why wait?

[archaeologist]

this is another subject that has come up from time to time and probably needs to be addressed:

it has been said by those who accept evolution that the 'truth' has suddenly appeared 150 years ago.

if this was so, why did God wait 8-10,000 years to disclose this 'truth'?

why would He use unbelieving men to contradict His holy and infallible word?

why would God use secular science which omits the supoernatural to provide answers naturally when naturally doesn't even come close to addressing supernatural events?

why would God say, 'the just shall live by faith' when He could have said, go to your science teachers and learn from them all that I have done?

why does God say do not follow the world and its thinking then turn around and use unbelieving men to originate and promote an idea about the originof life and th euniverse? that is hypocritical and sin?

what does that say about God?

keep in mind that God said in 2 thess. 2:10-12:

"and in every sort of evil that decieves those who are perishing. they perish because they refuse to believe the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness"

since there is a thread asking me to answer questions, here ishoping you will not be hypocritical and will provide, concise, simple, straight-forward answers without insult, personal attack, rhetoric, tap dancing et al.

let's see if you can answer ALL the questions in this manner.

 

[sfs]

it has been said by those who accept evolution that the 'truth' has suddenly appeared 150 years ago.

if this was so, why did God wait 8-10,000 years to disclose this 'truth'?

Why shouldn't wait that long? Why should God obey some timetable that you invented?

why would He use unbelieving men to contradict His holy and infallible word?

He didn't. He used unbelieving men to contradict the fallible and not particularly holy men who interpret his word.

why would God use secular science which omits the supoernatural to provide answers naturally when naturally doesn't even come close to addressing supernatural events?

I don't know. Why don't you ask him, rather than telling him how he should behave? While you're at it, you might also ask him why he used secular science to reveal that germs cause disease and that Jupiter has moons. Or do you reject those bits of science too?

why would God say, 'the just shall live by faith' when He could have said, go to your science teachers and learn from them all that I have done?

Why would he do that? What does learning about what God has done in the natural world have to do with learning how one should live?

why does God say do not follow the world and its thinking then turn around and use unbelieving men to originate and promote an idea about the originof life and th euniverse?

The same reason God turned around and used unbelieving men to originate and promote ideas about subatomic particles. Once again, I suggest you ask him, since none of us is unlikely to know.

that is hypocritical and sin?

That is not English.

what does that say about God?

That you don't understand what he's up to, and should perhaps stop telling him what to do.

keep in mind that God said in 2 thess. 2:10-12:

"and in every sort of evil that decieves those who are perishing. they perish because they refuse to believe the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness"

Ok, I'll keep it in mind. You keep it in mind too.

since there is a thread asking me to answer questions, here ishoping you will not be hypocritical and will provide, concise, simple, straight-forward answers without insult, personal attack, rhetoric, tap dancing et al.

let's see if you can answer ALL the questions in this manner.

Right. We wouldn't want to go around suggesting that our opponents were delusional because they reject the truth and delight in wickedness, and then request that no one use insults, because that would be hypocritical.

 

[archaeologist]

let's add in the word 'credible'. the above answers certainly do not follow the guidelines given in the original post and are ignored.

 

[Deamiter]

lol -- why should God wait so long to inform us about electricity? It's probably the same reason.

let's add in the word 'credible'. the above answers certainly do not follow the guidelines given in the original post and are ignored.

Wait a second, you ask people to answer your questions and when they do, you retroactively say "I'm changing what I asked in the OP -- I don't want YOU to answer, I want you to give me a source that I consider credible. Because I have now changed the OP, you no longer meet the standards in the OP so I'm going to ignore your direct answers to the questions in the OP."

One word for this -- INcredible.

 

[Willtor]

I've never seen anyone claim that evolution is the truth "that sets men free." (though, I'm open to correction) Please understand what this sounds like to some of us: Why did God wait 8-10,000 years to reveal that matter is made up of quarks? And why was it through unbelieving men? - Maybe you can see how this is perceived as a non-sequitur by some.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

that is hypocritical and sin?

....

That is not English.

...

Archie is not renowned for writing clear English.

He does not write as literally as he reads.

 

[laptoppop]

I do wish to point out there is a huge difference between scientific discovery/investigation/theory which does not run counter to the Scriptures and scientific theory which does.

