Why I rejected theistic evolution

[mark kennedy]

The example shows how it looks when creationists propose that the physical constants measured over the past century or so were different. The "gases" item is about the assumption that argon is a gas in the past. Yes, those are the assumptions you are saying you don't trust.

Here are the assumptions that must be true:

• Beginning Conditions Known
• Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem)
• Constant Decay Rate
• No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
• All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
• There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes

This is not all of them and it's a simplified list but at a minimum these are a few basic assumptions. These methods have been around for about a hundred years or better. Based on the data collected over weeks, months or years the method makes the following projections:

• Potassium 40/Argon 40 has a half life of 1.25 billion yrs
• Rubidium 87/Strontium 87 has a half life of 48.8 billion yrs
• Thorium 232/Lead 208 has a half life of 14 billion years
• Uranium 235/Lead 207 has a half life of 704 million years
• Uranium 238/Lead 206 has a half life of 4.47 billion years
• Carbon 14/Nitrogen 14 has a half life of 5730 years

Radiometric Dating Methods

Do you see what I did there Papias? I listed the assumptions, the ratios of the elements and their respective half lives based on those assumption. That's what I'm talking about when I say you are being incoherent. Simply spouting off with gases are gases and have always been gases and vague generalities about assumptions and methods are pointless.

Sure there would - there would be agreement between various different radioactive and non-radioactive methods. Since that agreement exists, over thousands of tests on hundreds of samples, I'm still waiting for mark's explaination as to why all these tests just "happen" to confirm each other, if they are all so "unreliable".

Who conducted these 'tests', when, where and how? What on earth could you possibly be challenging me to explain when you never bothered to offer anything to explain except a short generalization. A generalization of an elaborate series of assumptions that are applied to tests on elements with a high degree of specificity, and you offer not one detailed specific.

Not only that, you talking to me in the third person again, which means you performing for others.

Maybe we can move on after mark supplied the support for his again repeated statement?

We can move on when you tell us all who you are talking to.

Thanks for pointing out that Henry morris also got additional degrees in 1948 and 1950, after his first degree in 1939. Yep, I had mistakenly thought that the later degrees were honorary (and thus not earned). My mistake. Does that mistake qualify me as a troll, dishonest person, and all the other insults you been hurling?

No, it's an admission that Henry Morris was a university trained scientist who's studies spanned over 20 years from the time he started undergraduate studies till he received his PHD. It demonstrates that you made an erroneous statement regarding a leading Creationist calling him 'uneducated' with regards to evolutionary biology. That is in spite of the fact that biology and geology have been the two primary scientific disciplines specifically related to natural history in the secular sciences.

Then you openly admit you were ignorant of Henry Morris' education. Yea, I think that is a tolling tactic you use on a nearly constant basis only this time you made a gentlemanly admission of your error, which is refreshing.

mark, I've asked you many times for that actual verse in the Bible, and you never give it. Do you care to back up your statement, or are you adding things to scripture that aren't there? You are projecting your interpretation into scripture, and then attacking those who don't go along with your interpretation.

Amazing, Assyrian wants to accuse me of spamming the detailed exposition and discussion of the specific references and you claim you've never heard of them. Here they are again for the third time in this thread alone:

Strong's G76 (Adam Ἀδά&#956 - Adam, the first man, the parent of the whole human family. Strong's Number G76 matches the Greek Ἀδάμ (Adam), which occurs 9 times in 7 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV.

• Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam76, which was [the son] of God.
• Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come .
• For as in Adam all die , even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cr 15:22)
• And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam76 [was made] a quickening spirit. (1Cr 15:45)
• For Adam was first formed , then Eve. (1Ti 2:13)
• And Adam was not deceived , but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1Ti 2:14)
• And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying , Behold , the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (Jud 1:14)

That is in addition to a detailed word search I have done for Assyrian many times regarding typos, translated 'figure' in the Romans 5:14 passage:

Strong's G5179 - typos - τύπος (from τύπτω G5180)
Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.​

Notice both Adam and Timothy are literal persons used in the same way and both are literal persons. That is in addition to the extensive treatment of the subject I did in our formal debate that you completely ignored. Now you want to complain that you were never provided with specific references, here are some of them again:

There is a reason that Rome finds 'original sin' inescapable, God must be worshiped as Creator in order to be received as Savior and Lord.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved

I have reasoned with you from the Scriptures on these issues many times and never without detailed expositions of the requisite texts, authoritative resources including dictionary references, quotes from the Early Church Fathers, RCC cataclysms as well as Catholic doctrines regarding Original Sin.

