Why the theistic evolution position is both unbiblical and impossible

[Assyrian]

That isn't true and you did not pay attention to the details in the OP.

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made...For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

God did NOT take billions of years to make His creation. Why would He?

Where does Psalm 33 say God's word was accomplished quickly? 'It stood fast' doesn't mean 'it happened fast'.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

ViaCrucis

The age of the earth is irrelevant as far as what the text is saying. I'm simply offering a meaningful understanding of the text for what it says rather than reading into the text what's not there.

You are AVOIDING the issue. I laid that issue before you:

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

THAT does not match the stellar evolution idea of a beginning billions of yrs ago...for man was NOT present then. Just how hard is this to grasp? The very text of scripture (Mark 10:6) belies your position.

Stop stretching scripture likes its a rubber band for you to play with!

So your contention is that Luke's genealogy demands a literal understanding of each person? Why exactly?

Cuz..(pardon my grammar)...if the genealogy is not literal/historical it ain't (pardon the grammar) LEGAL. Can you grasp that?

I would counter with the same. Please stop stretching and twisting the Bible to conform to your chosen ideology. Let Scripture speak for itself, it's God's word and deserves that respect.

Nope that is your problem. Deal with what I said above, please.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I would suggest you read Genesis, Chapter 1.

How many days are in a week? Why do you suppose that is?

We in the West use a seven day week because we inherited it from the Roman week. The Romans originally used an eight-day week, but the Julian calendar reforms introduced a seven-day week which was common in the Near East. The Roman Nundial Cycle was eventually dropped entirely by Constantine who made the seven-day week the official weekly cycle for the Empire.

Many cultures today and in history have used different numbers of days in their week, between weeks of 3 days to weeks of 13 days, to weeks of variable length.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Exactly! The whole point of listing the chronologies is to establish Jesus' identity and rightful claim as the Christ. If ancestors were left out of the list, the chain would be broken, and the legal claim would be null and void.

Right. You've got it all the way, friend. It takes a serious blindness not to see the import of this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Right. You've got it all the way, friend. It takes a satanic blindness not to see the import of this.;

If you could perhaps not imply that your brothers and sisters of Christ are somehow associated with the devil that'd be swell. Thanks.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Assyrian]

Where does Luke say he included the genealogy to establish Jesus as heir to the throne of David?

Why would Luke writing to Theophilus a high ranking Roman Official want to establish Jesus as a political rival to Rome's puppet dynasty the Herods?

If Luke wanted to establish Jesus as heir to the throne of David why did he whiz past David and go all the way back to God? Matthew goes back to Abraham but starts of his genealogy pointing out Jesus was heir to both Abraham and David. Matt 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

If Luke was trying to establish Jesus as heir to the throne of David, why did he describe Jesus Genealogy as 'supposed'? Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli...

 

[Kirkwhisper]

If you could perhaps not imply that your brothers and sisters of Christ are somehow associated with the devil that'd be swell. Thanks.

-CryptoLutheran

You show us that you are led by the Holy Spirit and a true child of Christ by acknowleding the importance of His family lineage as the heir to the throne of David and that that lineage is real, legitimate, and valid as a legal claim. Matthew & Luke certainly thought that it was.

You show us that you are led by the Holy Spirit and a true child of Christ by acknowledging Mark 10:6 and that man could NOT have been present 14 billion yrs ago in your so-called evolutionary beginning of the universe.

Until then I will hold in reservation what I think of your salvation. That's not up to me anyway.

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[Keachian]

You show us that you are led by the Holy Spirit and a true child of Christ by acknowleding the importance of His family lineage as the heir to the throne of David and that that lineage is real, legitimate, and valid as a legal claim. Matthew & Luke certainly thought that it was.

As has been stated before the genealogies are of greater importance than what you are giving them. Matthew is making the point that Jesus is King of the Jews and that he is part of the promise to Abraham made in Genesis 22, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. Luke on the other hand wants to show that Christ is for all so he traces Jesus' lineage back to God who created all things.

You show us that you are led by the Holy Spirit and a true child of Christ by acknowledging Mark 10:6 and that man could NOT have been present 14 billion yrs ago in your so-called evolutionary beginning of the universe.

Jesus is making a theological point about marriage here, not stating that God created one way or another, you are ripping the verse right out of it's context.

Until then I will hold in reservation what I think of your salvation. That's not up to me anyway.

And I Praise the Lord for that.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

As has been stated before the genealogies are of greater importance than what you are giving them. Matthew is making the point that Jesus is King of the Jews and that he is part of the promise to Abraham made in Genesis 22, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. Luke on the other hand wants to show that Christ is for all so he traces Jesus' lineage back to God who created all things.