 

[philadiddle]

it has been said by those who accept evolution that the 'truth' has suddenly appeared 150 years ago.

actually, the idea of evolution has been around since the ancient greeks. It's Darwin who discovered the mechanism for it to function. The idea didn't suddenly appear.

if this was so, why did God wait 8-10,000 years to disclose this 'truth'?

The pre-scientific minds of the ancient times would not have grasped our current scientific understandings. There's a lot of information we've discovered, God could have made a big book of everything from evolution to quantum mechanics to advanced mathmatics, but He didn't, because the Bible focuses more on man and his relationship with God.

why would He use unbelieving men to contradict His holy and infallible word?

He didn't use men to contradict His word, they only contradict your narrow interpretation.

why would God use secular science which omits the supoernatural to provide answers naturally when naturally doesn't even come close to addressing supernatural events?

I believe God created me, but science can explain how I got here via my parents. In fact, science can explain practically every detail about it. But I still believe God made me, despite the natural explanation. The fact that things can be explained naturally only means that God is capable of making an efficient universe that can function without constant interference.

why would God say, 'the just shall live by faith' when He could have said, go to your science teachers and learn from them all that I have done?

To live by faith is refering to our relationship and interaction with God, not how to analyse the composition of minerals in the earth, or the structure of DNA.

why does God say do not follow the world and its thinking then turn around and use unbelieving men to originate and promote an idea about the originof life and th euniverse? that is hypocritical and sin?

First of all, many scientists involved in the theory of the big bang and evolution have been Christians.
Secondly, why can God only use believers? Are you putting limits on God? (I've been trying not to answer with questions but I had to this time.)

what does that say about God?

It would say that God can work through anyone.

since there is a thread asking me to answer questions, here ishoping you will not be hypocritical and will provide, concise, simple, straight-forward answers without insult, personal attack, rhetoric, tap dancing et al.

I believe I've given straight forward, simple answers, however, I doubt you will agree with any of them.

 

[philadiddle]

I do wish to point out there is a huge difference between scientific discovery/investigation/theory which does not run counter to the Scriptures and scientific theory which does.

There is no theory that is contrary to the scriptures, only contrary to some ppls interpretations. It makes me think the interpretations are wrong.

 

[sfs]

let's add in the word 'credible'. the above answers certainly do not follow the guidelines given in the original post and are ignored.

No, let's not add in the word "credible", since what you find credible I find insane, and vice versa. Have the guts to follow through on your own questions. What was wrong with my answers, based on what you asked for?

 

[laptoppop]

There is no theory that is contrary to the scriptures, only contrary to some ppls interpretations. It makes me think the interpretations are wrong.

I guess it depends on what you trust more -- the theories of men, or the revelation of a loving, all-knowing God. I don't buy the "interpretation" excuse when dealing with the Scriptures. They plainly teach a 6 day creation and a global flood. To get around these teachings, you have to turn the historical record into myth. What's amazing is that there is no reason to do this -- the physical evidence we have supports a young earth and global flood much better than an old earth and evolution. So we have both the evidence and the Scriptures saying the same thing. That works out just fine for the God of Truth who longs to reveal Himself to all men (not just over-educated "scholars" who put themselves up as judges over His revelation)

 

[Willtor]

I do wish to point out there is a huge difference between scientific discovery/investigation/theory which does not run counter to the Scriptures and scientific theory which does.

Yes, of course. But to ask such a question of the TEs seems to belie a fundamental misunderstanding of the general TE viewpoint. It is not common ground that evolution is a fundamental piece of knowledge to which such a question could be put. The TEs don't think it is. The YECs certainly don't think it is. To whom can the question be asked?

 

[archaeologist]

actually, the idea of evolution has been around since the ancient greeks. It's Darwin who discovered the mechanism for it to function. The idea didn't suddenly appear.

link? proof? i know how longit has been around but it never received any notice until darwin, which should give you a clue as to its falseness.

The pre-scientific minds of the ancient times would not have grasped our current scientific understandings

you are wrong there, they had the same type of minds that modern man has and the same ability to think as modern man. this just smacks of superiority.

because the Bible focuses more on man and his relationship with God.

limited . the Bible is also revelation of what God did, How He acts, what is sin, what to follow and so on.

He didn't use men to contradict His word, they only contradict your narrow interpretation

wrong again. i have made numerous requests for scripture to be posted that shows evolution is the method God used..so far zilch.

but science can explain how I got here via my parents

don't need science to do that.

