"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.
A WiseMan saying.....And if buildings were living beings, they would probably have eaten the woodpeckers. But alas....Quote"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.
https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871 (https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871)
by N.S. Gill
Updated August 30, 2016
Ancient Creation Myths
Stories of Coming Into Being
03 | Bible Creation
The first book of the Old Testament is the Book of Genesis. In it is an account of the creation of the world by God in 6 days. God created, in pairs, first the heaven and the earth, then day and night, land and sea, flora and fauna, and male and female. Man was created in the image of God and Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs (or man and woman were created together). On the seventh day, God rested. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?
Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.
Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.Amen my brother~From the beginning the Biblical record has been very clear that God creating the worlds, and He set the time keepers in motion in the heavens to implement its days. But lately, the real nature of the origin of the universe has been the subject of much discussion and debate by professing Christians. The sad fact is, there are many professing Christians who have swallowed the theory (and it's ONLY a theory) of evolution hook, line and sinker. And more than a few doubting Theologians have consequently attempted to incorporate man's humanistic reasoning and rationalizations into Christianity~ (I heard Jimmy Swaggart recently do this with his Gap theory in Genesis one~he did struggle in trying to present it) Some with their modern day theories of Theistic Evolution, they preach subjections like, "God created the world through evolution." But when considered carefully, Theistic Evolution is a contradiction in terms. Because it effectively makes all of God's word untrustworthy and suspect. For if one part of it is subject to manipulation and private opinion, then all of it is subject to this form of interpretation. We reject anyone's teaching that makes God's word untrustworthy and suspect. Unfortunately, what we have in this instance is an attempt by those who have their faith in the words of men, to try and have the best of both worlds. In other words, they want to profess some belief in God, and yet they want to also hold to what man has declared was the creation process. Mixing hot with cold, they have come up with a lukewarm solution that may be palatable for them, but is decidedly unpalatable to God. The fact is, you cannot serve two masters. The number one rule of sound hermeneutics is that when man's word blatantly contradicts God's word, then God's word must be the final arbiter of truth. And that rule stands no matter how cleverly the contradictions are cloaked or disguised. Indeed, how could there be the evolution of species when scripture tells us very clearly that the world, and all that was therein, was "created" in six days? And yes, I'm well aware of the half baked theories by compromising Theologians that the six days of creation weren't literal days, but these theories (like the men who cook them up), are in direct contradiction to all that the word of God plainly declares. And not contradicting something that God said implicitly, but contradicting what God has said explicitly and in very plain rational grammatical context. This attempt by some to justify the days of scripture to be understood outside of what is the common use of language in the Bible completely ignores the additional facts and qualifications that God has given. For the Bible not only says that the heavens and earth and everything therein was created in six days, He says that the seventh day makes up the Sabbath week. Indeed, this is where man's seven day week has come from. Moreover, God makes sure that He also further defines these days as the length between night and daylight, that there can be no rational misunderstanding. From what God has inspired written, we would have to be deliberately trying "not" to receive the very plain language, in order to understand it as anything but six literal days. So I must wonder about people trying to mix biblical Christianity with evolution, it's like trying to mix grace with works, they are opposite in their meaning.
Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.And IT IS, but much more so to God who has given to us his very own testimony concerning these things, which every believer receives by faith, without trying to appease the skeptics and men who "think" they are wise above the scriptures!
Moreover, God makes sure that He also further defines these days as the length between night and daylight, that there can be no rational misunderstanding.
It also suggests the even the phrase ,"there was evening and there was morning" probably does not mean what most think it does since there was no sun or moon to establish what we call evening and morning.
The notion of mornings and evenings without a Sun to have them, makes it clear that the "Yom" of Genesis cannot be literal 24 hour days, as even ancient Christians acknowledged. This is not something evolutionary theory proposed; it's something Christians knew long before evolution was apparent.
However, it does not determine your salvation, so you can have whatever opinion you want on the subject, so long as you accept that God did it. Let us not set a wedge to separate His people from each other. That does not serve God.AMEN to that. And for what it is worth, it is usually only the YECs that are the wedge drivers in all these discussions.
A WiseMan saying.....Quote"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.
"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."
I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old. There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them. He knew best, after all. Let God be God, and have it His way.If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth!
Hebrews 11:3~"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."To defer to believing what man says is true, rather than what the word of God says, is to do what is right in our own eyes and is the way of the world.
Proverbs 12:15~"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."It has never been, nor should it ever be the way of a true believer. We must hearken unto God's counsel on the creation and of what is right, for He ponders the heart and knows our real intent. He knows whose word we are placing above His, and He is not mocked by justifications nor rationalizations. Despite the great evolution myths being perpetrated upon man, Evolution is not a proven science, and never will be. It is JUST like Paul called it...science SO-CALLED!
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.
Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
I am a Christian
and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.
Now, some evolutionist may say:
What is your proof of God?
Is Evolution an Observable Fact?
by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *
Proponents of Charles Darwin want you to believe that his hypothesis is being confirmed right before our eyes.
Darwin’s ideas directly contradict the scriptural teaching on the origin of species.
He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species (universal common ancestry). This concept contradicts Genesis 1, which teaches that God created different creatures “after their kind.”
Darwin also claimed that each species’ original ancestors arose by natural selection, not by a direct act of God.
Finally, Darwin’s timescale for the origin of species—millions of years—is irreconcilable with the time of creation, which occurred about 6,000 years ago.
So how do evolutionists get away with making this claim?
By assuming that all change is evolutionary change.
Specifically, the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates that limited biological change can occur and has already occurred. When God commanded Noah to bring the land-dwelling, air-breathing “kinds” on board the Ark, He required that “male and female” of each kind be taken. This implies that reproductive compatibility identifies membership within a kind. Breeding experiments identify the classification rank of family (kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) as roughly defining the boundaries of each kind.
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae,
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.
Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.
So, were all these carnivorous animals on the Ark and what did they eat after they disembarked?
Where did Noah keep his bees? In the ark hives.Are you mocking God Victor? What difference does it make how and where each animal that came unto Noah lived? If I were you, I would not be overly concerned about what is not revealed to us, but WHAT IS! There were bees for sure that went unto Noah under God's guidance, JUST AS ALL ANIMALS came unto Adam so he could name them. John Calvin wrote:
Moses now explains,—what had before been doubtful,—in which manner the animals were gathered together into the ark, and says that they came of their own accord. If this should seem to any one absurd, let him recall to mind what was said before, that in the beginning every kind of animals presented themselves to Adam, that he might give them names. And, truly, we dread the sight of wild beasts from no other cause than this, that seeing we have shaken off the yoke of God, we have lost that authority over them with which Adam was endued. Now, it was a kind of restoration of the former state of things when God brought to Noah those animals which he intended should be preserved through Noah's labor and service. For Noah retained the untamed animals in his ark, in the very same way in which hens and geese are preserved in a coop. And it is not superfluously added, that the animals themselves came, as God had instructed Noah; for it shows that the blessing of God rested on the obedience of Noah, so that his labor should not be in vain. It was impossible, humanly speaking, that in a moment such an assemblage of all animals should take place; but because Noah, simply trusting the event with God, executed what was enjoined upon him; God, in return, gave power to his own precept, that it might not be without effect. Properly speaking, this was a promise of God annexed to his commands. And, therefore, we must conclude, that the faith of Noah availed more, than all snares and nets, for the capture of animals; and that, by the very same gate, lions, and wolves, and tigers, meekly entered, with oxen, and with lambs, into the ark. And this is the only method by which we may overcome all difficulties;And also to believe that God brought to him the best of the best,~ faith believes this, why should we believe anything less than this? So, concerning your article.
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark........Parasites and diseases.I will only say this, for the article does not deserve more than what I'm going to say. With God nothing is imposssible~which animals God CAUSED to go unto Noah, you can believe that they were FREE OF DISEASES~God's does often work totally against what seemly is an impossibility to make it work for his own glory and honor. The list is LONG in the scriptures~Consider:
Daniel 1:5-16~"And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego. But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king. Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse."ALL LAWS of nature would tell us that ANY KING'S daily provision would be a FAR superior diet to make one's skin fairer, hair and their health overall superior to those who were given pulse and water~and NO ONE would ever believe a poor man's diet of pulse and water one would GAIN weight and one's countenances much fairer than those who had a king's daily provision, the best money could buy...now would they?
These eight unfortunate souls were afflicted with enough diseases and discomforts to support a hospital—all as their part in "preserving life" through the great flood.Sir, the ONLY unfortunate souls where those deluded souls OUTSIDE of the ark, and those who believe such nonsense, to even think that such SMALL THINGS God did not have PERFECT control of ALL ANIMALS that he sent to Noah to receive into the ark! It is so amazing that every deluded evolutionist looks for holes in our FORTRESS OF FAITH....but there are none to be found!
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.
Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.
So, were all these carnivorous animals on the Ark and what did they eat after they disembarked?
[url]http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html[/url] ([url]http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html[/url])
A
Aardwolf
Abyssinian Genet
African Golden Cat
African Palm Civet
African Wild Dog
Alexander’s Cusimanse
Altai Weasel
Amazon Weasel
American Black Bear
American Mink
Andean Bear
Andean Cat
Angolan Mongoose
Aquatic Genet
Arctic Fox
Asiatic Black Bear
Asiatic Golden Cat
B
Banded Linsang
Banded Mongoose
Bay Cat
Binturong
Black-Backed Jackal
Black-Footed Cat
Black-Legged Mongoose
Bobcat
Bornean Ferret Badger
Bourlon’s Genet
Broad-Striped Vontsira
Brown Bear
Brown Hyena
Brown Mongoose
Brown Palm Civet
Brown-Tailed Vontsira
Bush Dog
Bushy-Tailed Mongoose
C
Cacomistle
Canada Lynx
Cape Grey Mongoose
Caracal
Central African Oyan
Cheetah
Chinese Mountain Cat
Clouded Leopard
Collared Mongoose
Colombian Weasel
Common Cusimanse
Common Dwarf Mongoose
Common Slender Mongoose
Corsac Fox
Cougar
Coyote
Crab-Eating Mongoose
Crested Genet
D
Dhole
Diardi’s Clouded Leopard
Dingo
E
Egyptian Mongoose
Ethiopian Wolf
Eurasian Lynx
European Mink
European Polecat
F
Falanouc
Fanaloka
Fishing Cat
Flat-Headed Cat
Flat-Headed Cusimanse
Fosa
G
Gambian Mongoose
Geoffroy’s Cat
Giant Genet
Giant Otter
Giant Panda
Golden Jackal
Golden Palm Civet
Grandidier’s Vontsira
Greater Grison
Greywolf
H
Hausa Genet
Hooded Skunk
I
Iberian Lynx
Indian Fox
Indian Grey Mongoose
J
Jackson’s Mongoose
Jaguar
Jaguarundi
Javan Ferret Badger
Jungle Cat
K
Kaokoveld Slender Mongoose
King Genet
Kinkajou
Kit Fox
Kodkod
L
Least Weasel
Leighton’s Oyan
Leopard
Lesser Grison
Liberian Mongoose
Lion
Long-Nosed Mongoose
Long-Tailed Weasel
M
Maned Wolf
Marbled Cat
Marbled Polecat
Margay
Marine Otter
Marsh Mongoose
Masked Palm Civet
Meerkat
Meller’s Mongoose
Mountain Coati
N
Narrow-Striped Boky
Neotropical Otter
Nilgiri Marten
Northern Raccoon
O
Ocelot
Olingos
Oncilla
P
Palawan Stink Badger
Pallas’ Cat
Pampas Cat
Pardine Genet
Patagonian Weasel
Polar Bear
Pousargues’s Mongoose
Pygmy Raccoon
R
Red Fox
Red Panda
Red Wolf
Ring-Tailed Vontsira
Ringtail
Ruddy Mongoose
Rusty-Cat
S
Sand Cat
Sea Otter
Selous’s Mongoose
Servaline Genet
Short-Tailed Mongoose
Siberian Weasel
Side-Striped Jackal
Sloth Bear
Small Asian Mongoose
Small Indian Mongoose
Snow Leopard
Somali Dwarf Mongoose
Somali Slender Mongoose
South American Coati
Souther Spotted Skunk
Southern River Otter
Spotted Hyena
Spotted Linsang
Steppe Polecat
Stoat
Stone Marten
Striped Hyena
Striped Weasel
Striped-Necked Mongoose
Sulawesi Palm Civet
Sumatran Hog Badger
Sun Bear
Sunda Stink Badger
T
Tayra
Tiger
W
White-Nosed Coati
White-Tailed Mongoose
Wildcat
Wolverine
Y
Yellow Mongoose
Yellow-Throated Martin
Where did Noah keep his bees?
In the ark hives.
https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 11 (Winter 1983)The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
.
.
.
Parasites and diseases.
Some important complications arise with that extensive group of organisms known as parasites. Hundreds of thousands of species are known, and a very large proportion of them are host specific and must spend all or part of their lives within the host animal. Therefore the single pair of animals from each species had to carry aboard the ark the parasites that were adapted to living within or upon them. Although many of these are harmless freeloaders, others are pathogenic and often fatal to their host. Yet the fact that such organisms exist today demonstrates that they survived the flood, and the fact that they must inhabit their host shows how they survived.
