic lies still exist in school textbook, and public museums,

No one has used Haeckel's Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny for 100 eyars. The drawings have been used, with appropriate caveats, only because there were no other good comparative figures available.

along with Lyell's stupid geologic column, invented based on pure dreamscape without substantiation from anything or anyone but his own apostate mind.

Lyell didn't do the geological column! We keep telling you this. Rev. Sedgwick, Rev. Burnett, Rev. Buckland and others did. Someone has badly misled you about the history. And you continue to trust them?

(c) putting the scientifically literate off of Christianity by associating it with a version of origins that they know isn't true - an unnecessary stumbling block.
*MIRROR* - where is the real stumbling block to faith here?

The stumbling block is forcing people to abandon what their senses tell them is true for that apostasy of false idol worship.

People hate the Bible.

No. People hate the ridiculous interpretation of the Bible of the Biblical literalists. But you aren't ever going to admit that you have an interpretation, are you? You are going to continue to insist that you are the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

What if evolution is completely false? I mean the entire thing, save the misassociated variations within the kinds (different dogs; great dane, chihuahua, etc).

Then it's false and we have to continue to figure out how God created. And the new theory would have to account for all the data we have, and that means that creationism is still false.

I point out that we have tried every test we can think of to show it false. And have failed. The only possible data out there now that I can think of that would falsify common ancestry is finding mammalian fossils in Cambrian and pre-Cambrian rock.

Would it be more difficult to admit it is false NOW, or simply hold firm to the hope that it is true in expectation of a lighter judgement from Christ on the day your breath is taken from you?

Buck, I have no qualms about my judgement. Accepting evolution and rejecting creationism is not a judgement issue.

What you seem to keep missing is that this is a Christians ONLY forum. Therefore, we all agree here to a beleif in God and Jesus. You keep talking about "faith", but you can't mean those faiths. Instead, the only faith you are talking about is faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible. And that is a faith that the Bible is god. I worry a lot more about your judgement than I do for theistic evolutionists.

I'm holding to the Bible fellas. I know what evolution is about. I learned that the hard way in 8th grade after being removed from class for "disruptive behaviour" (yes, timid 'ol Buck here, srirring the pot as a pre-teen!). The discussion question from the Biology textbook was this:

Q: "Do you think humans are still evolving today?"

This was the kind of trash being asked of me in 1985 (heaven knows what is being asked of kids today!), as if there is a way to answer the question without agreeing with the "assumed fact" that evolution is a real event!

Buck, every discussion has underlying ideas that are agreed to for the purposes of discussion. For instance, right now we are agreeing that Christianity is a valid faith. Of course you got thrown out for "disruptive behavior". Did you expect anything different in any other class if you had been disruptive? Did you have a discussion of disease? That "assumes" that Germ Theory is true.

And yes, we accept (provisionally) that evolution is a real event. Just like we accept (provisionally) that microbes cause disease.

BTW, the answer is "yes, humans are still evolving." There is evidence of incipient speciation in between Himalayan and Andean highlanders and lowlanders and that the !Kung are becoming a new species.

Today, I am not only a HUGE skeptic, but convinced more so than ever, that evolution is not true as it is a non-process. It is nothing more than a RELIGION, that requires dutiful, ZEALOUS RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT.

That is a strange idea since people who are evolutionists go right across the religious spectrum. There are evolutionists who are theists, evolutionists who are agnostics, and evolutionists who are atheists. I agree that atheism is a religion, but evolution is not atheism. So you are going to have to give the details that caused you to be convinced, because I don't see this.

I'm sounding the fire alarm here, but no one believes me.

Because the evidence shows you wrong.

Oh well, all I can do is hold the sacred word and the rock upon which it is planted.

And that is your problem. You are ignoring God and denying that God created. You have made what you call "the sacred word" to be your god. The house you are in is surely on fire, but we hope you will get out. However, I doubt it. So my job is to make sure you don't set anyone else on fire and ruin their chances of salvation.

Jos 24:15 "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Compare that to your "all I can do is hold the sacred word". This passage says "serve the LORD", not serve "the sacred word". If you would just look at what you are posting, you could get out of the burning house.

 

[lucaspa]

You're right...millions of years is nothing but an assertion. Fossils do not have dates stamped on them, they are dated by Lyell's column...which is dated by the fossils.