The fact that things can be explained naturally only means that God is capable of making an efficient universe that can function without constant interference.

that is not a natural explanation, it is a description of what takes place and has been replicated billions of times. you (evolutionists)can't replicate the splitting of man and ape from the common ancestor. in fact you (evolutionists)can't even produce the common ancestor. you (evolutionists) can't even answer this question:

how did God make the sperm and the egg?

To live by faith is refering to our relationship and interaction with God, not how to analyse the composition of minerals in the earth, or the structure of DNA.

God made them all supernaturally, how are you not going to have faith when it comes to those items origin? anybody can explain how they work but you cannot explain natrually how they came into existence.

First of all, many scientists involved in the theory of the big bang and evolution have been Christians.

so? the definition of the big bang and christian is needed here.

Secondly, why can God only use believers? Are you putting limits on God?

as we all know, unbelievers are under the influence of the evil one and these unbelievers do not point to God. they point to an ice age, evolution, comets causing extinctions and so on. there is no truth in those theories and no truth in those who do not believe in and follow God.
God does not put new wine in old wineskins...pasue, i flashed on a scripture verse that would answer this but i will have to wait till i get home.

It would say that God can work through anyone.

same as above

yes you have and i think i have responded in kind.

 

[philadiddle]

I guess it depends on what you trust more -- the theories of men, or the revelation of a loving, all-knowing God. I don't buy the "interpretation" excuse when dealing with the Scriptures.

The "theories" of men that you are refering to are the best explanations for the observable facts. I guess that means God is lying through His creation, or do we need certain types of scholars to understand science properly?

the physical evidence we have supports a young earth and global flood much better than an old earth and evolution.

What evidence puts an upper limit of 6000 years on the age of the earth?

So we have both the evidence and the Scriptures saying the same thing. That works out just fine for the God of Truth who longs to reveal Himself to all men (not just over-educated "scholars" who put themselves up as judges over His revelation)

You seem to think that anyone should be able to read the Bible plainly and understand everything it says. Go over to the General Apologetics forum and listen to what the anti-theists say about the Bible. As they read things about slavery, women being silent in the church, the order to kill women and children, etc, they read it plainly and come to some horrible conclusions about the Bible and God. The only kind of way to respond to that kind of thing is to look into context, the meaning of the Hebrew words, what they meant to that culture at that time, etc.

Of all the rediculous claims YECs make, saying that anyone can understand all parts of the Bible as written has got to be one of the most absurd. Why do different denominations have different views on so many different subjects? Seriously...

 

[Galle]

I don't buy the "interpretation" excuse when dealing with the Scriptures. They plainly teach a 6 day creation and a global flood.

If this is the case, then Scriptures are clearly wrong and God is a liar. If you want to call God a liar, I suppose that's up to you. But please don't think the rest of us must follow your lead.

the physical evidence we have supports a young earth and global flood much better than an old earth and evolution.

Oh, so that's why the accepted age of the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years; because of the wealth of evidence that shows the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old! Give us a break, laptoppop. When creationists can't even publish in a peer-reviewed journal, why should we take them seriously?

 

[Willtor]

I guess it depends on what you trust more -- the theories of men, or the revelation of a loving, all-knowing God. I don't buy the "interpretation" excuse when dealing with the Scriptures. They plainly teach a 6 day creation and a global flood. To get around these teachings, you have to turn the historical record into myth. What's amazing is that there is no reason to do this -- the physical evidence we have supports a young earth and global flood much better than an old earth and evolution. So we have both the evidence and the Scriptures saying the same thing. That works out just fine for the God of Truth who longs to reveal Himself to all men (not just over-educated "scholars" who put themselves up as judges over His revelation)

Be a little careful about how far you take this, though. I post in the non-Nicene forum from time to time and you'd be surprised at some of the "plain" interpretations. I know I am. Even some of our most precious doctrines (e.g. hypostatic union, trinity, etc.) are subtle points and some people refuse them because they aren't plain. Some people slip quickly into modalism or deny the eternal deity of Jesus.

Now, on these matters we both hold the subtle point and so the relevant passages are "obviously" complex and have layers of meaning and require thoughtful evaluation and interpretation. Rightfully. But keep in mind that some of us think the same way about other passages as well. It isn't sufficient to say that it isn't so because it isn't plain.