The example of Homo sapiens will show the seriousness of the problem. Humans are sanctuary to over one hundred parasites, and many are host specific. Although the four species of human malarial parasites undergo sexual development in mosquitos, they must undergo further development in humans. Hence, a member of Noah's family must have had malaria at some point in his life and must have remained infected after the flood until the earth became sufficiently repopulated that the parasite passed to others. In similar manners, the vectors of many other parasitic infections are also specific to humans, such as the tapeworms Taenia saginata and T. solium, the intestinal worm Ascaris lumbricoides, the hookworm Leishmania tropia, the pinworm Enterobius vermicularis, three agents of filariasis, two species of Schistosoma, three species of lice, and many dozens more (Jones). Also, of course, the five types of venereal disease bacteria cannot survive outside their human abode.
These eight unfortunate souls were afflicted with enough diseases and discomforts to support a hospital—all as their part in "preserving life" through the great flood. And nearly every other animal on board—from Shem's lice to the right whales—had parasites of their own to cope with. What remarkable creatures they must have been; in order to ensure their survival they ha, d to be the strongest, healthiest, most fertile pair possible, while at the same time they had to carry a full set of debilitating parasites so as to guarante, , e their survival.
How was Noah assured that the proper complement of viable tapeworms was present in each rodent and each lizard waiting to come aboard? How could he confirm the presence of microscopic fauna in their tiny stalls? If a prospective passenger was lacking an essential flea, what could be done? Was there opportunity to correct any errors?
QuoteI understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.
It is an observed fact. There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.
QuoteAnd I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.
Maybe not. In science, theories are the highest level of confidence. But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.
QuoteNow, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural. So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry. And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.
QuoteI am a Christian
So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.
Quoteand that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.
Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites. In fact, they can't be. God is the creator. Evolution is therefore His creation.
QuoteNow, some evolutionist may say:Not unless he's really dumb. God is not accessible to science. Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.
What is your proof of God?
Answer: Jesus Christ.
"Christian Evolutionists" say that man evolved and Jesus was created.
Never heard that before. ???
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.
A theory, be it in the scientific sense or not, is different from a fact.
A fact in the most basic scientific sense, is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
To the public, theory means an opinion or conjecture, and fact means reality.
Evolution may be to you an observed fact,
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.
By saying "if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory" just tells me what level of confidence scientific theories are.
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
If that is so, then we can't expect science to say anything then about God.
But that neither make evolution a reality.
I'm curious to know, if you know, how these Christian scientists have the evolution of life and of man consistent with God's words when, he believe:
1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCODING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS
Now, some evolutionist may say: What is your proof of God?
I don't quite see what you are saying here.
QuoteI understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.
Barbarian observes:
It is an observed fact. There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.QuoteA theory, be it in the scientific sense or not, is different from a fact.
I just showed you the difference. Physical phenomena, like evolution and gravity, are facts. There are theories that explain them.QuoteA fact in the most basic scientific sense, is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
Almost. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomena. Hypotheses, when they have been repeatedly verified by facts, are then considered to be theories.QuoteTo the public, theory means an opinion or conjecture, and fact means reality.
Which is why so many people get confused about it. "Theory" is as solid as it gets in science.QuoteEvolution may be to you an observed fact,
It's been repeatedly observed. Can't get more real than that.
QuoteAnd I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.
Barbarian responds:
Maybe not. In science, theories are the highest level of confidence. But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.QuoteBy saying "if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory" just tells me what level of confidence scientific theories are.
Yep. You put your life on the line for them daily, if you drive, go into skyscrapers, take medicine, etc. Since science works by induction, we have to figure out the rules by watching the game. That might seem wrong to you, but as you should know, nothing man can do does a better job of helping us get along in the world.QuoteIs for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
Barbarian explains:
Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural. So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry. And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.QuoteIf that is so, then we can't expect science to say anything then about God.
Bingo.
Barbarian observes:
I am a Christian. So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.QuoteBut that neither make evolution a reality.
God made it a reality. We're just learning about it.QuoteI'm curious to know, if you know, how these Christian scientists have the evolution of life and of man consistent with God's words when, he believe:
1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCODING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
If you're willing to go with us that far, why not just trust Him entirely and accept the way He did it, too? Why does it bother you so much that God uses nature to produce living things?Quote3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS
Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits. If you can trust Jesus, there is no other possible meaning.
Barbarian observes:
Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites. In fact, they can't be. God is the creator. Evolution is therefore His creation.QuoteNow, some evolutionist may say: What is your proof of God?
Barbarian chuckles:
Not unless he's really dumb. God is not accessible to science. Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.QuoteI don't quite see what you are saying here.
I know. It's why you keep going in circles. Science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.
Let us focus on this matter:
I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words.
1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS;
You said that God uses nature to produce living things.
Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution.
Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man.
Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam?
Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.
Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.
Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution.
Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.
You said "Science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation?
You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done.
That is supernatural, right?
This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right?
If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?
Let us focus on this matter:
I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words. That evolution don't contradict God's Words as follows:
1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
You said that God uses nature to produce living things. Scriptures does not say that. It is you who say that. Haven't you just read what Scriptures say with regards as to how God created the living things, in the verses I cited above? God created ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And after creating the living things, what does scripture say? Scriptures says "God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD".
Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution. Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man. Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam? Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.
And this is what you say is consistent with God's words?
Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits. Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution. If not, how? Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.
You said "Science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation? You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done. That is supernatural, right? This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right? If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?
QuoteLet us focus on this matter:
I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words.
Of course. How could His creation be inconsistent with His word? I think you meant "evolutionary theory", not evolution itself.Quote1. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.
Yes. The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages. It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds. Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.Quote3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS;
Yes. But as Jesus says, God is a spirit and a spirit has no body. So it's in our spirit and mind that we are like God, not in our appearance. God does not have a body, unless He should assume one to show us something.QuoteYou said that God uses nature to produce living things.
More specifically, God says that. He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things. He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.QuoteNow, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution.
No. Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things. How life appeared is another issue entirely. Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened.
QuoteNow, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man.
No. The evidence shows it happened in a few million years from another hominin.QuoteIs this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam?
Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus? Why would it matter? I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that.QuoteUnless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.
Why would that bother you? If we've evolved since populations like Neandertals, what would that mean as far as our relationship to God? I think this is more of a problem for man, and his prideful nature, than anything else.QuoteNow, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.
If we can trust Jesus, then we have to accept this as fact.QuotePerhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution.
Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth? God says otherwise in Genesis. We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.QuoteTry using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.
See above. He's very clear about it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
A child could see it. But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.QuoteYou said "Science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation?
No. We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world. It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.QuoteYou say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done.
This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles. God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world. He does miracles when he wants to teach us something. The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.QuoteThat is supernatural, right?
Of course. God does most things in this world by natural means. It's why He made nature. But when He wants to teach us something important, He often uses a miracle.QuoteThis supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right?
You're catching on.QuoteIf so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?
Go back and read Romans 1:20 again. Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.
What evidence in the Genesis creation are you referring to that you claim shows that it was by variation and natural selection?
Where do we find God specifically says that He uses nature to produce living things?
The earth brought forth living things.
At least Darwin recognizes that all begins with God as creating.
And if Darwin speaks of God creating the first living things, it follows that it was when there was no living thing yet, and that there is nothing with life, except God.
And by what you say there, evolution clearly is not about creation then
And concerning man, what do you suppose is the living thing that God created at first that evolved into the human being spoken in Gen.1?
So, you are saying that the first humans were the Neandertals or H. erectus.
That would be like saying that God at first, created the Neandertals or H. erectus which evolve into the present human today in a span of millions of years, right?
What bothers me is what you say and teach here, and even say that this is consistent in scriptures
and is what it teaches.
I hope you realize that what God formed of the earth is without life.
Romans 1:20 speaks of the invisible things of God. It says that these invisible things are being understood by the things that are made. The invisible things of God referred to here includes His eternal power and divinity. And this, Paul says, is why all men are without excuse. Without excuse from what? From their sin, for all man, by the things that were made, can see the invisible things of God, and so knew God.
I hope that you'll come to realize that the invisible things of God are known by all men, such as His power to create and His greatness.
But there are people who don't even believe that God exist, and there are people who spend their time trying to find out, or give an explanation of, how things came to be as if they could really know the truth by it
And science admit to not be able to give an explanation or a theory concerning it.
Perhaps science don't take the creation of God, that is, all that God has made, including the earth, the heavens, plants, animals, man, etc., as miracles,
But who invented, develop, and practices science? Men, whom you say can see those invisible things.
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time,
Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
I am a Christian, and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.
Now, some evolutionist may say:
What is your proof of God?
Remember, evolutionary theory is just the way scientists explain the observed fact of evolution.
On #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.
Michael:
I could not agree to this.
On #5: That for you evolution is a fact and explained by a theory.
Michael:
Perhaps, because you are a scientist, you have your reasons why you say it is.
But I and I'd say, with the common man who does not observe what you scientist observe, have no reason to say that evolution is a fact.
What we have is the word of God in scriptures.
On #6: That the theory of evolution is consistent with scriptures.
Michael:
I don't see it to be.
Michael:
I agree that God created life. But I'd say further that God created life according to its kind, as described in Genesis.
On #9: That you don't agree that the man that God formed of the earth is without life, until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
QuoteOn #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.
More correctly, evolution Is the way God created each organism according to its kind.QuoteMichael:
I could not agree to this.
Take a look..
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
He doesn't say how He created them according to their kind, but the evidence shows it was by evolution.
QuoteOn #5: That for you evolution is a fact and explained by a theory.
Michael:
Perhaps, because you are a scientist, you have your reasons why you say it is.
I've seen the evidence, so it's quite clear to me, as it is for almost all Christians who are scientists.
QuoteOn #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.
More correctly, evolution Is the way God created each organism according to its kind.QuoteMichael:
I could not agree to this.
Take a look..
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
He doesn't say how He created them according to their kind, but the evidence shows it was by evolution.
What evidence?
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
What evidence can you show that will prove that God created sea creatures according to their kind by evolution?
What evidence can you show that will prove that God every winged fowl according to their kind by evolution?
"the waters brought forth" does not mean to say that it was the waters that caused the production or creation of all the sea creatures, and of every winged fowl, or that the sea creatures and winged fowl were made out of the waters, or that evolution took place from out of the waters.
Genesis 1:22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.
After God have created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind, God commanded them to "Increase and multiply", not to "evolve" further into some other kinds of living creature.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
What evidence can you show that will prove that God created every land creatures according to their kind by evolution?
"The earth brought forth" does not at all mean to say that it was the earth that caused the production or creation all the land creatures, or that the earth creatures were made out of the earth, or that evolution took place from out of the earth.
Genesis 1:26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Clearly, what God created is man, the kind of which you and I belong. Did God created man by evolution? You say, claim and insist, that it is by evolution, and even say that this is consistent with scriptures, even while on the other hand you yourself say that scriptures doesn't say how God created.
I understand that you believe that God created the present humankind by evolution, which tells me that you now know HOW God created man. You apparently believe this, not because scriptures reveals this, but obviously because of man's scientific wisdom. That God created the first living humans, perhaps the Neandertals, or H. erectus, or what have you, which over some million years thereafter, evolved into the humankind of today. And I would wonder if the first living humans for you are Adam and Eve or that they are rather the first of them that evolved into the humankind of today.
Scientist seems to say that creation of new kinds of living things still persist by evolution, up to the present day. After all, evolution, I understand, is taught to be a continuing process of change, and which is now turning out to be a creation method. And this tells me, in relation to evolution, that we still continue to evolve. Until when?Into what? That nobody can say, I guess.
Another thing on evolution is that, if this is a natural creation process created by God, anyone then who tampers with it, I think sins against God.
QuoteOn #6: That the theory of evolution is consistent with scriptures.
Michael:
I don't see it to be.
Doesn't matter. The truth is what it is, regardless. God doesn't say how He created each kind. So it's an open question theologically. But the evidence is compelling. Nevertheless you are no less Christian because of your new interpretation of Genesis. It makes no difference at all to your salvation, even if you are a YE creationist.
On #7: That God created life, and used already-created things to bring forth new kinds.QuoteMichael:
I agree that God created life. But I'd say further that God created life according to its kind, as described in Genesis.
Kinds. In one sense, since all known life on Earth has more in common genetically than ways by which it differs, there is one kind. However, God says that from that initial creation, nature produced all sorts of life, as He commanded.
QuoteOn #9: That you don't agree that the man that God formed of the earth is without life, until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
It is an addition to scripture which I do not think is warranted.
Michael, Barbarian believes he and others are new prophets of God who have finally evolved enough to now reveal the truth God could not reveal to us through Moses or any of the other prophets or bible writers, who apparently weren't evolved enough to do so. I'm afraid you and I simply haven't evolved enough to understand his prophecies yet. He speaks for all those whose parents are monkeys. So it is.
Job 38:3-12~"Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;"Such arrogance.......... of man to think that he can explain the underpinnings of creation, without God. That he can date and measure the foundations of the earth without ever being there to know. And make no mistake, this is a war of religions. And we are being beaten down by repetition of this indoctrination of the Evolution religion. When we watch programs like National Geographic, Paleo world, Archaeology Today, and other one-sided presentations, eventually through repetition man is literally brainwashed concerning evolution. Because it "appears" from the information which man "continually" hears, that the world must be billions of years old, based on all the (so-called) scientific evidence. But that verse I read before, Hebrews 11:3, tells the true story. The story of which man seldom has the ear to listen. And the reason is because he has become so deceived by these teachers, that he often (sometimes unconsciously) places more faith in their words, than in what is actually written in scripture itself. And that is nothing but unbelief. Especially with the new breed of post modern Theologians who have effectively been raised up under this constant indoctrination. Many have lost their faith in God's word, and gained a new faith in man's Religion of self. So while many professing Christians continue to claim that they have every bit as much faith in God's word as we do, in practice they prove otherwise by being led away in this error, and seeking to rationalize it away "because" of the new ideas that the evolutionists have put forth.