Then you want to pretend that you have challenged me for the specific references that I would refuse to provide. Then you wonder why I accuse you of being dishonest?

SERIOUSLY ????!!!!!

This statement is as concise as I can make my position:

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.​

mark, as we saw above, you specifically said that the assumptions of constant decay parameters was not valid, that radioactive dating was unreliable, and that the many different dating methods dont agree. Those certainly are proposals, ones that we are still waiting for evidence of. In additiont to that, your constant barrage of personal attacks on a whole list of people derailed this thread more than anything else. It looks like your "prediction" that the thread would be derailed by personal attacks was a "prediciton" that you fulfilled yourself.

No, what you have in this post is you talking about me, generally in the third person, attacking me constantly throughout the post. You have made false statements whether incidentally, accidentally or deliberately in highly emotive and dramatic fashion. When I criticize you for trolling it's not that you have done it here and there, now and then. The problem is you do it constantly and without any consequences or qualms.

The only reason I emphasis the ad hominem attacks is because that is what everyone of you resort to when you have nothing else left to argue with. The attack on personal convictions regarding the creation of the world, life on the earth and Adam, the first parent of all humanity is not motivated by anything Christian or scientific. It is an academic animosity against the propositional truth of God as Creator who acts in time and space by divine fiat.

Like I have been telling you all along, you are being used.

Maybe the fact that it bores you to death is why you haven't learned about all the many different techniques, and how they all confirm each other, even though they are based on different methods?

Sure I learned it, years ago. I just don't think there is anything in geology or radiometric dating that has the slightest bearing on Origins Theology. All geology provides Darwinism with is a lot of time. Biology on the other had has the cause of evolution identified as molecular mechanisms specifically designed to adapt lineal descendants to their respective and changing environments.

That's why it bores me to death, it's irrelevant as well as being based on assumptions requiring a high degree of specificity.
.

yet another attack on those who disagree with your interpretation. Amazing that after it was shown that you yourself have made literally dozens of personal attacks, many of them unprovoked, and have pointed out few if any actual attacks on you, you then write:

All I proposed is that the evolutionists on here will turn the discussion to personal attacks

Wow, mark. Who turned the discussion to personal attacks? Us? really?

Yea you, yea really!!! The entire post has been focused on me specifically, it is uniformly derogatory and you guys do this every single time. It doesn't matter where the discussion starts it always turns ad hominem, aka 'to the man'. This kind of fallacious argument lacks substance since it focuses on persons rather then principles.

I support everything I say to you and about you with facts, quotes and detailed specifics. You simply make characterizations, usually in the form of third person generalities, consistently making bogus statements clearly contradicted by the facts.

It's nothing personal with me. If you want to be civil and substantive I will respond in kind. If on the other hand you insist on using these fallacious and erroneous statements ad infinitum and nauseum I will counter your statements with a reiteration of the facts along with an indictment if warranted.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I find this ironic after the dealings I had with MK.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7669924-3/#post60912656

He never apologized, yet he was the one hurling insults at me left right and center, and he was wrong about his reasons for insulting me as well.

While there is trash talk from both sides, the bulk of it is definitely coming from the YECs. It's sad we can't just discuss theology without making it personal (and that statement is meant for everyone, not just the YECs).

I never apologized because you never admitted what actually happened. I said that theistic evolutionists rarely discuss Adam in the New Testament passages where he is mentioned. When they do they try to pass him off as figurative, which is ABSURD.

That was my original statement, paraphrased somewhat, but none the less what started you off. You take the Hebrew use of Adam from the Old Testament where his name is used to speak of humanity, there are reasons for that but it's not important right now.