This is a false witness. Smith came up with the sequence of fossils about 1798 (Lyell published in 1830) and geologists used them to help get the relative dates of the strata. These geologists included Reverends Adam Sedgwick, Burnett, and Buckland. The "geologic column" had been put together by 1825. What Lyell introduced was the idea that the processes we observe in the present (including local catastrophes such as floods, volcanic eruptions, and meteor impacts) would account for the geological record. But an earth that was tens or hundreds of millions of years old pre-dated Lyell. I suppose it is the fact that it was ministers that came up with an old earth and the geologic column that has led to the attempt to demonize Lyell. Your professional creationist source knows the truth but knows that telling you who really made the conclusions would cause you to reject young earth.

Lyell hated the Bible. His writings in "Principles of Geology" are filled with rants against Christ, the Bible and Christianity.

False witness. Lyell didn't make any rants and only made one digression to discuss the Flood. He was even careful to do this because he was respectful of the religious beliefs of his colleagues. Buck, what kind of judgement comes after false witness?

People now use his column to refute the Flood, which God's word and the entire face of Geography bears evidence of.

The Flood was refuted before Lyell. Reverend Buckland was the last of the "Flood geologists" and he used it only for the most superficial gravels and morraines. But 1820 the "entire face of Geography" had already falsified a Flood. See the volcanic cones at Auvergne France or the Hawaiian Islands as just two of those falsifications.

Lyell's layers could have been sorted in the Flood. I can demonstrate:

Take a jar of dirt.
Fill it with water.
Shake.
After a SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, notice the dirt separates into layers.

It's called "hydrologic sorting". At a global level, it could have easily left the layers we find today that supposedly separate "millions of years"...except for among other things, they fail to mention the fact that there is no erosion between the layers.

But there is such erosion between layers. That's why areas of the world have gaps in the geological column! Those parts were eroded! BTW, thanks for another falsification of Flood Geology. According to Flood Geology, there should be no such erosion, should there?

Hydrologic sorting doesn't account for having intact dinosaur nests in Montana and eleswhere, does it? Take a jar of dirt and sticks, fill it with water, shake, and the dirt and sticks won't separate into a layer with nests, will it?

I'd be more impressed if Lucaspa used some Bible in his discussions.

I do, but you ignore it. Let's try 2. You say geography confirms the flood, but then state that the Flood accounts for all the layers. Mesopotamia is on those layers, meaning that they were laid down by the Flood. But Genesis 1 identifies the location of Eden -- pre-Flood -- by post-Flood rivers! Yet those rivers didn't exist pre-Flood, did they? They formed after the Flood. So even the Bible contradicts Flood Geology.

Also look at the dove finding a living olive branch. That means that plants survived so that Noah and animals would have something to eat. However, Flood Geology has every plant in the world being uprooted and nearly all buried to form the coal and oil deposits! Once again, the Bible falsifies Flood Geology.

Christ never mentioned the "Book of Nature".

Yes, God did. Genesis 1:31.

He made it an ETERNAL MANDATE to believe in His word,

Not for this purpose. Your quote from 2 Timothy showed that quite well.

and He shouts creation a mile high when HE SPOKE IT INTO EXISTENCE.

Whoa! Remember, Buck, that evolution is also creation. It's a different method of creation, but is still creation by God.

No I don't. I'm standing on the Word of God!

When you should be following God.

Evolution has added its own word to the Word by gleefully announcing the manner of how God used evolution when He already told us how He did it, but no one wants to believe Him.

God told us two ways that He created. One in Genesis 1 and the other in Genesis 2. They contradict. That was supposed to tell you that neither one was literal. Too bad you don't listen.

Pro 30:6

Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Creationists. They add to His words by making the Flood a violent Flood and then add again when they say the contintents shifted dramatically during the Flood.

People in Christ's time accused Him of the same thing...but they only had emotional provocation, not the Word of God.

They had the Pentateuch and their literal interpretation of it. It's amazing that Jesus told them their literal interpretation was wrong but you come along and still insist on a literal interpretation. The irony is that you have the same position on the Bible as the Pharisees. We all know how right the Pharisees had it, don't we?

You claim to be an evolutionist and do not recognize Haeckel's work as "evidence" that we all share a common ancestor? Or the tiny "gill slits" on a human 'fetus'? Please.

That wasn't what Haeckel did. Haeckel's drawings were manipulated not so that human fetus has gill slits, but actual gills. Remember, Haeckel said that the human fetus went thru the adult forms of our evolutionary ancestors. Haeckel's "evidence", being fabricated, is not evidence of common ancestry. Now, the similarity of embryonic development is evidence of common ancestry. But that is very different from Haeckel.

The only way out of a deception is throught the Word of God. That is why He gave it to us and started out by telling us "in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth."

Then why does the Bible turn around in Genesis 2:4 and tell us it wasn't six days but that the heavens and the earth were created "in THE day" -- one day. You say I never use the Bible. I've used this a lot, but you ignore it. But then, you ignore God whenever God is against your idea of creationism.