2nd Peter 3:16-18~"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."We are exhorted to watch for the errors and false ideas of men in Christ's name, that we are not led astray by them. But Theologians today seem to think that there can be no errors of teaching, and we can question everything in scripture, each one of us interpreting personally or privately to suit whatever the scientists declare is true. But in doing so, we fall from our own stedfastness in the faith of the gospel. We must be diligent, careful not to become corrupted and unbelieving wherein we have our mind and conscience defiled. For then we will be professing we know God, while in works denying him. Remember, Christ said, "A tree is known by its fruits." Can men have faith in God's word, and yet every time man says it cannot be literally true, they start looking around to find what else it could possibly mean besides what it said? Isn't that the very essence of putting faith in man's word over God? We can call it Theistic Evolution, Progressive Evolution, Evolutionary Creation, Christian Intellectualism, or any other name, but changing the title doesn't make it a new phenomenon. It's the same old worldly non-belief that has plagued the Church since the beginning. Beware and take heed!
2nd Corinthians 4:13~"We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;"We believe because we have the spirit of faith, which is the faith of Christ. I've actually had professed Christians ask me, "how can you believe that it was done in 6 literal days, do you doubt that the stars are so far out in space the light would take hundreds of thousands of years to reach here?" My answer surprises them. "No, I don't doubt that!" But what they are failing to understand is the power of the God who could created this universe. He didn't throw a speck of light out there and kick back waiting a billion years for that light to reach earth before continuing. That's nonsense. If He is powerful enough to create and put that light millions of light years out into space, why is He not deemed powerful enough to have it reach here just as quickly? What kind of God are we talking about? An impotent God, or THE Almighty Omnipotent God? The fact is, God simply said, "Let there be light..." and there was! And when He created light from the stars to the earth, it was upon the earth instantly! It didn't take a million years, it was created 'in transit' instantly. The power to say and have it be, this is the power of The TRUE GOD of the holy scriptures, not the pseudo paper god that man invents. I find it absolutely astounding that someone calling themselves Christian (Supposedly knowing the power of God) would think that this type of creation power was unlikely, or hard to believe. Is God a man, or is He the Almighty? It's the very same way God created a mature human instantly (Adam), who was instantly capable of making mature decisions the very "day" he was created. God didn't create a tiny baby and wait years and years until Adam grew to be a man, He created a grown man, already mature, from the very dust of the earth. It didn't take Him 18 to 21 years to have Adam become a man. He did it in one day. And again, note carefully for those nay-sayers asking why would God create the appearance of a mature earth, Adam may have also "appeared" (Hebrews 11:3) to be many years old, but that appearance had absolutely no basis in fact about his actual age, did it? An Omnipotent God doesn't follow the laws of the universe, He creates them! They follow the patterns and courses that He has set, not vise versa. And that is what these man does not seem to fully comprehend.
Genesis 2:7-8~"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."So are we believers, or are we suffering from the unbelief of the world? Did man form by evolution from an ape, or on the sixth day, did God form man out of the dust of the earth, and then breathe the breath of life into him? I guess the answer we give all depends on what religion we subscribe to, and whom we put our faith in. If we practice the religion of man, who serves himself as the authority and ruler, then we will put our trust in the words of our god. And we will serve in his temple in lawlessness. On the other hand, if we practice the religion of true Christianity, then we will follow the laws of God, and put our trust in the words of our God, and will serve Him in His temple. So every Christian, in the Spirit of Christ, must finally decide whom he will serve. Not by what appears to be in our own eyes, but by what God says.
Proverbs 16:2~ "All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits."Sinful man is in love with himself, and has been from the beginning. And self-flattery is the universal sin of the humanist in this vanity. For he is unable to comprehend the miracle of God, and the infallible nature of His word. Like the earth, Adam was created mature. Indeed, if it were possible that the scientists today could go back in time with all their sophisticated toys and examine Adam on the very day of his creation, they would most assuredly proclaim in scientific bliss that Adam was definitely and scientifically irrefutably well over the age of one day. Yet they would be wrong, wouldn't they? Because God created Adam from the dust with the appearance and workings of age, while in "truth" he was actually only one day old. Not by what would appear to be in the eyes of man, but by what was accurate and written as God's undefiled declarations. In order that man is not confused, God told us that He created man on one day, which was one period of evening and morning. The question is, do we believe Him? As it is written, "..yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings.."
Genesis 2:21-23~"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."If Adam was a blob of cell matter, why did he need to sleep so God could open him up and take his rib? Did God actually cause a deep sleep to fall upon a single cell organism to create a female version? Is the Bible all just a fable, or some fairy tale that God made up to as a bedtime story for Christians? God forbid, this is the absolute truth of God's word. The Agnostics, Atheists and Humanists call it a fable, but God declares that this is what He actually did. God's people trusted God's word concerning this for thousands and thousands of years. Only now, in our day of the rise of the Religion of evolution, are many of the Church looking at God's word as just a tall tale or an allegory that we never got around to interpreting. Our Lord tells all his faithful Prophets for thousands of years that He made the universe in six days, and since creation they accepted and believed it as literally six days. But now, in this time of growing wanton wickedness, we are supposed to believe that righteous God is revealing this secret to evolutionary scientists, who for the most part aren't even Christian? What is wrong with this picture? The truth is, man has become so smart (in his own eyes) in his own worldly knowledge, that he figures he can rule himself and exalt himself up to God-like status to know the secrets of creation. And the Church, departing from the faith, falls right in line by privately interpreting God's word in a way which is tortuous and self serving, in order to conform with these modern ideas.
Michael, Barbarian believes he and others are new prophets of God
who have finally evolved enough to now reveal the truth God could not reveal to us through Moses or any of the other prophets or bible writers, who apparently weren't evolved enough to do so.
It just seems to me that by Barbarian's position on evolution, that he knows HOW God created the different kinds of living creatures, a matter which he himself said is not spelled out in scriptures.
We believe because we have the spirit of faith, which is the faith of Christ. I've actually had professed Christians ask me, "how can you believe that it was done in 6 literal days, do you doubt that the stars are so far out in space the light would take hundreds of thousands of years to reach here?" My answer surprises them. "No, I don't doubt that!" But what they are failing to understand is the power of the God who could created this universe. He didn't throw a speck of light out there and kick back waiting a billion years for that light to reach earth before continuing. That's nonsense. If He is powerful enough to create and put that light millions of light years out into space, why is He not deemed powerful enough to have it reach here just as quickly? What kind of God are we talking about? An impotent God, or THE Almighty Omnipotent God?
QuoteIt just seems to me that by Barbarian's position on evolution, that he knows HOW God created the different kinds of living creatures, a matter which he himself said is not spelled out in scriptures.
Some things God left for us to find out for ourselves. How the diversity of life was created by Him, that's one of those things. It's not spelled out in scripture, because it's not something He deemed important to our salvation.
The subject matter at hand is HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.
It concerns the supernatural divine act of God that we are talking about here.
And this you claim to know HOW and can now explain HOW.
So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?
QuoteThe subject matter at hand is HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.
He doesn't say how in scripture, but He did leave plenty of evidence, showing us how He did it. Would you like to learn a little about how we know?
QuoteIt concerns the supernatural divine act of God that we are talking about here.
As He says in Genesis, He used nature to do that.
QuoteAnd this you claim to know HOW and can now explain HOW.
We are learning more and more about it. As you probably realize, it doesn't matter to our salvation, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to go look.
QuoteSo why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?
Because it's worth knowing. For two reasons. One, it's of considerable practical use, and has (for example) medical applications. Two, it can give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. This is what St. Paul meant when he spoke of those invisible things, clearly seen.
This is a tempting argument for someone who would like to maintain YE creationism in spite of theological and practical problems with it.No theological problem sir, none whatsoever. Neither are there practical problems since his true children refuse to put God in a box and limit him to our ability to reason and think, which men like you do, and must do to convinced yourself and others that you are wise~ wiser than simple-minded believers who LOOK to the scriptures for their answers and not to men who refuse to come to the word of God as little children and be taught by the Spirit of the Living God....that's BELOW THEM and their high opinion of themselves.
However, it has numerous flaws. One notable flaw is this: If He made light faster back in the day, it would have all sorts of consequences.Flaws ONLY with men like you, who have been corrupted by their own high opinion of themselves. Again, do you truly believe that God is limited to do anything differently than man has come to understand how such things work? So YES, God purposed light to just be there and IT WAS, no problem whatsoever. With God NOTHING is impossible, do you believe that? If not, then we must not deceive ourselves into believing that we know the God of the holy scriptures.
If He made light faster back in the day, it would have all sorts of consequences.God has never and will never be faced with any consequences, he rules nature and determines its laws, which laws he is NOT subject to, for with him NOTHING is impossible...he controls all and uses them for his own purpose and glory.
Radioactive decay, for example, is tied to the speed of light.Not with God, and it would be foolish to think so and a sign of us creating a god after our own imagination which is what most do btw. True believers look to the SCRIPTURES for all answer and they are there that is PROFITABLE!
2nd Timothy 3:16,17~All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
If it was significantly faster at one time, all life on Earth would have been fried by a huge increase in ionizing radiation.Only at creation, and during the creation of the earth and all things therein, God WAS NOT subject to any laws that man may THINKS he understands.
If He created light on the way to the Earth, then we have images of stars exploding that never existed. Both of these imply that God is intentionally deceptive. Which is also a huge theological problem for a Christian.Again you are putting the god of your imagination into a very small box that you and others have built for your god. The God of the Christians do not believe that his power is limited~ it is only limited by our pitiful and limited faith and understanding, because we know SO LITTLE of his greatness and power, and others know less who do not trust the scriptures above all of the wisdom of man!
Job 36:26~"Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out."Sir, if you can search out the years of God, then maybe you could learn a little more of his greatness~but that will never happen, for it is beyond our power to do so. Read Job from chapter 32-to the end! It should humble all of us when we begin to think we know about God when in truth, we know so little of his greatness.
So it's easier and wiser to just accept creation as He did it.That's why I believe in Genesis one and two concerning God creating the earth in SIX LITERAL DAYS~even though he could have done everything in a twinkling of an eye just as quick as the resurrection shall take place in the last day.
And that's not exactly what God said.
Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.
I don't understand and see it that way.
And as much as God did not say the details of HOW He did that, I accept to be a humble, wise and good thing not to spend my time, money, and effort in trying to know something that obviously God deemed wise and good not to tell us.
You think you are, would be the more accurate thing to say.
Besides, while you say that, even now, you claim to know HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.
So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?
For what it's worth, then it is for you. As for me, I take this matter of HOW God created all things, by faith and in faith. As it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
And looking at what Paul meant in Rom. 1:20, what invisible things Paul there refers to, refers to God's invisible attributes, not anything else.
No theological problem sir, none whatsoever.
Neither are there practical problems since his true children refuse to put God in a box and limit him to our ability to reason and think
Flaws ONLY with men like you, who have been corrupted by their own high opinion of themselves. Again, do you truly believe that God is limited to do anything differently than man has come to understand how such things work? So YES, God purposed light to just be there and IT WAS, no problem whatsoever. With God NOTHING is impossible, do you believe that?
Again you are putting the god of your imagination into a very small box that you and others have built for your god.
The God of the Christians do not believe that his power is limited
That's why I believe in Genesis one and two concerning God creating the earth in SIX LITERAL DAYS
QuoteAnd that's not exactly what God said.
Gravity isn't exactly what God said, either. God didn't tell us about everything. The important thing is that science and scripture do not contradict each other.
QuoteRather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.
Actually, I'm speaking as a Christian here. I'm merely showing you how the world does not in any way contradict His word.
QuoteI don't understand and see it that way.
You don't have to. It won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism. But if you learn more about His creation, it can't help but make you closer to Him.
QuoteAnd as much as God did not say the details of HOW He did that, I accept to be a humble, wise and good thing not to spend my time, money, and effort in trying to know something that obviously God deemed wise and good not to tell us.
God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose. If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins.
Barbarian observes:
We are learning more and more about it. As you probably realize, it doesn't matter to our salvation, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to go look.
QuoteYou think you are, would be the more accurate thing to say.
Easy way to check. Does our understanding of nature help us get along in the world? Yes, it does. For example, the same knowledge that confirmed Darwin's theory tells us how to make computers out of dirt.
QuoteBesides, while you say that, even now, you claim to know HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.
Yes, it's very clear how that happened, and getting clearer all the time. He uses nature for almost everything in this world, and He made it knowable for us, so that we could get along in His world.
QuoteSo why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?
Barbarian explains:
Because it's worth knowing. For two reasons. One, it's of considerable practical use, and has (for example) medical applications. Two, it can give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. This is what St. Paul meant when he spoke of those invisible things, clearly seen.QuoteFor what it's worth, then it is for you. As for me, I take this matter of HOW God created all things, by faith and in faith. As it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
Which is sufficient. I'm just pointing out that a deeper understanding of His creation will enrich your faith.
QuoteAnd looking at what Paul meant in Rom. 1:20, what invisible things Paul there refers to, refers to God's invisible attributes, not anything else.
No. Let's take another look...