First you asked me if my sources were reliable and concluded by saying my statement was 'categorically false'. You don't start off with ridiculing my resources, dismissing my statement as categorically false only to admit you didn't know what I was actually talking about and then get an apology.

I don't owe you an apology, I was answering a false accusation you have admitted was wrong. That's not an insult, that's called a rebuke, when you resent that kind of correction by complaining incessantly you are just revealing something about yourself.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[gluadys]

No, it's an admission that Henry Morris was a university trained scientists who's studies spanned over 20 years from the time he started undergraduate studies till he received his PHD. It demonstrates that you made an erroneous statement regarding a leading Creationist calling him 'uneducated' with regards to evolutionary biology.

Excuse me. I saw an admission on Papias part that he had mistakenly thought Morris' degrees received in the 1940s and 50s were honorary degrees, not earned degrees.

So that part of your original objection has been dealt with.

However, I did not see any indication that Morris received any of his degrees for work in evolutionary biology.

Morris was educated--he was well educated. But in hydraulics and engineering, not evolution.

I might note as well that a very good education in hydraulics is not a qualification of expertise in hermeneutics or theology either.

Yet YECS look up to Morris as an expert in three areas in which he was not educated. And most probably know very little of what he did study.

 

[Philis]

First you asked me if my sources were reliable and concluded by saying my statement was 'categorically false'. You don't start off with ridiculing my resources, dismissing my statement as categorically false only to admit you didn't know what I was actually talking about and then get an apology.

For the umpteen millionth time I did not say your statement about Adam was catagorically false. Why do you keep insisting that I did? You need to start trying to understand what others are actually saying. I explained if very clearly here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7669924-3/#post60912656

Or maybe you are just trying to get a rise out of me by making false accusations and being insulting every time you respond to me.

 

[Metal Minister]

Sorry, this thing is very irksome sometimes. I've differentiated my replies with { }. I hope you can read it!

I agree with the third sentence. Why do you believe that Genesis 1-11 is historical?
{There's a great deal of evidence to support this. I would start with the book "In the beginning God: creation from God's perspective" by Dr. Joel Heck. I also took this from creation.com: Genesis is, without any doubt whatsoever, most definitely written as historical narrative. Hebrew uses special grammatical forms for recording history, and Genesis 1-11 uses those. It has the same structure as Genesis 12 onwards and most of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc., which no one claims is 'poetry' or not meant to be taken as history. Genesis is not poetry or allegory.

Genesis is peppered with 'And ... and ... and ... ' which characterises historical writing (this is technically called the 'vav--?,often rendered as waw--consecutive').

The Hebrew verb forms of Genesis 1 have a particular feature that fits exactly what the Hebrews used for recording history or a series of past events. That is, only the first verb in a sequence of events is perfect (qatal),while the verbs that continue the narrative are imperfects (vayyiqtols). 4 In Genesis 1,the first verb, bara (create), is perfect, while the subsequent verbs are imperfect. 5 A proper translation in English recognises this Hebrew form and translates all the verbs as perfect (or past) tense.

Genesis 1-11 also has several other hallmarks of historical narrative, such as 'accusative particles' that mark the objects of verbs. These are not translated into English (e.g. Hebrew 'et' in Genesis 1:1). Terms are often carefully defined. Also, parallelisms, a feature of Hebrew poetry (e.g. in many Psalms), are almost absent in Genesis. 6

The rare pieces of poetry (e.g. Genesis 1:27 and 2:23) comment on real events anyway, as do many of the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 78). But if Genesis were really poetic, the whole book would look like these rare verses and it doesn't.}

Exactly. That is its strength. It has the resilience to refine, even reject, its theories in the light of new evidence.

I certainly would not have confidence in science if it insisted on sticking with theories (like "phlogiston" or "ether" or "humours") which have been shown to be false.