I notice that evolution rose from a period in history where there were lots of revolutions.

Let's see. The last major revolution in Europe was in 1848. Origin was published in 1859. There were no revolutions in Europe until the Russian revolution in 1917. Nope, that claim doesn't hold up to the evidence.

I'm certain the Bible began to lose popularity with verses like:

1Pe 2:17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Then you think we should have a king? After all, it's what the Bible commands. Does the Bible say anywhere that there should be a democracy? You don't seem to be too consistent in following the Word of God.

Self-determinism takes away the soverignty of God and puts us in His place.

Then the American Revolution was against God? The world should have kept the divine right of kings? That's what you are saying.

David recognized the need for total submission to God in all things.

Need to read your Bible better. Later, when David conqueored the Amelekites, God ordered David to slay all the people and cattle. David argued with God over the cattle and got God to change His mind. David carried off the cattle. So there goes your "total submission to God in all things". And you say I don't talk about the Bible!

Satan, on the other hand, has lusted for the Throne since the beginning. Satan wants to be God, and his desires to destroy all of humanity, to destroy the DIGNITY of humanity over the ages have nowhere been more clearly manifest than in the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Why do my Christian brothers fail to see this!!??

Because it's not true. Simple, wasn't it? Satan never participated in Creation, did he. Therefore all the evidence in creation comes only from God.

Now, Satan can't touch or change this. However, what he can do is deceive some Christians that this evidence isn't from God. So, Satan can have creationists set God vs God: the God in Creation vs their view of God from a literal interpretation. With God vs God, God can only lose. So now, creationists can destroy Christianity from the inside and put Satan on the throne. How does it feel to be deceived by Satan and not see it?

I'm pointing out Biblical facts in this thread...no misreps.

Too bad I've already found 4 misrepresentations.

Please, I'm addressing the topic of evolution, not the salvation of Karl.

I disagree. You are tying evolution to the salvation of Karl. Remember when you said to me:
Would it be more difficult to admit it is false NOW, or simply hold firm to the hope that it is true in expectation of a lighter judgement from Christ on the day your breath is taken from you?

You are now even giving false witness about what you have said. This is simply too sad.

My attack is on the fact that evolution, through a myriad of intricate deceptions, reduces the Majesty of God to an accident attributed to an ill-defined source of 'Power' (mother nature), and reduces the majesty of man, being made in the image of God, to an ape; a tree-climbing, screeching primate.

Now we can discuss this. Is this true. I disagree.
1. Evolution is not "accident". Natural selection is pure determinism.
2. Even Darwin acknowledged that the power behind nature is God. This is in the Fontispiece of Origin. I regularly use it to discomfit atheists because it means that God is sovereign over nature.
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.
Also, consider Gravesande:
"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959.

I submit that it is you who are accepting the statement of faith of atheists that nature = without God. Darwin never made that mistake.

I have to tolerate the lie of evolution everytime I take my two-year old to see the fish at the city acquarium. Surely God did not glorify Himself in the detail of luminescent jellyfish, they are the work of happenstance over billions of years.

God glorified Himself in intervening in human history. But the jellyfish is not "happenstance". It is designed by natural selection. But nature does glorify God because nature need God to sustain it at every point. Once again you diminish God by being only able to find God in the gaps you think exist in nature.

 

[raptor13]

"The Bible tells how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." That's my position.

Is Genesis literal? Is it not-literal? I don't know and as far as my salvation goes, its a moot point. All it tells me is that God made the world out of nothing and we are specially created by God.

 

[lucaspa]

"The Bible tells how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." That's my position.

It's a good one.

Is Genesis literal? Is it not-literal? I don't know and as far as my salvation goes, its a moot point.

Another good point.

All it tells me is that God made the world out of nothing and we are specially created by God.

Now I need to ask you: what do you mean exactly by that "specially created by God"?

Also, Genesis 1:2 implies that God did not make the earth out of "nothing". Creatio ex nihilo (out of nothing) is a common doctrine within Christianity, but there has always been a minority opinion that has God used existing stuff in Genesis 1:2. So I'd be a little more cautious about the "all it tells me". Genesis tells you God created. The "how" of that is pretty open.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

the big bang was rejected for many decades because it was viewed as trying to bring God into science, i think that if you people like you where as rampent then as they are now the big bang would still be relogated to a 'relegious' position.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Do you have cites for that?

The BB was proposed because of scientific evidence, and it is on that that it was accepted. "People like us" were around then, and used the same criteria to evaluate scientific hypotheses.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

just something i watched on the discovery chanel.