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. (my emphasis)
Paul says that the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen. In His creation, if you are willing to set aside pride and preconceptions, you can see the power and divinity of God.QuoteThese, is what Paul says are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. Paul clearly points to WHAT things God has made, and not to HOW God made things.
God is telling you something very important here. Listen to Him.
Now, if you want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, look nowhere else, but to Jesus. For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. Nothing, not even a billion amount of science can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. It seems to me that you are one among those who have been deceived into believing that science can.
That's right, God didn't tell us about everything. And scriptures did not say that God used nature to create the different kinds of living creatures.
Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.
I'm sorry to say that you have not.
I don't understand and see it that way.
I don't understand and see that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.
And sure this matter does not affect salvation. But it sure does affect the truth written in scriptures. If not, I would not have this discussion with you.
It's your opinion that "God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose. If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins". And it does not justify nor prove that God did indeed create the different kinds of living things by evolution.
You and other scientist believes and claim to be learning more and more about the evolution of living things, to which the Christian scientist claim to be HOW God created the different kinds of living things.
But as for the vast majority of men, this is not so. And not even more so for the Christians.
And that is not at all the issue here. The issue is what you teach that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.
That's what you believe, I can see that. And I guess it will be that way for you. So, perhaps, I'll just have to take note of that, that Barbarian knows HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures, that is by evolution. This belief renders God as to not have completed, to this day, the creation of the different kinds of living things. When do you guess it will be accomplished by God? Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this?
But as it is, what you really are getting at is not understanding what has been created, but that of the matter of HOW you think that God created the different kinds of living creatures. You think that man can go that distance as to be able to know the details of HOW the divine God created the universe. And this, more often than not, is what brings most scientist to not believing in a creator, that is, God.
For by science, he believes that everything can be explained by man,
and even others perhaps believes that he can one day not only know but even can himself create other life forms, can travel at the speed of light, can go back in time, can control the weather, can read the mind of another, can make things move by the power of his mind, can stop aging, can cure every kind of disease, and a lot of other incredible things he can think of.
If man is able to do all that, then the evolutionist Christian even may say that man has evolved to be a super human being, and have gotten more closer to God, even closer to being like God, or further still, closer to being a god.
Now, if you want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, look nowhere else, but to Jesus. For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. Nothing, not even a billion amount of science can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. It seems to me that you are one among those who have been deceived into believing that science can.
The earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, is a God designed plan, not the earth doing the creating.
THAT is not debatable.
Soil does not create corn.
That is done because the SEEDS bring forth after its own kind, by a pre-programed formula input by God, not the earth.
Giraffes breed and produce offspring giraffes after the oarents kind.
Not because of the earth, but because of God hand and design.
QuoteThat's right, God didn't tell us about everything. And scriptures did not say that God used nature to create the different kinds of living creatures.
That's not debatable; He did:
Gen. 1:11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.
Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
QuoteRather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.
Barbarian observes:
Actually, I'm speaking as a Christian here. I'm merely showing you how the world does not in any way contradict His word.QuoteI'm sorry to say that you have not.
See above. That's what God said. Why not just accept it His way?
QuoteI don't understand and see it that way.
Barbarian observes:
You don't have to. It won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism. But if you learn more about His creation, it can't help but make you closer to Him.QuoteI don't understand and see that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.
You don't have to. It won't affect your salvation, so long as you don't make an idol of creationism, and claim that it's required for all Christians to believe it.QuoteAnd sure this matter does not affect salvation. But it sure does affect the truth written in scriptures. If not, I would not have this discussion with you.
I'm pleased that you understand this. Some creationists make creationism a stumbling block for unbelievers who might otherwise come to Him.
QuoteIt's your opinion that "God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose. If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins". And it does not justify nor prove that God did indeed create the different kinds of living things by evolution.
It merely shows that God expects us to use our minds to learn about His creation. And that includes the way He used nature to produce the diversity of life on Earth.QuoteYou and other scientist believes and claim to be learning more and more about the evolution of living things, to which the Christian scientist claim to be HOW God created the different kinds of living things.
Yes, this is the case. This is why the vast majority of Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith in God.QuoteBut as for the vast majority of men, this is not so. And not even more so for the Christians.
No, that's wrong. Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics, or churches in union with them. The next largest are the Eastern Orthodox Christians. Both acknowledge that creation is consistent with evolution. So do the various Anglican churches, and all but one group of Lutheran churches, and many, many others.
Barbarian observes:
Easy way to check. Does our understanding of nature help us get along in the world? Yes, it does. For example, the same knowledge that confirmed Darwin's theory tells us how to make computers out of dirt.QuoteAnd that is not at all the issue here. The issue is what you teach that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.
So He tells us in His creation.
QuoteThat's what you believe, I can see that. And I guess it will be that way for you. So, perhaps, I'll just have to take note of that, that Barbarian knows HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures, that is by evolution. This belief renders God as to not have completed, to this day, the creation of the different kinds of living things. When do you guess it will be accomplished by God? Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this?
Do you believe God created you? When do you suppose He'll stop creating people. Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this? Or are you not a creature of God?
QuoteBut as it is, what you really are getting at is not understanding what has been created, but that of the matter of HOW you think that God created the different kinds of living creatures. You think that man can go that distance as to be able to know the details of HOW the divine God created the universe. And this, more often than not, is what brings most scientist to not believing in a creator, that is, God.
Doesn't seem very likely. For example, Francis Collins, who directed the Human Genome Project, is a devout evangelical Christian, and acknowledges the fact of evolution.
QuoteFor by science, he believes that everything can be explained by man,
You're confusing the material world with "everything." Science is limited to the physical universe. By definition, it can't know anything beyond nature. Fortunately, scientists can.
Quoteand even others perhaps believes that he can one day not only know but even can himself create other life forms, can travel at the speed of light, can go back in time, can control the weather, can read the mind of another, can make things move by the power of his mind, can stop aging, can cure every kind of disease, and a lot of other incredible things he can think of.
If we could do all that, and someday we might, what would that mean to our relationship with God? I don't see that it would change at all.
QuoteIf man is able to do all that, then the evolutionist Christian even may say that man has evolved to be a super human being, and have gotten more closer to God, even closer to being like God, or further still, closer to being a god.
You misunderstand what God meant when he said we had become like Him. That is not what He meant.
QuoteNow, if you want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, look nowhere else, but to Jesus. For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. Nothing, not even a billion amount of science can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. It seems to me that you are one among those who have been deceived into believing that science can.
I already explained to you that science can't do that. You're expecting it to be something it can never be. It is limited to the physical universe. Yes, if you understand more about His creation, it can make you closer to Him. But science won't do it for you. But I'll repeat it one more time.
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder. Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.Brother, the answer to your question is absolutely. Our God who is infinite in knowledge created the worlds and all things, visible and invisible, to work perfectly and for its resources to last as long as he needed them to last til the appointed time~thereforth, there are NO CHANCES for failure, (the unbelievers of this world are convinced that THEY must police people to make sure their earth is not destroyed) that's borderline of blasphemy which I know you would not do, but many do with their understanding and following men who think they are wise with their little problems and stumbling blocks that they are convinced that proves YEC'S to be fools~ and the scriptures not giving us sufficient information to trust God's word above them and their wisdom.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?The God of the Bible is referred to in the Bible (Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 43:1, Romans 1:25, etc.) as Creator of all that is, not the developer of some system that eventually produces all that is.To create by fiat (Genesis 1) implies the act of bringing something into existence directly and purposefully, not eventually and by chance.
Some creationists make creationism a stumbling block for unbelievers who might otherwise come to Him.For a short side note.....Sir, ALL given to Christ by God, WILL COME TO HIM~our love for God, or hatred toward God CANNOT affect a person's free gift of eternal life, impossible.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
One species does not evolve into another.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
Evolutionary theory (i.e. Darwinianism), on the other hand, has always been based on naturalism and has never postulated a role of any sort for the Creator God of the Bible.
So believing in both the God of the Bible and macroevolutionary theory necessarily involves a very awkward redefining of terms, and an anomalous merging of concepts.
You don't seem to understand what I said in my post.
Do you agree that if one want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, that he need not look nowhere else, but to Jesus?
Amen! In Barbs evidence, the Fly became another Fly. That, they contend, evolved into another Fly that looks the same but some genetic marker(s) are different. Ever had a child, Barb?Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
QuoteSo believing in both the God of the Bible and macroevolutionary theory necessarily involves a very awkward redefining of terms, and an anomalous merging of concepts.
No, that's wrong. If you accept an omnipotent Creator, there is no conflict whatever. Even Richard Dawkins, who hates religion, admits that our world is consistent with God.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Amen! In Barbs evidence, the Fly became another Fly.
Richard Dawkins denies God exists
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
QuoteYou don't seem to understand what I said in my post.
Do you agree that if one want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, that he need not look nowhere else, but to Jesus?
He's the Creator. Obviously, there is nowhere else to look; he made everything. Hence St. Paul's point:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
I'm a biologist; I spend a lot of time out looking at His creation. It doesn't replace scripture; it enriches and illuminates it, as St. Paul tells you. So there are times when I'm out in the middle of it, and there's a little epiphany for me, as His power and majesty are made clear to me in the things He has done.
This is also the work of Jesus; His creation is for us, and as St. Paul says, to teach us about Him. Learn from it.
QuoteRichard Dawkins denies God exists
He admits that he can't do that:
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html[/url] ([url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html[/url])
you should read his books.
I'm beginning to suspect that your being a biologist, a scientist that is, somehow put some veil over the clear and plain truths revealed by God in scriptures
These verses talks about a revelation about God. Let me call it "natural revelation". Verse 19 states the fact of natural revelation, and verse 20 explains how. This revelation describes what everyone knows about God because of what God has revealed concerning Himself in nature. Now, we must not fail to consider the time when Paul said these things, and that this is in relation to people who has ever lived in the past up to the time of Christ. This natural revelation is that which may be known about God, that is immediately evident to every human being.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Quoteyou should read his books.
I've read a couple of them. Speaking as a biologist, his tendency to see selection everywhere, even where we can't really document it, bothers me. And his somewhat irrational fear of faith is disturbing, although he tends to keep it out of his academic work.
QuoteRichard Dawkins denies God exists
He admits that he can't do that:
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html[/url] ([url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html[/url])
If you have read his books then you also know that the man is an atheist who attributes nothing in this world to God or even considers God as a potential explanation of this universe.
What is even sadder is that there are Christians who give a solidly atheist Dawkins credit for lying that he considers himself an agnostic.
This topped by another denier who believes that humans evolved from non-human ancestors.
QuoteIf you have read his books then you also know that the man is an atheist who attributes nothing in this world to God or even considers God as a potential explanation of this universe.
As you see, Dawkins admits that he doesn't know that there is no God. Hence, he's an agnostic.
Right. The man who wrote a book called "The God Delusion" is not an atheist.
QuoteRight. The man who wrote a book called "The God Delusion" is not an atheist.
Yep. He says he's an agnostic, and can't prove that there is no God.
QuoteThe earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, is a God designed plan, not the earth doing the creating.
Of course. God created all things. He just used nature to create the diversity of life we see. My inclination is that attributing "design" to God is giving Him less credit than an omnipotent Creator deserves. The IDers suggest that the "designer" might be "a space alien." I don't think so.
QuoteIs this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
As you might have learned from this discussion, there is no possible way science can prove that God doesn't exist. It's limited to the physical universe.
I've been through "dark night of the soul" when my faith flickered and nearly died. I made it back out, by being willing to face the truth, no matter what it turned out to be. Staring into the abyss, I stepped over the edge and into it, an act of faith that there was something beyond me and the world. And with the help of God and the young woman who has been at my side now for 51 years, I regained my faith.
When I was lost in that dark valley
where God is a distant "maybe,"
you did what you had to do.
And it saved me
even though at the time
all I could see was betrayal.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
This whole discussion is about where a person puts his faith. It's either science or the Word of God. Either God created everything and evolution did not happen...or evolution happened and the account in Genesis is a false testimony of events.AVZ's analysis is absolutely true. To a confess measure of faith in evolution is a sign of a measure of unbelief that is not much different to a staunch God-hating atheist. Evolution is an idea from the old serpent, the enemy of God and truth. It's the doctrine/god of Mystery Babylon, both commercial and the great whore~who portrays as a daughter of Jehovah, but who are in truth from the generation of the wicked.
Yep. He says he's an agnostic, and can't prove that there is no God.NO MAN CAN OR CANNOT~to know is a GIFT given, ONCE given, then we know by many infallible proofs that ONLY children of faith CAN SEE.
Acts 1:3~"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:"Faith is free gift given to the seed of Jesus Christ, that he secured FOR THEM. The word of God has many, many truths, where faith must be used to believe, the list is long, beginning with a serpent TALKING to a woman! The faith that Jesus Christ had is the VERY FAITH that every child of promise lives by~which men like Dawkins mock and make fun of...but one day, we shall laugh, and he shall mourn to see just how delusional he was!
Galatians 2:20~"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."You see, it takes FAITH to believe that we were crucified WITH CHRIST and that the very life we now live is by the FAITH OF CHRIST that has been freely imparted to us. The battle is not so much over evolution, but EVERY SOUND DOCTRINE that's recorded for us to believe...CREATION just happens to be one of them. It is the very first truth that one must believe and hold fast to, or the others hidden truths will never be seen and understood.