That is a strength which theology can learn from science---not to be bound by traditional theories and interpretations when the evidence shows them to be wrong.
{You see, here is where a major problem lies. I do not hold a YEC theology because of tradition, but because of an honest, straightforward reading, study and understanding of the text. Science has no such structure, and its amorphism is also its weakness. It fluctuates between theories, and people try to read into the scriptures what science is purporting to be the latest "truth". That is until another "truth" is discovered refuting the first. Scientific ideas must be interpreted, and many times this interpretation is skewed in an anti-biblical way because some do not want God to "get a foot in the door" so to speak. (We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons," The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31

Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.
R.E. Dickerson, J. Molecular Evolution, 34:277, 1992; Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 44:137-138, 1992) }

We actually have a historical record of doing that. We no longer adhere to a Ptolemaic or ANE view of the structure of the cosmos. We no longer justify from scripture the enslavement of our fellow human beings. We no longer treat women as chattels owned by the male authorities in their families or condemn a young woman who has been raped to marriage with her rapist.
{As far as the rapist part you'll have to enlighten me. I'm not aware of a verse that forces a woman to marry her rapist. Slavery, when looked at in the bible is not condoned by God. He does allow for type of indentured servitude, but during the times of the OT this was often offered by the servant. It was far safer for a person to be a part of a large, strong Jewish family, because God made specific provisions for their care. Also, if one reads Eph 5:22-33 in its proper context, and understands Genesis as it is written, it shows that women were never meant to be treated as property, but to be honored. Yes, women were said to be "ruled" by men, but if you look at what Adam did for Eve, we can see what it really means. Adam died and sacrificed all of mankinds future to protect Eve from the full of God's wrath. True, he did kind of pass the buck a little, but if he had simply not eaten the fruit, Eve would have been the only one to suffer the fall. If we read 1 Tim 2:14 we see this is the case. (Actually Bill Cosby has a skit on this that's pretty funny.) The whole point is that men are to die unto themselves for their wives. It's unfortunate that it had to take so long before people could get the whole context of this.}

Why should we not continue in that practice of revising various interpretations of scripture when it comes to the discovery of deep space, deep time and evolution? Not for the purpose of writing these things into scripture.

{The problem is, deep time, and macro-evolution are not 100% fact. They are theories and should be treated as such. We as humans haven't the first clue the answers to the questions of the universe, in fact we don't even know a fraction of the questions!}

(No one has gone back to remove the laws about slaves or women from the bible or to expunge references to the sun running its course around the earth, so there is no reason to change the text of scripture to put in an ancient age either.)

{I've seen this several times from folks, and try to help correct them if I can. The bible doesn't actually say the sun goes around the earth, but rather uses plain speech much like we do today. For instance we still use sunrise and sunset, yet these are not true scientifically. It's more a figure of speech based on observation of a person on a fixed point on the earth.}

But for the purpose of re-affirming that the great and timeless truths of scripture like creation and redemption apply no matter what we discover beyond the knowledge base of the biblical writers.

{I 100% agree with this statement.}

I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

P.S. Thank you for responding with great civility. And for providing a substantive response. It is very refreshing in the context of this thread.

{Something to chew on as an idea I've had rattling around in my head, is another view of the "big bang". If God said let there be light, whose to say how far away that light originated from? The bible speaks of God "stretching the heavens" and current scientific theory suggest that the universe is spreading (stretching) so is it at all possible that the stars and galaxies were nearer to the earth and God stretched them at a rate of speed incalculable to us? Or how about the fact that even we as humans can speed up or stop light? Is it not possible that God simply sped the light up to reach us instantaneously? }

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[mark kennedy]

Excuse me. I saw an admission on Papias part that he had mistakenly thought Morris' degrees received in the 1940s and 50s were honorary degrees, not earned degrees.

Which was wrong.

So that part of your original objection has been dealt with.

Yes, he made a gentlemanly admission of his error

However, I did not see any indication that Morris received any of his degrees for work in evolutionary biology.

He earned a Ph.D., University of Oklahoma (1980) in Geological Engineering. Are you seriously suggesting that geology is not related to evolutionary biology?

Morris was educated--he was well educated. But in hydraulics and engineering, not evolution.