Do you often miss the point that badly?

"The King of the Jews" and the 'Son of David' who is heir to the throne is the same person! And if that family lineage (Luke 3) is not literal and all the persons mentioned in it are not real, literal people then that claim to the throne cannot be legally made.

Jesus is making a theological point about marriage here, not stating that God created one way or another, you are ripping the verse right out of it's context.

Once again you miss the point! Amazing. Of course He was making a point (teaching) about marriage but in making that point He gave us the historical fact that Adam & Eve were created at the beginning, a la Genesis chapter one....................NOT 14 billion yrs ago long before man ever existed.

But also, the marriage teaching Jesus gave was based on reality...not on some mythical or symbolical story that has no substance in actual history.

 

[Keachian]

He says since the beginning they have been male and female, nothing about specific adam and eve, you're inserting again.

Not to mention that there is no reason why teaching on marriage has to be related to history.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

For the rest of you, just take a look at where the falling angel meets the rising ape concluded what God's Word said about the truth:

...since the beginning they have been male and female, nothing about specific adam and eve...

Really? So if Jesus wasn't talking about Adam and Eve then what couple existed at the beginning...14 billion yrs. ago? Jesus statement was that they (whoever they are) were created at the beginning ...right? So if they (whoever they were) were created at the beginning 14 billion yrs ago then who were they and how did they survive in space just after the uh, (the Big Bang?) whatever happened?

What this person does not grasp is that this is Orwellian mind control. It is a concept that keeps a person from thinking more deeply than the seeded error will let them think. You won't get a straight answer from this person because he/she won't let themselves go there. Certainly not on this issue.

Not to mention that there is no reason why teaching on marriage has to be related to history.

Oh, of course not! Just because he/she says so. We should ignore what Jesus said about the creation of the male and female and it's reality in history or that marriage was based upon what God did in bringing Adam & Eve together. Marriage, we are told, is based on a mythical tale..............just because the falling angel meets rising ape and those who agree think that the universe is 14 billion yrs old tell us so.

Hmm, I wonder who the lucky couple was that existed in outer space (without space suits, I presume) some 14 billion yrs. ago.

But this is how ridiculous things get for those who forsake God's Word and force an unbliblical, illogical interpretation to the plain meaning of scripture.

Then again....

 

[Keachian]

Really? So if Jesus wasn't talking about Adam and Eve then what couple existed at the beginning...14 billion yrs. ago? Jesus statement was that they (whoever they are) were created at the beginning ...right? So if they (whoever they were) were created at the beginning 14 billion yrs ago then who were they and how did they survive in space just after the uh, (the Big Bang?) whatever happened?

It doesn't matter who he was talking about, he is structuring a theology of what marriage is, if they were created male and female at the beginning then why do we have the exclamation of Adam when Eve is created, "At last! here is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." Even if you take him literally at his word did Adam and Eve drown because they were created before God had separated the waters from the waters with the heavens cf Gen 1:6-8, obviously Jesus is both not speaking literally and the way he frames it can be reconciled with a literary framework interpretation far more easily than with literalist creationism.

Why are you holding that Jesus is making a point about creation when every other part of the relevant passage 10:1-12 is about marriage.

What this person does not grasp is that this is Orwellian mind control. It is a concept that keeps a person from thinking more deeply than the seeded error will let them think. You won't get a straight answer from this person because he/she won't let themselves go there. Certainly not on this issue.

I have given you straight answers.

Oh, of course not! Just because he/she says so. We should ignore what Jesus said about the creation of the male and female and it's reality in history or that marriage was based upon what God did in bringing Adam & Eve together. Marriage, we are told, is based on a mythical tale..............just because the falling angel meets rising ape and those who agree think that the universe is 14 billion yrs old tell us so.

I said that there is no reason it has to be based in history. If you want to believe that it's your perogative, there is nothing that says we need take it as such.

Hmm, I wonder who the lucky couple was that existed in outer space (without space suits, I presume) some 14 billion yrs. ago.

You're the one positing that, I refer you up where I address this assertion.

But this is how ridiculous things get for those who forsake God's Word and force an unbliblical, illogical interpretation to the plain meaning of scripture.

I am not forsaking God's Word, I look to Christ daily to see me through, although you happen to be one who'd take 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." To be talking about Scripture and thereby elevate it to the status of God, The Bible is not my God. Do not capitalise word when referring to the Scriptures

 

[Kirkwhisper]

"I have given you straight answers."

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. He plays with eternal truth like its a rubber band that he can stretch any way he wants.