2nd Peter 3:16-18~"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."We are exhorted to watch for the errors and false ideas of men in Christ's name, that we are not led astray by them. But Theologians today seem to think that there can be no errors of teaching, and we can question everything in scripture, each one of us interpreting personally or privately to suit whatever the scientists declare is true. But in doing so, we fall from our own stedfastness in the faith of the gospel. We must be diligent, careful not to become corrupted and unbelieving wherein we have our mind and conscience defiled. For then we will be professing we know God, while in works denying him. Remember, Christ said, "A tree is known by its fruits." Can men have faith in God's word, and yet every time man says it cannot be literally true, they start looking around to find what else it could possibly mean besides what it said? Isn't that the very essence of putting faith in man's word over God? We can call it Theistic Evolution, Progressive Evolution, Evolutionary Creation, Christian Intellectualism, or any other name, but changing the title doesn't make it a new phenomenon. It's the same old worldly non-belief that has plagued the Church since the beginning.
2 Corinthians 4:13~ "We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;"We believe because we have the spirit of faith, which as we said above~is the faith of Christ.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
There is no need to modify the question, it's intent is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and besides that it is inconsistent.
Science has already irrefutably proven that a virgin cannot give birth.
It has also irrefutably proven that something that is dead for 3 days cannot come back to life.
Alan is attempting to set up a straw man argument; if science irrefutably proves that evolution is true...I MUST accept its premise.
If Alan is consistent he therefore must accept himself that Jesus could not have been born or resurrected from death because science has irrefutably proven both cannot happen.
This whole discussion is about where a person puts his faith. It's either science or the Word of God.
Either God created everything and evolution did not happen...or evolution happened and the account in Genesis is a false testimony of events.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. ::doh::
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. ::doh::
I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. ::doh::
I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?
Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting ::giggle::
BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. ::doh::
I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?
Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting ::giggle::
BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.
Okay, so I won't have to guess that you couldn't honestly answer the question. You have shown me that you can't.
You asked "If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?". And my answer is NO. And you say that I have not answered your question? ::frown:: ???
He, he, he, he he! Your right, I haven't evolved, I'm still the mess my momma gave birth to, God blesself.s her pea pickingQuoteOn #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.
More correctly, evolution Is the way God created each organism according to its kind.QuoteMichael:
I could not agree to this.
Take a look..
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
He doesn't say how He created them according to their kind, but the evidence shows it was by evolution.
What evidence?
Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
What evidence can you show that will prove that God created sea creatures according to their kind by evolution?
What evidence can you show that will prove that God every winged fowl according to their kind by evolution?
"the waters brought forth" does not mean to say that it was the waters that caused the production or creation of all the sea creatures, and of every winged fowl, or that the sea creatures and winged fowl were made out of the waters, or that evolution took place from out of the waters.
Genesis 1:22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.
After God have created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind, God commanded them to "Increase and multiply", not to "evolve" further into some other kinds of living creature.
Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
What evidence can you show that will prove that God created every land creatures according to their kind by evolution?
"The earth brought forth" does not at all mean to say that it was the earth that caused the production or creation all the land creatures, or that the earth creatures were made out of the earth, or that evolution took place from out of the earth.
Genesis 1:26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Clearly, what God created is man, the kind of which you and I belong. Did God created man by evolution? You say, claim and insist, that it is by evolution, and even say that this is consistent with scriptures, even while on the other hand you yourself say that scriptures doesn't say how God created.
I understand that you believe that God created the present humankind by evolution, which tells me that you now know HOW God created man. You apparently believe this, not because scriptures reveals this, but obviously because of man's scientific wisdom. That God created the first living humans, perhaps the Neandertals, or H. erectus, or what have you, which over some million years thereafter, evolved into the humankind of today. And I would wonder if the first living humans for you are Adam and Eve or that they are rather the first of them that evolved into the humankind of today.
Scientist seems to say that creation of new kinds of living things still persist by evolution, up to the present day. After all, evolution, I understand, is taught to be a continuing process of change, and which is now turning out to be a creation method. And this tells me, in relation to evolution, that we still continue to evolve. Until when?Into what? That nobody can say, I guess.
Another thing on evolution is that, if this is a natural creation process created by God, anyone then who tampers with it, I think sins against God.
Michael, Barbarian believes he and others are new prophets of God who have finally evolved enough to now reveal the truth God could not reveal to us through Moses or any of the other prophets or bible writers, who apparently weren't evolved enough to do so. I'm afraid you and I simply haven't evolved enough to understand his prophecies yet. He speaks for all those whose parents are monkeys. So it is.
Hey guys,
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
Thanks and blessings.
This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
NO.
Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point. ::doh::
I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:
If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?
Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting ::giggle::
BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.
Okay, so I won't have to guess that you couldn't honestly answer the question. You have shown me that you can't.
You asked "If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?". And my answer is NO. And you say that I have not answered your question? ::frown:: ???
What are you talking about? I NEVER asked that question. ???
By the way, this is my comment. Evolution, as per my understanding, that it is a continuing process, even as we speak. When will this end that we can say that finally, God had finished what He intended to create. And if this has not ended today, does it not follow that because evolution continues, concerning God's creation of man, that man today is yet to evolve to its final state?
Did God create you? Or did He finish creation before He made you?I'll help my friend out. He made me perfect in Christ BEFORE he created the worlds and all things!
2nd Timothy 1:9~"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"The doctrine is called eternal justification. That's the ONLY and just way God could have been a friend of Abraham BEFORE the legal payment for our sins were paid for by Christ. Noah would have NEVER found grace in the eyes of God EXCEPT he was eternally justified by the grace of God BEFORE the foundation of this earth. Bottom line, when God purpose to do anything according to his will, IT IS AS GOOD AS DONE~for WHOM can defeat his will, or even hinder him? No one.
https://www.amazon.com/Justification-Eternity-Tercentenary-Appreciation-John/dp/0952707438
From Spurgeon's Sermons "Adoption", Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol. 7Spurgeon had a little trouble of giving the proper sense of Justification, yet would never disagree with his mentor whom he learned so much from.
But there are one or two acts of God which, while they certainly are decreed as much as other things, yet they bear such a special relation to God’s predestination that it is rather difficult to say whether they were done in eternity or whether they were done in time. Election is one of those things which were done absolutely in eternity; all who were elect, were elect as much in eternity as they are in time. But you may say, Does the like affirmation apply to adoption or justification? My late eminent and now glorified predecessor, Dr. Gill, diligently studying these doctrines, said that adoption was the act of God in eternity, and that as all believers were elect in eternity, so beyond a doubt they were adopted in eternity. He further than that to include the doctrine of justification and he said that inasmuch as Jesus Christ was before all worlds justified by his Father, and accepted by him as our representative, therefore all the elect must have been justified in Christ from before all worlds. Now, I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he said, though there was a considerable outcry raised against him at the time he first uttered it. However, that being a high and mysterious point, we would have you accept the doctrine that all those who are saved at last were elect in eternity when the means as well the end were determined. With regard to adoption, I believe we were predestined hereunto in eternity, but I do think there are some points with regard to adoption which will not allow me to consider the act of adoption to have been completed in eternity. For instance, the positive translation of my soul from a state of nature into a state of grace is a part of adoption or at least it is an effect at it, and so close an effect that it really seems to be a part of adoption itself: I believe that this was designed, and in fact that it was virtually carried out in God’s everlasting covenant; but I think that it was that actually then brought to pass in all its fullness. So with regard to justification, I must hold, that in the moment when Jesus Christ paid my debts, my debts were cancelled — in the hour when he worked out for me a perfect righteousness it was imputed to me, and therefore I may as a believer say I was complete in Christ before I was born, accepted in Jesus, even as Levi was blessed in the loins of Abraham by Melchisedec; but I know likewise that justification is described in the Scriptures as passing upon me at the time I believe. “Being justified by faith,” I am told “I have peace with God, through Jesus Christ.” I think, therefore that adoption and justification, while they have a very great alliance with eternity, and were virtually done then, yet have both of them such a near relation to us in time, and such a bearing upon our own personal standing and character that they have also a part and parcel of themselves actually carried out and performed in time in the heart of every believer. I may be wrong in this exposition; it requires much more time to study this subject than I have been able yet to give to it, seeing that my years are not yet many; I shall no doubt by degrees come to the knowledge more fully of such high and mysterious points of gospel doctrine. But nevertheless, while I find the majority of sound divines holding that the works of justification and adoption are due in our lives I see, on the other hand, in Scripture much to lead me to believe that both of them were done in eternity; and I think the fairest view of the case is, that while they were virtually done in eternity, yet both adoption and justification are actually passed upon us, in our proper persons, consciences, and experiences, in time, — so that both the Westminster confession and the idea of Dr. Gill can be proved to be Scriptural, and we may hold them both without any prejudice the one to the other.
I'll help my friend out. He made me perfect in Christ BEFORE he created the worlds and all things!
Spurgeon had a little trouble of giving the proper sense of Justification, yet would never disagree with his mentor whom he learned so much from.
Proof of God is through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Who died and rose from the grave and will come on back to get us all that believe in Him.
Not even Adam was so created. God says he was created after the world was created. You were formed in the womb long after that.That's not the way you worded it. You asked:
Did God create you? Or did He finish creation before He made you?You kinda left the door opened wider than you should have or maybe intended to do, that allowed me to give you a biblical truth. So, it is a bible truth that this world and all things are the results of God's eternal purposes in Jesus Christ, which includes his elect body, he being the head...even though, yes, we were born in time.
Psalm 139:13-16~"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."David being a prophet was speaking not of himself but of Christ and HIS MEMBERS OF HIS BODY!
QuoteBy the way, this is my comment. Evolution, as per my understanding, that it is a continuing process, even as we speak. When will this end that we can say that finally, God had finished what He intended to create. And if this has not ended today, does it not follow that because evolution continues, concerning God's creation of man, that man today is yet to evolve to its final state?
Did God create you? Or did He finish creation before He made you?
That's not the way you worded it.
You kinda left the door opened wider than you should have or maybe intended to do, that allowed me to give you a biblical truth. So, it is a bible truth that this world and all things are the results of God's eternal purposes in Jesus Christ, which includes his elect body, he being the head...even though, yes, we were born in time.
Now concerning Spurgeon's statement concerning the gap theory~I respect much of what Spurgeon taught but he's was not a bible teacher as Gill, Brine, Richardson and many others before him~as a matter of truth, he was known more for his flowery speech and being a great orator than teaching bible truths.
One more thought:
Quote
Psalm 139:13-16~"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."
David being a prophet was speaking not of himself but of Christ and HIS MEMBERS OF HIS BODY!
So you're telling me that David wasn't created by God, but Christ was? I'm sorry, but that conflicts with some very basic facts of Christianity, among which is, Jesus is not a creation of God. He is God. And as you seem to already realize, Christians are created in time, just as everyone else is.I have some meetings to attend~I'll come back and filter through your confused mess (theology~you obviously are very intelligent, but that does not translate into knowing the scriptures) and then see if I can speak more clearly to you, which I have my doubts.
Almost all creationists, prior to the early 1900s, believed in an old Earth.Believe so? We shall see~and even if many did, WHAT does that prove? It proves not one thing. The majority has ALWAYS been wrong when it comes to spiritual truths!
I have some meetings to attend~I'll come back and filter through your confused mess (theology~you obviously are very intelligent, but that does not translate into knowing the scriptures)
and then see if I can speak more clearly to you, which I have my doubts.
Believe so?
We shall see~and even if many did, WHAT does that prove?
How do evolutionists explain this?
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE]www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE[/url])
How do evolutionists explain this?
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE]www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE[/url])
[url]https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02106[/url] ([url]https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02106[/url])
Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine Pufferfish
Hiroshi Kawase, Yoji Okata & Kimiaki Ito
Scientific Reports 3, Article number: 2106
Abstract
We report that male pufferfishes (Torquigener sp., Tetraodontidae) constructed large geometric circular structures on the seabed that played an important role in female mate choice. Males dug valleys at various angles in a radial direction, constructing nests surrounded by radially aligned peaks and valleys. Furthermore, they created irregular patterns in the nest comprising fine sand particles. The circular structure not only influences female mate choice but also functions to gather fine sand particles in nests, which are important in female mate choice. Strangely enough, the males never reuse the nest, always constructing a new circular structure at the huge cost of construction. This is because the valleys may not contain sufficient fine sand particles for multiple reproductive cycles.
ALL THE DNA IN OUR CHROMOSOMES IS ESSENTIAL FOR LIFENature 20 October 2004
Darwin's theory is further used to support the belief that ancient humans — Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and Denisova — did not mix. In fact, based on Darwin's assumptions, most anthropologists claim that modern humans were simply descended from Cro-Magnons, who had exterminated their less-fit adversaries.
Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine Pufferfish
What is a million or a billion years to the eternal God? Absolutely nothing! (2 Peter 3:8). That you bring that question into the discussion shows a certain lack of understanding of who and what God is. How many years did God wait until he created this heaven and earth? Answer - None. There is no "years" in the heaven of God.
So, how many millions or billions of years do you reckon we will have to be waiting for the new heaven and new earth that God will create Barbarian?
Like you said, you can't believe everything you see on the internet, and your responses are on the internet, as well as that which I have supplied.
You will continue your non stop war with the word of God along with all the other evolution cronies,
God will settle this affair along with all others when He returns.
So, how many millions or billions of years do you reckon we will have to be waiting for the new heaven and new earth that God will create Barbarian?
One of us is not telling the truth. That means one of us is a liar.