Considering the fact that the topic of the OP was geology, his qualifications are exceptional. Papias introduced an irrelevant qualification which is effectively a misdirection of the discussion.

I might note as well that a very good education in hydraulics is not a qualification of expertise in hermeneutics or theology either.

That might be a problem if the subject of the thread was intended to be hermeneutics or theology. The topic was why one creationist is not a theistic evolutionist and his reasons focused on geology, mentioning the work of Henry Morris as an influence.

Papias made an erroneous statement about Henry Morris and you are either neglecting or ignoring the fact that his PHD was in Geologic Engineering.

Yet YECS look up to Morris as an expert in three areas in which he was not educated. And most probably know very little of what he did study.

I know what he studied and I suspect you do as well.

Morris served on the University of Oklahoma faculty before joining the Institute for Creation Research in 1984. He received his Doctorate in Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma in 1980. Morris held the position of Professor of Geology before being appointed President in 1996. Morris has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech (1969), a M.S., University of Oklahoma (1977), and a Ph.D., University of Oklahoma (1980) in Geological Engineering​

John D. Morris, Biography Wikipedia

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the fossil record related to evolutionary biology? Geology is important, perhaps even vital to the dating of the fossils and the age of the earth right? A Professor of Geology is eminently well qualified to speak on the subject of radiometric dating.

Papias threw in these irrelevant qualifiers to derail the topic, that's all there is to that.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

I would say this is a 50/50 split, and extremely disheartening. I joined CF because I thought it would be a good place to grow in faith, and to help others grow as well. Since I've been here, its been a, pardon the expression, shoot out between rival factions with no end in sight. I freely admit I have been drawn in as well on occasion, and for those whom I've offended, I apologize, but if this is the way CHRISTIANS on this forum are going to treat one another, then I am seriously considering it a lost cause. This forum has the potential to be one of the great causes for Jesus and salvation and yet we bicker back and forth like hens in a hen house! I say enough! If you find a post seems like an insult, walk away from the forum for a bit, and look at it with fresh eyes. If it still appears to be an insult, point it out, and move on. This constant back and forth like this gets no one anywhere! Mark, Martyrs, please, you both know I'm also a yec, and even I can see that the antagonism is 50/50. I'm willing to turn the other cheek as Jesus tells us to, and He also tells us to be wary of and call out clear heretics and false prophets. That doesn't mean we should be verbally at each others throats! I say all this as lovingly and plainly as I can, because my point is not to anger, or to insult anyone but to simply show us all that what we are doing is not helping and is not advancing the cause of Christ! We should be helping and encouraging one another, not tearing them down. I believe I've helped at least one poster to these forums with the same issue but only after I was called out and rebuked by another. Sometimes we all just need a kick in the pants to let us all know we've strayed from our true purpose. Please, do not take offense to this post, that is not my intention, but rather, take a moment to reflect on where discussions like this have started, and where they've ended up. I want everyone in the world to know the love of Christ, and we as Christians are supposed to spread this love to the world, but we can't do that if we can't even extend that love to our brothers and sisters already in Christ. With all love, MM

I'm reposting this as a separate post in case anyone has phillis on ignore. Still with all love, MM

So good you said it twice

 

[mark kennedy]

For the umpteen millionth time I did not say your statement about Adam was catagorically false. Why do you keep insisting that I did? You need to start trying to understand what others are actually saying. I explained if very clearly here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7669924-3/#post60912656

Or maybe you are just trying to get a rise out of me by making false accusations and being insulting every time you respond to me.

This was my original statement:

They are almost oblivious to the New Testament teachings of Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 that describe Adam as the 'first man'. The few times I have engaged them on the subject they simply insisted that Adam was another word for humanity, which is absurd.

You come back with this:

In most of what I've read people who don't hold the creation account as literal history are NOT day/agers. Usually the word yom means just that; "day". It's just not referring to an historical day. (Gladys posted something about his above as well).

What do you mean that the definition of "humanity" is absurd? Are the following sources unreliable?