Goodnight all!

 

[Assyrian]

"I have given you straight answers."

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. He plays with eternal truth like its a rubber band that he can stretch any way he wants.

Goodnight all!

progmonk has been looking at what Jesus was actually talking about in the passage, but clearly progmonk must be the one stretching truth like a rubber band for not accepting out of context ideas you want to read into the passage.

 

[Keachian]

I even acquiesced and read the information out of it that he wanted to talk about and came out with a non-literal reading of Genesis 1, yet he chose not to reply to that either.

 

[Lepanto]

One piece of evidence from fossil record might not be convincing enough,
but now we have 2 -- Sudden Appearance and Stasis.
Apart from these, results from other scientific research (especially DNA) are in conflict with Naturalistic Evolution. I think this can't be coincidence.

I believe a person has to be very not up-to-date in scientific information
or close-minded to remain a naturalistic evolutionist.

"The evidence of biology clear points to stasis not evolution. Rather than revealing organisms gradually evolving into other forms, the fossil record speaks of "SUDDEN APPEARANCE" and "STASIS"."

(excerpted from "Creation, Evolution, and Modern Science", by Kerby Anderson, Raymond G. Bohlin)

 

[Incariol]

One piece of evidence from fossil record might not be convincing enough,
but now we have 2 -- Sudden Appearance and Stasis.
Apart from these, results from other scientific research (especially DNA) are in conflict with Naturalistic Evolution. I think this can't be coincidence.

I believe a person has to be very not up-to-date in scientific information
or close-minded to remain a naturalistic evolutionist.

"The evidence of biology clear points to stasis not evolution. Rather than revealing organisms gradually evolving into other forms, the fossil record speaks of "SUDDEN APPEARANCE" and "STASIS"."

(excerpted from "Creation, Evolution, and Modern Science", by Kerby Anderson, Raymond G. Bohlin)

Ok, were you going to give us the research paper backing up your claim?

 

[sfs]

One piece of evidence from fossil record might not be convincing enough,
but now we have 2 -- Sudden Appearance and Stasis.

You forgot the other two pieces, though: gradual appearance, and change, both of which also appear in the fossil record.

Apart from these, results from other scientific research (especially DNA) are in conflict with Naturalistic Evolution. I think this can't be coincidence.

If it were true it would be interesting, but it's not. At any rate, I haven't heard of any research in DNA that is in conflict with naturalistic evolution (no caps needed, by the way). What did you have in mind?

I believe a person has to be very not up-to-date in scientific information
or close-minded to remain a naturalistic evolutionist.

I'm sorry, but this is getting a bit silly. There are thousands of scientists in a range of areas of biology -- e.g. paleontology, genetics, developmental biology -- who routinely do research that only makes sense in terms of evolution. According to you, all of these thousands of individuals are either unaware or ignoring the scientific evidence against evolution. Is that really plausible, when these are the same individuals who are actually doing the scientific research? Do you honestly think you know what's going on in biology better than biologists?

 

[florida2]

You forgot the other two pieces, though: gradual appearance, and change, both of which also appear in the fossil record.

When either side of the debate is using fossil evidence, I think it is worth bearing in mind that we have excavated such an incredibly small area of the world that we are bound to make further discoveries in the future.

You usually see excavations happening in places like the Mongolian desert. This is not because there are likely to be the most fossils, simply because the rocks are more accessible. There may be amazing fossils right underneath your house or a city and we'd never know.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

 

[Papias]

Florida2 wrote:

When either side of the debate is using fossil evidence, I think it is worth bearing in mind that we have excavated such an incredibly small area of the world that we are bound to make further discoveries in the future.

True, yet even with that small corner, paleontologists have found literally millions of fossils, with many thousands in transitional series. We've foun literally thousands of times as many fossils as all of those found worldwide in Darwin's day. With evolution being so easy to prove wrong, the repeated confirmation of evolution by the fossil record is stunning. Transitional series are so common that Stephen J. Gould said they were "rife" in the fossil record. Here is what one of the world's experts on the fossil record had to say about it:

Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. -Michael Benton, Prominent Palenontologist
​

Note the last paragraph - there are so many millions of fossils that paleonologists now use mathematical methods to deal with all of them - because no one person could possible fully study even a small fraction of them.

One of the most common creationist canards is to ignore these thousands of fossils in transitional series, and out of their intentional ignorance, try to convince others to stay in their ignorance as well. In opposition to this, and as a Chrisitian, I find my faith strenghtened by learning about God's creation in detail, giving a larger faith and indeed a larger God.

Papias