 

[laptoppop]

God is no liar. Truth is crucial to Him. His revelation doesn't lie about the flood just because some men have come up with a very reasonable sounding fairy tale that explains everything without Him. He made the earth, He caused a global flood which left evidence all over the earth. Deposits, miles thick, layered, varied, consistent with a flood.

 

[laptoppop]

Be a little careful about how far you take this, though. I post in the non-Nicene forum from time to time and you'd be surprised at some of the "plain" interpretations. I know I am. Even some of our most precious doctrines (e.g. hypostatic union, trinity, etc.) are subtle points and some people refuse them because they aren't plain. Some people slip quickly into modalism or deny the eternal deity of Jesus.

Now, on these matters we both hold the subtle point and so the relevant passages are "obviously" complex and have layers of meaning and require thoughtful evaluation and interpretation. Rightfully. But keep in mind that some of us think the same way about other passages as well. It isn't sufficient to say that it isn't so because it isn't plain.

Good point. Of course, there is a huge difference between subtle doctrines contained in His Scripture -- and not contradicted in them, and theories which contradict Scripture to a large degree.

 

[Willtor]

God is no liar. Truth is crucial to Him. His revelation doesn't lie about the flood just because some men have come up with a very reasonable sounding fairy tale that explains everything without Him. He made the earth, He caused a global flood which left evidence all over the earth. Deposits, miles thick, layered, varied, consistent with a flood.

That's fine, and maybe you're quicker at picking up reasonable-sounding fairy tales than I am. My point is simply: don't overstate your case. It isn't enough to say that something is the plain meaning if the meaning is contested.

 

[philadiddle]

link? proof? i know how longit has been around but it never received any notice until darwin, which should give you a clue as to its falseness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#History_of_evolutionary_thought
We didn't know about many things till recently, doesn't make them false.

you are wrong there, they had the same type of minds that modern man has and the same ability to think as modern man. this just smacks of superiority.

It's not about feeling superior. 1 edition of the New York Times has more information then ppl at that time would have come across in their whole lifetime. It's not that they wouldn't have been able to understand it, it's that, given their perception of reality, to just announce that their view of the world is totally false couldn't be digested from a simple narrative.

limited . the Bible is also revelation of what God did, How He acts, what is sin, what to follow and so on.

Yes I agree.

but science can explain how I got here via my parents

don't need science to do that.

Yes you do, the process of DNA forming a double helix, and RNA acting out commands to have protiens do work to build an organism, and the process of cell division, and how stem cells can change into any necessary cell for any part of the body, based on the commands it receives, are all part of my production that require science. Saying "God did it" over and over again doesn't get us anywhere.

that is not a natural explanation, it is a description of what takes place and has been replicated billions of times. you (evolutionists)can't replicate the splitting of man and ape from the common ancestor. in fact you (evolutionists)can't even produce the common ancestor.

And crime scene investigators can't see the crimes they are investigating, but there is evidence they can examine to find out what happened.

you (evolutionists) can't even answer this question:

how did God make the sperm and the egg?

Through the process of evolution. I'd have to get someone else to explain the details of the evolution of sexual reproduction.

God made them all supernaturally, how are you not going to have faith when it comes to those items origin? anybody can explain how they work but you cannot explain natrually how they came into existence.

Of course, the evidence of God's creation explains how these things came into existence. You are like a kid at a magic show who insists the magician is doing real tricks. Even after the trick is explained you still think it's magic and you deny the explanation.

so? the definition of the big bang and christian is needed here.

big bang-the expansion of space and matter from a small point to eventually form the universe as we know it.

Christian-belief and acceptance in the trinity and in Jesus gift of salvation. The daily relationship with God and belief in the power of prayer and miracles. Etc.

as we all know, unbelievers are under the influence of the evil one and these unbelievers do not point to God. they point to an ice age, evolution, comets causing extinctions and so on. there is no truth in those theories and no truth in those who do not believe in and follow God.

I'm beginning to strongly believe that you are someone playing a prank on this board. It's not just unbelievers that conclude we evolved but you continually deny that.

God does not put new wine in old wineskins...pasue, i flashed on a scripture verse that would answer this but i will have to wait till i get home.

So God wouldn't have made the universe to look as old as it is. Since the universe looks old, then that settles it, cause God wouldn't put a new universe in an old looking universe skin.


I'm trying to be polite, but I must admit your views are getting rediculous. Saying all scientists are secular and that micro evolution doesn't happen is absurd. If you look different then your parents that is an example of micro evolution. Other examples include...sigh, why bother?