Strong's H120
) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man
d) city in Jordan valley

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Clearly I was discussing Adam in the New Testament. While the Hebrew form and usage is informative it's not what I was talking about. You also had some quotes from New Advent:

Catholic Encyclopedia
In the Old Testament the word is used both as a common and a proper noun, and in the former acceptation it has different meanings. Thus in Genesis 2:5, it is employed to signify a human being, man or woman; rarely, as in Genesis 2:22, it signifies man as opposed to woman, and, finally, it sometimes stands for mankind collectively, as in Genesis 1:26.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Adam

Also with no quote the following source confirms that translation:
Gesenius, Wilhelm & Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1893). Genenius's Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. J. Wiley & Sons. p. xii

I specifically reference the New Testament passages Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 and you come back with these New Adventist quotes and citations. Yea they are reliable, if you are talking about how Adam's name is used to speak of humanity in the Old Testament, which BTW, is because he is the parent of all humanity. That is why we call the Hebrews by the name of their father, Israel, aka Jacob.

What do "Darwinian" arguments have to do with a theological discussion?

I'll just let that one go. This is the statement you are denying for the umpteenth time.

Even in my short time on this subject I'd say this is catagorically false. NT Wright, CS Lewis, and other have certainly spent a great deal of time defending Christianity.

Again, my experience has led me to think that this statement of yours is catagorically wrong. But if it is your experience so be it.

Your statement is bolded for emphsis.

For the umpteen millionth time I did not say your statement about Adam was catagorically false.

Yes you did.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Amazing, Assyrian wants to accuse me of spamming the detailed exposition and discussion of the specific references and you claim you've never heard of them. Here they are again for the third time in this thread alone:

Sorry Mark I have never seen you post a verse that says that Adam is the first parent of the human race.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry Mark I have never seen you post a verse that says that Adam is the first parent of the human race.

None so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Philis]

Again, my experience has led me to think that this statement of yours is catagorically wrong. But if it is your experience so be it.

Your statement is bolded for emphsis.

Mark, what is the "this statement" that I was responding to? Go back and look at what I was quoting. I even spelled it out for you in this post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7669924-3/#post60912656 which you obviously haven't bothered to read.

It seems that you are trying to entice me to insult you so that you can compain about it.

Just admit you are wrong and we can move past it. You're the one who told me context is key, you should follow your own advice and take things in context.

 

[Martyrs44]

Sorry Mark I have never seen you post a verse that says that Adam is the first parent of the human race.

None so blind as those who will not see.

You said it.

He should be sorry.

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,...which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:23, 38.

That man has no respect for the family lineage of Jesus Christ nor that He is heir to the throne of David by legal document: scripture.

 

[Philis]

None so blind as those who will not see.

....

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, what is the "this statement" that I was responding to? Go back and look at what I was quoting. I even spelled it out for you in this post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7669924-3/#post60912656 which you obviously haven't bothered to read.

It seems that you are trying to entice me to insult you so that you can compain about it.

Just admit you are wrong and we can move past it. You're the one who told me context is key, you should follow your own advice and take things in context.

One more time, this is the statement you were responding to, the response was complete with source material:

They are almost oblivious to the New Testament teachings of Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 that describe Adam as the 'first man'. The few times I have engaged them on the subject they simply insisted that Adam was another word for humanity, which is absurd.

That was my statement, your response was that my statement was 'catagorically wrong'. Obviously it was a misunderstanding and I assure you I have read your response(s), these are some fast paced discussions, it happens sometimes.

Let it go Philis, you made a mistake because you didn't realize I was talking about the New Testament even though I specifically cited Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15. It happens sometimes, it's not that big of a deal, just let it go.

 

[mark kennedy]

You said it.

He should be sorry.

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,...which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:23, 38.

That man has no respect for the family lineage of Jesus Christ nor that He is heir to the throne of David by legal document: scripture.

The word 'Adam' is used 9 times in 7 passages in the New Testament including the genealogy of Luke's Gospel. That's one of the reasons Papias got started on his genealogy thing, he can't come to terms with the clear meaning a single phrase, 'Adam, son of God'. That clearly indicates Adam was created and did not have an earthly father, it would not happen again until the incarnation.