QuoteGod will settle this affair along with all others when He returns.
Your salvation does not in any way depend on your opinion of evolution. Unless you make an idol of creationism, you will be as welcome in heaven as one who accepts that evolution is God's creation.
This is also like saying that one whose opinion of evolution is God's creation or that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution, unless he make an idol of himself, or of his human intelligence, or of science, will not make it to heaven.
2. Is it necessary to believe that all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, that all things were created BY God, and FOR God, and that God is before all things, and BY Him all things consist, to be saved?
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man?
I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
QuoteThis is also like saying that one whose opinion of evolution is God's creation or that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution, unless he make an idol of himself, or of his human intelligence, or of science, will not make it to heaven.
If you meant that accepting that God created different kinds of living things by evolution will not cost one his salvation, unless he makes an idol of evolution, you are exactly right.Quote1. Is it necessary to believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything there is, to be saved?
Jesus provided you with a list of things you must do it you want to spend eternity with him. He summarized them in Matthew 25:31-46. That's what He says will determine your eternal home.
Quote2. Is it necessary to believe that all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, that all things were created BY God, and FOR God, and that God is before all things, and BY Him all things consist, to be saved?
See above. I don't see how you would do it, without accepting that He created all things. How He created all things is not critical.
QuoteBeing a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man?
I don't think man's new doctrines are really of any use in salvation.
I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8? If so, do you do it? And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that? And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".
What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin. The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less. Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and Heb 9:11.I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8? If so, do you do it? And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that? And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".
What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
It would be nice of you, and not appear evasive, if you'll answer the question with a direct answer.
What is a million or a billion years to the eternal God? Absolutely nothing! (2 Peter 3:8). That you bring that question into the discussion shows a certain lack of understanding of who and what God is. How many years did God wait until he created this heaven and earth? Answer - None. There is no "years" in the heaven of God.
So, how many millions or billions of years do you reckon we will have to be waiting for the new heaven and new earth that God will create Barbarian?
Like, no one really knows exactly what it means or how very long it might take God to finally bring about these things which He promised. If the new heaven and earth are going to be beyond what we could even begin to imagine, seems like it would take a lot longer for your evolution to finally bring it around.
QuoteLike, no one really knows exactly what it means or how very long it might take God to finally bring about these things which He promised. If the new heaven and earth are going to be beyond what we could even begin to imagine, seems like it would take a lot longer for your evolution to finally bring it around.
Why would you think evolution had anything at all to do with it? Evolution is part of nature. What God is promising us is far, far beyond nature.
So God used evolution the first time, but wont use it the second time, is that it? If every time the bible speaks of the first creation it is referring to evolution as you believe, then why wouldn't the creation of the new heaven and new earth also involve evolution? Why would one have to include it, and the other not?
So God used evolution the first time, but wont use it the second time, is that it? If every time the bible speaks of the first creation it is referring to evolution as you believe, then why wouldn't the creation of the new heaven and new earth also involve evolution? Why would one have to include it, and the other not?Evolution is strictly a physical phenomenon, It is a process dealing with procreation, not creation.
Now that is funny to the point of stupid. Do you know the difference in meaning between create and procreate? Apparently not.
What a perfecly simple minded answer. Creation is found at the root of the word procreation.
So God used evolution the first time,
but wont use it the second time, is that it?
If every time the bible speaks of the first creation it is referring to evolution as you believe
then why wouldn't the creation of the new heaven and new earth also involve evolution?
Evolution is strictly a physical phenomenon,
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin. The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less. Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and Heb 9:11.I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8? If so, do you do it? And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that? And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".
What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
The "corruption" that you think you see in the whole of creation, and not just man, is just as God created it.
How long do those of you who preach evolution think it will take to bring about the new heaven and new earth?
Will this require evolution
Or is this all a fairy tail to you as the first account of creation and the flood are to you?
Hmm... We can either believe that mankind eagerly awaits the revealing of the sons of God, or we can believe that rocks and snails and trees are eagerly awaiting that. Seems to be that the latter interpretation is obviously false.
QuoteIt would be nice of you, and not appear evasive, if you'll answer the question with a direct answer.
I gave you Jesus' direct answer. He tells you specifically what you must do to spend eternity with Him. Do that, He says, and you will. Don't do it, and you spend eternity with Satan and his angels. What more do you want Him to tell you? Theology won't save you. Satan is a master theologian. What will save you is following Jesus.
If this puzzles you, read Luke 10:25-37 Why did Jesus tell His followers to emulate a heretic instead of the thelogically correct Levite?
When you understand that, you'll understand what it is that will bring you salvation.
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin. The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less. Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and Heb 9:11.I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8? If so, do you do it? And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that? And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".
What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
The "corruption" that you think you see in the whole of creation, and not just man, is just as God created it.
Romans 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation[/b] groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption. And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22.
My take on the creation in v.19-21 is, it refers to all of creation, excluding mankind.
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin. The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less. Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and Heb 9:11.I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question. The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis. It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
Mar 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8? If so, do you do it? And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that? And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".
What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
The "corruption" that you think you see in the whole of creation, and not just man, is just as God created it.
Romans 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation[/b] groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption. And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22.
My take on the creation in v.19-21 is, it refers to all of creation, excluding mankind.
And your take on the creation in v.19-21 would be obviously wrong. Please explain how the creation, other than mankind, could eagerly wait for anything. How does the sun, the moon, and the stars eagerly await the revealing of the sons of God. What on earth could that possibly mean? And just what is the corruption (v.21) that is spoken of there? When iron and oxygen combine to form rust, that is corrosion, that is chemistry. When you eat food and digest it to form the stuff of your body and to provide the energy necessary, that is a chemical corrosion process. Is that corruption?
A: Mankind and only mankind.
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?A: Mankind and only mankind. The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.
Q: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption. Everything else is just as God created it -- the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe. There is no bondage or corruption there.
A: Mankind and only mankind.
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
QuoteQ: What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?A: Mankind and only mankind. The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.QuoteQ: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption. Everything else is just as God created it -- the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe. There is no bondage or corruption there.
A: Mankind and only mankind.
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
Okay, so, what can you understand of mankind with its being subjected to futility?
And by the way, was mankind subjected to futility?
QuoteQ: What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?A: Mankind and only mankind. The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.QuoteQ: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption. Everything else is just as God created it -- the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe. There is no bondage or corruption there.
So, how do you refute and explain what I said in my previous post with regards to what your interpretation that creation in the passage refers to mankind? Let me quote the relevant post:
"In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption. And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22."
Side Comment: If I'm not mistaken, I think that your problem with this passage is connected with your belief that the Fall of Adam has no effect on the physical, and only on the spiritual.
QuoteHow long do those of you who preach evolution think it will take to bring about the new heaven and new earth?
Why would it matter? He chose to do this world over a long period of time. What if He does it different next time? Should we be offended?QuoteWill this require evolution
Evolution is part of nature. And the world to come is not natural. It's a mistake to impose what you know about this world on the world to come.QuoteOr is this all a fairy tail to you as the first account of creation and the flood are to you?
I don't think that your misunderstandings about what we believe are holding you back as much as your inability to clearly explain what you believe.
A: Mankind and only mankind.
Q: What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
Okay, so, what can you understand of mankind with its being subjected to futility?
And by the way, was mankind subjected to futility?
The futility is the condemnation,due to trespasses and sins, to eternity apart from God i.e, in Hell.
QuoteQuoteQ: What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?A: Mankind and only mankind. The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.QuoteQ: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption. Everything else is just as God created it -- the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe. There is no bondage or corruption there.
So, how do you refute and explain what I said in my previous post with regards to what your interpretation that creation in the passage refers to mankind? Let me quote the relevant post:
"In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption. And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22."
Side Comment: If I'm not mistaken, I think that your problem with this passage is connected with your belief that the Fall of Adam has no effect on the physical, and only on the spiritual.
How do I explain it? Quite simply, you are wrong. Being anxious for anything is not something that any other than mankind can do. The fall of Adam has no effect on our physical being or our spiritual being. And that is not my problem. That you do not understand that is your problem.
QuoteEvolution is strictly a physical phenomenon,
Precisely. It won't be in heaven, because Heaven is not part of nature.
In other words, your not going to answer the questions.
The answers would begin to reveal just how little of scripture you actually believe.
The implications of what you have chosen to believe above and over the word of God
Who says so and how would you know?
Barbarian agrees:
Precisely. It won't be in heaven, because Heaven is not part of nature.QuoteWho says so and how would you know?
Heaven is such that those who achieve it, have absolute subordination of their bodies (yes, we will have bodies) to their spirits. As Jesus appeared after the crucifixion, with a physical body he invited his disciples to examine for themselves, yet was able to move through a wall with that same body, so we will have the same subtility.
John 20:19 Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. ... [20] And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.
Our bodies clearly don't have that kind of ability now. But in the next world, they shall.
God constantly contrasts Heaven and Earth as two entirely different places. Yes, Heaven is a state of being, but it is also a place. If one has a body, then one has a location, hence a place.
It will not be like anything we have ever encountered; it will be an entirely different state and existence:
1 Corinthians 2:9 But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.
So no one in this world has ever encountered anything remotely like it.
1 Corinthians 13:12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.
Futility: The quality of producing no valuable effect, or of coming to nothing; uselessness.And that is how you view God's creation? Interesting. That sort of makes your notion of the Romans one reference to creation as symbolism or a figure of speech to be absolute nonsense. How could something you proclaim to be useless, producing no valuable effect and coming to nothing enlighten anyone about its creator God? The obvious implication of Paul's discussion in Romans 1 is quite the contrary. It is the gloriousness, the grandeur, the majesty, the greatness of creation that speaks of its creator. The futility that you ascribe to God's creation does no such thing.
Futility: The quality of producing no valuable effect, or of coming to nothing; uselessness.And that is how you view God's creation? Interesting. That sort of makes your notion of the Romans one reference to creation as symbolism or a figure of speech to be absolute nonsense. How could something you proclaim to be useless, producing no valuable effect and coming to nothing enlighten anyone about its creator God? The obvious implication of Paul's discussion in Romans 1 is quite the contrary. It is the gloriousness, the grandeur, the majesty, the greatness of creation that speaks of its creator. The futility that you ascribe to God's creation does no such thing.
Seriously Michael, your thoughts of God imparting original sin upon the whole of mankind because of Adam's sin and the ascribing to His creation the futility you see in it doesn't strike me as a very reverent view. I see no glory to God expressed in either thought; in fact quite the opposite. But perhaps that is just me.
But isn't the fact that Jesus did all these "heavenly things" here on earth, even ate food in His new body, proof that heaven and nature can go together perfectly?
Second, what could be said of the futility spoken of in Rom.8, that creation was subjected to, is obviously not with regards to its testimony about its creator, but with regards to its having been under its bondage to corruption, that it never reaches the perfection that God originally intended it to achieve.What corruption are you talking about; what bondage to corruption are you talking about?
It's not my thoughts of God, but what is in scriptures. The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind. Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.What curse of the ground are you talking about? The thorns and thistles? What curse of the earth are you talking about?
QuoteBut isn't the fact that Jesus did all these "heavenly things" here on earth, even ate food in His new body, proof that heaven and nature can go together perfectly?
It's proof that God can set aside the laws by which this world works, when He wishes to do so. It's His creation, of course He can. But that just puts a finer point in it; nature will never be what Heaven is.
<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>Second, what could be said of the futility spoken of in Rom.8, that creation was subjected to, is obviously not with regards to its testimony about its creator, but with regards to its having been under its bondage to corruption, that it never reaches the perfection that God originally intended it to achieve.What corruption are you talking about; what bondage to corruption are you talking about?QuoteIt's not my thoughts of God, but what is in scriptures. The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind. Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.What curse of the ground are you talking about? The thorns and thistles? What curse of the earth are you talking about?
You seem always to read into Scripture was is not there -- on just about every topic on which you post.
and how does that support your claim that there is no nature in heaven?
QuoteIn other words, your not going to answer the questions.
Rather, you don't like the answers. The amount of time God used in this world to create things has nothing at all to do with the next. We live in a world created in time, but that's not what you have in eternity.QuoteThe answers would begin to reveal just how little of scripture you actually believe.
I don't wish to be unkind, but it seems to me that if you just accepted His word as it is, you'd have no problem understanding how the physical universe fits into His will.QuoteThe implications of what you have chosen to believe above and over the word of God
I accept it precisely because I accept the word of God first. My one objection to YE creationism, is that it puts one more obstacle between unbelievers and God. If they see someone preaching that they must believe something demonstrably false, then they walk away. Now, it's true that there are many YE creationists who admit that evolution/creationism has no bearing on one's salvation, and that both views are consistent with Christian belief. If this is your view, then you do no damage to the faith.
If you insist that only YE is acceptable for salvation, then you are opposing God's desire that no man be lost.
And if so, you're not serving God.
Think about it, at least.
What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience. That is in my Bible.
<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden. The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles. Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed. From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke. As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.
Is this not in your Bible?
There is nothing to think about. There is truth. All who choose to reject truth in favor of deception will be lost.
What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience. That is in my Bible.
<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden. The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles. Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed. From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke. As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.
<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
Quoteand how does that support your claim that there is no nature in heaven?
That wasn't my claim. I'm pointing out that the physical universe is not heaven, and that things work differently there.
QuoteThere is nothing to think about. There is truth. All who choose to reject truth in favor of deception will be lost.
Fortunately, you're wrong about this. There is absolutely nothing that says the way you think God created the diversity of life matters to your salvation. It's a modern doctrine, it's not a Biblical doctrine, and it's false. I'm not trying to be unkind. I really am not. But this is a doctrine that is damaging to the church and to Christian faith.
Of course it is the issue. It debunks any notion of original sin.What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience. That is in my Bible.
<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
That is not the issue. The thing is, it's in the Bible.
Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden. The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles. Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed. From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke. As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.
<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
So, what I was saying is in scriptures. That's the issue.
Another point is the truth that, the sin of man affects the creation.
Another truth is that, creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption. What is left for us to discern is not that, but what the futility is and the bondage of corruption is. We may have differing views and opinion to this, but that is a secondary matter to the truth of the matter that creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption.
All I can say is.,.,,...,......,...,.,...,
Love the stranger as thyself (:- ::announcment::
Of course it is the issue. It debunks any notion of original sin.What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience. That is in my Bible.
<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>
Is this not in your Bible?
That is not the issue. The thing is, it's in the Bible.
<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden. The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles. Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed. From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke. As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.
Is this not in your Bible?
So, what I was saying is in scriptures. That's the issue.
Another point is the truth that, the sin of man affects the creation.
Another truth is that, creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption. What is left for us to discern is not that, but what the futility is and the bondage of corruption is. We may have differing views and opinion to this, but that is a secondary matter to the truth of the matter that creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption.
The primary matter in all of this is the correct translation of the Greek word "ktisis". And the simple truth is that you have chosen the wrong one. And in doing so you have a completely wrong interpretation.
And what is the correct translation of the Greek word "ktisis" according to you?
And what is the correct translation of the Greek word "ktisis" according to you?
According to Strong's:
G2937
κτίσις
ktisis
ktis'-is
From G2936; original formation (properly the act; by implication the thing, literally or figuratively): - building, creation, creature, ordinance.
According to Thayer:
G2937
κτίσις
ktisis
Thayer Definition:
1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
1a) the act of creating, creation
1b) creation, i.e. thing created
1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
1b1a) anything created
1b1b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called)
1b1c) the sum or aggregate of things created
1c) institution, ordinance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
So then the correct translation must be from the context and there is no context that would suggest that the universe is at all intended in Romans 8. Clearly it is mankind that has been subjected to futility. It is mankind that is held in the bondage of sin and corruption.
Anyway, let's grant, for the sake of argument, that mankind is the correct translation, how do you explain what becomes of the passage then:As hyperbole, yes all men are waiting for the after-life
Romans 8:19-23 (ktisis=mankind)
19 For the earnest expectation of mankind eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For mankind was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
21 because mankind itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole mankind groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
In v.19, it speaks of mankind as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Q: Do all man wait for the revealing of the sons of God? The atheists? The Satanist?
In v.20, mankind was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly.We are all subjected to futility. That is the circumstance of life in this physical realm. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the free will of man.
Q: Is mankind subjected to futility against its will? How is that? Do this not contradict the free will of man?
Verse 21 says that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God.Interesting question. Since the predicament you raise exists no matter whether ktisis is rendered creature [i.e., mankind] or creation [i.e., inclusive of the whole of creation].
Q: Would all man be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption? Does this not stand contrary to scriptures that says that only the children of God will be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption?
Q: Will the statement not be erroneous and false, in that, how will mankind, which includes the children of God, be be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God?Again the problem you raise is not rectified if ktisis is translated as creation, since we are not excluded from "creation". However I believe that the "we also" certainly makes the case that ktisis in this passage is speaking only about the creature, i.e, man. I believe Paul is making the case that even we who make up the body of Christ have not been freed from the futility that derives from living in this physical world, simply by believing in Christ. We will realize that only when Jesus comes again.
Verse 23, says "we also", makes the "we" not included in the mankind that is spoken of in vs.19-22, for if they are included, then the statement will be erroneous. and false.
Q: Who then are the "we", if not included mankind?
AMEN!I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old. There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them. He knew best, after all. Let God be God, and have it His way.If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth!QuoteHebrews 11:3~"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."To defer to believing what man says is true, rather than what the word of God says, is to do what is right in our own eyes and is the way of the world.QuoteProverbs 12:15~"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."It has never been, nor should it ever be the way of a true believer. We must hearken unto God's counsel on the creation and of what is right, for He ponders the heart and knows our real intent. He knows whose word we are placing above His, and He is not mocked by justifications nor rationalizations. Despite the great evolution myths being perpetrated upon man, Evolution is not a proven science, and never will be. It is JUST like Paul called it...science SO-CALLED!
By the introduction of sin into the world, the human race has been steadily declining, not getting better. And in observing creation, man has no justification for not believing in God. Because what we read in the bible mirrors what we see in the world. Not a world that is evolving to get better, but that God created a perfect world, which is in now in steady decay physically and morally because of man's sins. And in this time of moral degradation, the Church must stand fast and continue to have faith in what God says the creation days were. For though it may appear that the worlds are billions of years old, and framed of themselves through eons of evolution, this is not the true creation process. Though it may appear that man evolved from monkeys or Apes, by seeing certain of mankind that would allow another man who considers himself wise to think that THEY ARE THE MISSING LINK....this is not the true creation process, it's just a vain idea of men who consider themselves wise, and who rejects anything that completes with his wisdom. It is only by the willfulness of man that he reasons this out in his own eyes, and in his own mind this seems logical. But this is not the true creation process. It is simply the haughty spirit, the pride, and vanity of man in unbelief, who surmises that he knows more than God about creation and wants you to consider just how wise HE IS. I have met a few of these haughty spirits.
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact. And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.And AMEN again!
Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?
I am a Christian, and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.
Now, some evolutionist may say:
What is your proof of God?
Answer: Jesus Christ.
Anyway, let's grant, for the sake of argument, that mankind is the correct translation, how do you explain what becomes of the passage then:As hyperbole, yes all men are waiting for the after-life
Romans 8:19-23 (ktisis=mankind)
19 For the earnest expectation of mankind eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For mankind was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
21 because mankind itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole mankind groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
In v.19, it speaks of mankind as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Q: Do all man wait for the revealing of the sons of God? The atheists? The Satanist?QuoteIn v.20, mankind was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly.We are all subjected to futility. That is the circumstance of life in this physical realm. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the free will of man.
Q: Is mankind subjected to futility against its will? How is that? Do this not contradict the free will of man?
QuoteVerse 21 says that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God.Interesting question. Since the predicament you raise exists no matter whether ktisis is rendered creature [i.e., mankind] or creation [i.e., inclusive of the whole of creation].
Q: Would all man be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption? Does this not stand contrary to scriptures that says that only the children of God will be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption?
QuoteQ: Will the statement not be erroneous and false, in that, how will mankind, which includes the children of God, be be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God?Again the problem you raise is not rectified if ktisis is translated as creation, since we are not excluded from "creation". However I believe that the "we also" certainly makes the case that ktisis in this passage is speaking only about the creature, i.e, man. I believe Paul is making the case that eyven we who make up the body of Christ have not been freed from the futility that derives from living in this physical world, simply by believing in Christ. We will realize that only when Jesus comes again.
Verse 23, says "we also", makes the "we" not included in the mankind that is spoken of in vs.19-22, for if they are included, then the statement will be erroneous. and false.
Q: Who then are the "we", if not included mankind?
Now I would ask you a question.
Q: If the Greek word ktisis is rendered as the whole of creation, could you describe the corruption and the bondage to that corruption that you see in the universe in the whole of the natural world other than the corruption of man that arises from man's trespasses and sins. What corruption and bondage to that corruption to you see in the sun? In the moon? In the whole of the Milky Way galaxie? In the cosmological universe?
If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth!
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.
Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.
Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Absolute blather. You have yet do define even in the vaguest of terms what the corruption and the bondage to that corruption could possibly mean relative to the universe at large. In what way is the universe corrupt or under bondage?Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.
Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Perhaps, if you were me. I do know where that is coming from. And I that I could understand you. But neither you nor I, even anyone for that matter, can really say anything with any degree of certainty with regards the matter of whether the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, are subjected to futility and in bondage of corruption or decay, or are not. For we simply are incapable of knowing as limited as we are. But we can trust God's words on what it says on creation, as a whole. It would have been great if scriptures have details, on big and complex, far and distant creation that man can't see as we see the creation here on the earth we live. But must we not submit to the wisdom of God? Yes, we must.
In your take of "creation" in the passage of Rom. 8:19-23, as mankind, I have shown you what it makes of it as to make it contradict scriptures. On the other hand, in my take of it as to refer to all creation excluding mankind, the only problem you have with that is that you can't accept that creation was subjected to futility and under bondage to corruption. Apparently, it is really a matter of believability and incredibility to you, more than anything else. It's a problem of acceptance, and that not because it contradicts truth, but that you find it hard to believe and find it ridiculous and incredible. But, I guess, you have believed some things in scriptures that are hard to believe and that you find ridiculous and incredible, like so.
4WD, look around you, anywhere you are and watch the World News. Things are not maintaining nor are things getting better.
Absolute blather. You have yet do define even in the vaguest of terms what the corruption and the bondage to that corruption could possibly mean relative to the universe at large. In what way is the universe corrupt or under bondage?Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.
Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Perhaps, if you were me. I do know where that is coming from. And I that I could understand you. But neither you nor I, even anyone for that matter, can really say anything with any degree of certainty with regards the matter of whether the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, are subjected to futility and in bondage of corruption or decay, or are not. For we simply are incapable of knowing as limited as we are. But we can trust God's words on what it says on creation, as a whole. It would have been great if scriptures have details, on big and complex, far and distant creation that man can't see as we see the creation here on the earth we live. But must we not submit to the wisdom of God? Yes, we must.
In your take of "creation" in the passage of Rom. 8:19-23, as mankind, I have shown you what it makes of it as to make it contradict scriptures. On the other hand, in my take of it as to refer to all creation excluding mankind, the only problem you have with that is that you can't accept that creation was subjected to futility and under bondage to corruption. Apparently, it is really a matter of believability and incredibility to you, more than anything else. It's a problem of acceptance, and that not because it contradicts truth, but that you find it hard to believe and find it ridiculous and incredible. But, I guess, you have believed some things in scriptures that are hard to believe and that you find ridiculous and incredible, like so.
Decay, entropy. This universe is under the bondage of death, in the same way that man became under bondage of death once sin entered the world.
This universe will either be destructed or self-destruct.
QuoteDecay, entropy. This universe is under the bondage of death, in the same way that man became under bondage of death once sin entered the world.
No one actually knows that. You see, the sum of all the energy in the universe is equal to zero. Always has been, from all indications.
You think entropy is the result of Adam's sin??? rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl roflAbsolute blather. You have yet do define even in the vaguest of terms what the corruption and the bondage to that corruption could possibly mean relative to the universe at large. In what way is the universe corrupt or under bondage?Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.
Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Perhaps, if you were me. I do know where that is coming from. And I that I could understand you. But neither you nor I, even anyone for that matter, can really say anything with any degree of certainty with regards the matter of whether the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, are subjected to futility and in bondage of corruption or decay, or are not. For we simply are incapable of knowing as limited as we are. But we can trust God's words on what it says on creation, as a whole. It would have been great if scriptures have details, on big and complex, far and distant creation that man can't see as we see the creation here on the earth we live. But must we not submit to the wisdom of God? Yes, we must.
In your take of "creation" in the passage of Rom. 8:19-23, as mankind, I have shown you what it makes of it as to make it contradict scriptures. On the other hand, in my take of it as to refer to all creation excluding mankind, the only problem you have with that is that you can't accept that creation was subjected to futility and under bondage to corruption. Apparently, it is really a matter of believability and incredibility to you, more than anything else. It's a problem of acceptance, and that not because it contradicts truth, but that you find it hard to believe and find it ridiculous and incredible. But, I guess, you have believed some things in scriptures that are hard to believe and that you find ridiculous and incredible, like so.
Decay, entropy. This universe is under the bondage of death, in the same way that man became under bondage of death once sin entered the world.
This universe will either be destructed or self-destruct.
Unlike heaven which will be eternal and not subject to corruption because there is no sin.
Next to the Evolution Theory yet another scientific hypothesis that has not been proven correct.
The evidence, both from scientists’ laboratories and God’ natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of wood is now so well known and understood that scientists can rapidly make petrified wood in their laboratories at will.
Unfortunately, most people still think, and are led to believe, that fossilized wood buried in rock strata must have taken thousands, if not millions, of years to petrify. Clearly, such thinking is erroneous, since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that petrification of wood can, and does, occur rapidly. Thus the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood.
Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death.
Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization. The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions.
Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial.
Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiation—sudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).
Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death.
Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization.
The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions.
Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial.
Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiation
—sudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).
The evidence, both from scientists’ laboratories and God’ natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of wood is now so well known and understood that scientists can rapidly make petrified wood in their laboratories at will.
Unfortunately, most people still think, and are led to believe, that fossilized wood buried in rock strata must have taken thousands, if not millions, of years to petrify. Clearly, such thinking is erroneous, since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that petrification of wood can, and does, occur rapidly. Thus the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood.
Petrified wood is possibly the fossil type with which most people have greatest familiarity. One of the most frequently expressed questions among a group visiting a petrified wood exposure is "How rapidly does petrification occur?" The answers to such questions have often expressed speculation, but seldom have been based on dependable data.