It looks like the smoke is starting to clear, so what did you think of the thread. Do you feel like anything was accomplished? In the Army we do a three ups (things that went right), three downs (things that need improvement).

So any insights into lessons learned from the thread? I personally feel like I have neglected my theistic evolutionist brethren. When I stay away for a while they are so glad to see me they get all excited and greet me with a flurry of fallacious arguments. They only do it because they love me.

But seriously, are you going to walk away from the thread with anything besides a longer ignore list?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Metal Minister]

The word 'Adam' is used 9 times in 7 passages in the New Testament including the genealogy of Luke's Gospel. That's one of the reason Papias got started on his genealogy thing, he can't come to terms with the clear meaning a single phrase, 'Adam, son of God'. That clearly indicates Adam was created and did not have an earthly father, it would not happen again until the incarnation.

It looks like the smoke is starting to clear, so what did you think of the thread. Do you feel like anything was accomplished? In the Army we do a three ups (things that went right), three downs (things that need improvement).

First, thank you for your service (from a former soldier).

So any insights into lessons learned from the thread? I personally feel like I have neglected my theistic evolutionist brethren. When I stay away for a while they are so glad to see me they get all excited and greet me with a flurry of fallacious arguments. They only do it because they love me.

But seriously, are you going to walk away from the thread with anything besides a longer ignore list?

Grace and peace,
Mark

I must say it actually shortened my ignore list. I think perhaps I will stick around here for a while longer...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Martyrs44]

The word 'Adam' is used 9 times in 7 passages in the New Testament including the genealogy of Luke's Gospel. That's one of the reason Papias got started on his genealogy thing, he can't come to terms with the clear meaning a single phrase, 'Adam, son of God'. That clearly indicates Adam was created and did not have an earthly father, it would not happen again until the incarnation.

It looks like the smoke is starting to clear, so what did you think of the thread. Do you feel like anything was accomplished? In the Army we do a three ups (things that went right), three downs (things that need improvement).

So any insights into lessons learned from the thread? I personally feel like I have neglected my theistic evolutionist brethren. When I stay away for a while they are so glad to see me they get all excited and greet me with a flurry of fallacious arguments. They only do it because they love me.

But seriously, are you going to walk away from the thread with anything besides a longer ignore list?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Ain't love grand?

Well, you must be some kind of a prophet. You told me privately what they were going to do and it turned out exactly as predicted.

I think I'll move my efforts to another section of CF for awhile. But I will stay in touch...and...I will be back here.

The best to you, Mark. God bless.

 

[mark kennedy]

First, thank you for your service (from a former soldier).


I must say it actually shortened my ignore list. I think perhaps I will stick around here for a while longer...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Well thank you for your kind words of support and thank you for your service as well. Always nice to hear from a fellow vet. Glad to hear you have shortened your ignore list, I sincerely hope that means the level of civility is improving.

I still want to ask the TEs for a review, hopefully they can be encouraged to be concise. I did like some of the things you have contributed to the thread, wish I could keep my composure as well as you managed.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Ain't love grand?

Well, you must be some kind of a prophet. You told me privately what they were going to do and it turned out exactly as predicted.

I think I'll move my efforts to another section of CF for awhile. But I will stay in touch...and...I will be back here.

The best to you, Mark. God bless.

Right on! Thanks for starting the thread, it's been productive for me personally although I don't think the TEs appreciate my intentions. I'll probably need a break from the boards for a while after I finish up here but I'll be sure to let you know when I get a review done.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Metal Minister]

Well thank you for your kind words of support and thank you for your service as well. Always nice to hear from a fellow vet. Glad to hear you have shortened your ignore list, I sincerely hope that means the level of civility is improving.

I still want to ask the TEs for a review, hopefully they can be encouraged to be concise. I did like some of the things you have contributed to the thread, wish I could keep my composure as well as you managed.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Amen, I must admit I've lost it quite a few times! Like I said, I just walk away for a bit and kick a little War of Ages on in my jeep and let it go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcX7Bj9KKAc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

May God Richly Bless You! MM