Anne C. Sigleo in a paper entitled "Organic geochemistry of silicified wood, Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona" that appears in the September 1978 issue of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (vol. 42, pp. 1397-1405) demonstrates that silica mineralization is an impermeation or void-filling process in which mineral matter is deposited in cracks, openings between cells, and spaces left by cell fluids. This process takes place while the wood is relatively intact. Consequently petrified wood preserves the original pattern of cell structure, and often contains carbon and organic compounds. For noncarbonaceous petrified wood the organic material was degraded and removed subsequent to mineralization. The most probable mechanism for wood silification as proposed by Dr. Sigleo is hydrogen bonding between silicic acid [Si(OH)4] and the hydroxyl functional groups in cellulose.
Silica mineralization evidently takes place within the chemical (impurity concentration) and pH (acidity-alkalinity) range of most surface waters. Dr. Sigleo cites experiments which indicate that silica deposits at the rate of 0.1 to 4.0 millimeters per year on wood immersed in alkaline springs at Yellowstone National Park (1); fresh twigs will partially silicify within 24 hours at room temperature in a sodium metasilicate solution at concentrations of 5-10 parts per thousand (2); fresh wood can be silicified within a year by alternate immersion in water and ethyl silicate (3). The latter process does not represent naturally occurring conditions. Ethyl silicate is used because in the presence of water it decomposes and releases a high concentration of monomolecular silicific acid within the wood tissue. Also of interest but not mentioned by Sigleo is the observation that plant tissue silicifies after several years of immersion in jars of water containing 750 parts per million of silica (4).
These examples provide some possibilities regarding the formation of petrified wood and suggest that wood could become petrified within a few years if it remained saturated with water that had percolated through a layer of fresh volcanic ash.
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation,
but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation.
We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth
massive erosion
the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly.
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.
Just imagine how many catastrophic floods could have occurred in 135 million years.
QuoteYes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation,
The Karoo assemblage, for example is an old delta from an ancient river that carried the bodies down the river and buried them in the delta. There are many other such examples. No need to invent a worldwide flood, which is neither in evidence, or in scripture.Quotebut won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation.
As mentioned above, the evidence shows many, many floods but no worldwide floods.QuoteWe can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth
Which cannot be reconciled with a world wide flood.Quotemassive erosion
Much of which, like entrenched meanders and rejuvenated rivers, which could not be caused by a worldwide flood.Quotethe formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly.
The Germans, for example, came up with a way to make petroleum from organic material. But only by processes that never occur in nature. So far, no one has been able to produce fossilized wood. "Silication of wood" does not produce anything like fossilized wood. And so on.
How would a year-long flood make these?
([url]http://geotripperimages.com/Erosional_Processes/DSC05032%20Goosenecks%20of%20the%20San%20Juan%20River.jpg[/url])
Hint: the vertical wall here are nearly a kilometer high. So we know that they were solid rock when the river cut them.
How do you think the river did this in a year?
You are willingly ignorant of scripture,
and real science.
A global flood moving unimaginable masses of water could cut through solid rock, even steel reinforced concrete with ease. Its called cavitation.
The even layers of strata observed all over the world are evidence of rapid layering and formation, not layers built up slowly over millions of years that would have obvious signs of severe erosion and depressions caused by the same.
As for all your arguments concerning floods, much of what you are describing would also result from the major flood
Your millions of years simply are not necessary for explanation,
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.
Just imagine how many catastrophic floods could have occurred in 135 million years.
Yes, imagine is all that one can do concerning what happened over the course of 135 million years. Thus the imagination of scoffers is passed off as authentic science today. They scoff at the scriptures, and real observable science relating to natural world around us pointing to a global flood, and pass off their own imaginings as real science.
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother. They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate minds.If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.
Just imagine how many catastrophic floods could have occurred in 135 million years.
Yes, imagine is all that one can do concerning what happened over the course of 135 million years. Thus the imagination of scoffers is passed off as authentic science today. They scoff at the scriptures, and real observable science relating to natural world around us pointing to a global flood, and pass off their own imaginings as real science.
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Was Peter ignorant of the truth you now posses, or are you one of the scoffers described above. Do you deny the flood, and future judgement by fire?
Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
How about that, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, believed the story you know to be untrue. Correct me if I am wrong. Doesn't this mean you know more and better than God? Is your testimony above that of the words of Jesus Christ? Is He not your God and Savior? How is it, you know more and better than He whom your life completely depends upon?
QuoteYes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation,
The Karoo assemblage, for example is an old delta from an ancient river that carried the bodies down the river and buried them in the delta. There are many other such examples. No need to invent a worldwide flood, which is neither in evidence, or in scripture.Quotebut won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation.
As mentioned above, the evidence shows many, many floods but no worldwide floods.QuoteWe can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth
Which cannot be reconciled with a world wide flood.Quotemassive erosion
Much of which, like entrenched meanders and rejuvenated rivers, which could not be caused by a worldwide flood.Quotethe formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly.
The Germans, for example, came up with a way to make petroleum from organic material. But only by processes that never occur in nature. So far, no one has been able to produce fossilized wood. "Silication of wood" does not produce anything like fossilized wood. And so on.
How would a year-long flood make these?
([url]http://geotripperimages.com/Erosional_Processes/DSC05032%20Goosenecks%20of%20the%20San%20Juan%20River.jpg[/url])
Hint: the vertical wall here are nearly a kilometer high. So we know that they were solid rock when the river cut them.
How do you think the river did this in a year?
I know not of the god you worship
but the God of Creation, my LORD, my God can make anything look as He wishes it to appear and no man can tell the difference.
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother. They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate minds.
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother. They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate minds.
What exactly do you mean by "God having sent a great delusion"?
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother. They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate minds.
What exactly do you mean by "God having sent a great delusion"?
Alan,
Before that question can be answered accurately, it may be necessary to identify the recipient.
Just saying.
Blessings.
Thousands die in flood
Back when these centrosaurs lived, Alberta was warm and lush, and encompassed lowlands on the western coast of the Western Interior Seaway, a vast inland sea that divided what is now North America in half. The way the fossils are linked together in the same layers of earth within these bonebeds suggests all these centrosaurs were wiped out simultaneously.
The likely culprit in this scenario was a catastrophic storm, which could quickly have routinely made the waters flood up as high as 12 to 15 feet (3.6 to 4.6 meters), if experiences with modern floodplains are any guide.
“The flooding could have reached more than 100 kilometers (60 miles) from the shoreline," Eberth told LiveScience. "The landscape basically just drowns.”
The flat area would have provided no high ground for escape, leading to thousands of animals drowning in the rising waters.
5. Massive graveyards of thousands and even millions of fish, dinosaurs, and mammals are seen in North America, Europe, and Africa. The same is true of plants. From Utah-Colorado north to Alberta-Saskatchewan, Canada, thousands of dinosaurs are found in certain beds such as the Morrison Formation. Dinosaur National Monument in Utah has a visitor’s display where numerous dinosaurs are exposed. Agate Fossil Beds National Monument is a good places to see numerous fossil mammals jumbled together. Other parts of the world also illustrate fossil graveyards. The city of Cincinnati, Ohio sits on top of a great mass of sea animals (Figure 4). The Messel site near Frankfort, Germany, is also a most unusual collection of animals and plants. These two sites along with others mentioned above reveal the following information: 1. The burial of great quantities of animals together. 2. Rapid burial and excellent preservation. 3. The presence of species now limited to different continents. 4. The position of mammals that suggest death by drowning. Geological processes as seen in the modern world cannot account for such unusual conditions. A world-wide catastrophe involving water is the easiest explanation.
The fossil creatures were found grouped together in clay and silt sediments, suggesting a river created the dinosaur graveyard.
"Flooding maybe was responsible for the accumulation of carcasses," Sanz said.
Perhaps the most challenging fossil phenomena for Darwinian apologists to explain are the vast graveyards of animal remains that are found throughout the world. Ongoing excavations in the Gobi Desert tell of one such sight that has become an embarrassment to evolutionists. Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals. There is no evidence of the several million year evolutionary gap or of the iridium boundary that is thought to delineate when the dinosaurs became extinct.
’Dinosaur graveyard' may date back to the time of the mass extinction: Fossil bed behind a New Jersey mall suggests large numbers of creatures were killed as a result of a single event 65 million years ago
At the time of the creatures' death, the region is believed to have been a shallow sea.
The shallow sea would have been teeming with life, more so than on the land, so if a single event hit the region, a large number of prehistoric marine animals would have been affected.
A number of intact remains of large dinosaurs have been found in the same rock layer, thought to have once been the bottom of the sea bed in which they swam. This evidence suggests they died at the same time as a result of an asteroid impact in Mexico (illustrated) and their bodies sunk to the bottom of the shallow sea
This layer was the ancient sea's bottom, 40ft (12 metres) below the surface and potentially holds the bones of dinosaurs that died in the mass extinction.
Palaeontologists think this may be the case because the skeletons of larger animals remain mostly intact, indicating they died at the same time and their bodies settled on the bottom of the sea bed, The New York Times reported.
They believe it was aged about 15 to 25 when it died, possibly after falling into the river and drowning. It may also have died elsewhere and then been washed into the river by a flash flood.
The Question of Fossils
The Karoo deposit in South Africa - 800 Billion Fossils
These deposits are so immense that even after decades of fossil collecting, bones are still sticking out of the ground. The Karoo formation is a water deposited sediment bed up to 20,000 ft thick. Massive fossil graveyards of dinosaurs exist all over the world. The Morrison beds in North America, (covering thousands of sq. miles), the dinosaur beds in Montana, Alberta, the Dakotas, Colorado, Utah, Africa, Europe and China, etc., etc., contain literally millions of dinosaur fossils piled together in heaps and mixed with other creatures. Ten thousand Hadrasaurs were found on Egg Mountain alone, including all age groups and eggs jumbled together in a mass death. Would this happen under normal, uniform conditions? The answer is No. Think about it, they are all in water deposited sediments! The Buffalo question- Millions of buffalo were slaughtered on the North American plains during the last century, so multiplied thousands of fossil buffalo should be common but are any great buffalo fossil graveyards to be found? No. Their remains were disposed of by the normal ravages of the weather, scavengers, and decomposition. So why are there great fossil graveyards of dinosaurs and thousands of other species where the bones of these beasts lie entombed in heaps, together with fossilized mammals, fish, insects, plants etc., testifying that they all perished together in a great mass death?
How to make a "Fossil"
It's well known to scientists that fossils are not made by creatures dieing a natural death. This misconception propagated for decades in school textbooks and museum placards. The reality is fossils are formed catastrophically by quick burial. All that's required is;
1 Quick Burial
2 Water
3 Sediments
Many Fossil beds uniformly contain undersea and terrestrial animals and plants buried together, just as one would expect if deposited as a result of flood. Others mix many types of animals normally not living together. Fossil beds consistently never contain transitional forms, a long standing misconception advanced by evolutionists in the textbooks. Bones are found from widely different sites and lined up to support evolution theory in pick and choose fashion. Despite this effort, 1/2 way forms are absent, just like we see them absent today. I posted this question to one the most prominent Zoologists in the world, Dr. Collin Paterson of the British museum in London and he responded; "my colleges in the tropics tell me the same thing! The conversation started with my comment that no "in-between" types exist in Alaska also. If evolution were true, many, many in-between or "transitional" types should be present. They are not. Anyone ever report a hairless walking chimp in Africa? No! Besides, the DNA and cell mechanism prohibit such development's.
If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth!
Back when these centrosaurs lived, Alberta was warm and lush, and encompassed lowlands on the western coast of the Western Interior Seaway, a vast inland sea that divided what is now North America in half. The way the fossils are linked together in the same layers of earth within these bonebeds suggests all these centrosaurs were wiped out simultaneously.
The likely culprit in this scenario was a catastrophic storm, which could quickly have routinely made the waters flood up as high as 12 to 15 feet (3.6 to 4.6 meters), if experiences with modern floodplains are any guide.
“The flooding could have reached more than 100 kilometers (60 miles) from the shoreline," Eberth told LiveScience. "The landscape basically just drowns.”
The flat area would have provided no high ground for escape, leading to thousands of animals drowning in the rising waters.
Massive graveyards of thousands and even millions of fish, dinosaurs, and mammals are seen in North America, Europe, and Africa. The same is true of plants. From Utah-Colorado north to Alberta-Saskatchewan, Canada, thousands of dinosaurs are found in certain beds such as the Morrison Formation.
The city of Cincinnati, Ohio sits on top of a great mass of sea animals (Figure 4).
Scientists studying dinosaur evolution are finding many more bones to pick.
Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. Details appeared June 9 in Nature Communications.
More Soft Tissue Found in Cretaceous Fossil Bird
Unrepentant over extreme falsification, evolutionary paleontologists are just taking it for granted that soft tissue can survive millions of years.
Scientists have reported soft tissues from the lower hindlimb of a Cretaceous bird. Writing in Nature Communications, Jiang et al. say,
Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — Attorneys for a California State University, Northridge scientist who was terminated from his job after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil have filed a lawsuit against the university.
While at the Hell Creek Formation excavation site in Montana, researcher Mark Armitage discovered what he believed to be the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site, according to attorney Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute.
Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”
Dinosaur brain tissue discovered for first time in 130m-year-old fossil
While casts of the inside of dinosaur brain cases have been found before, it is the first time fossilised brain soft tissue has been discovered for any land-living vertebrate.
“The most striking thing is that something as delicate as brain tissue, and which you wouldn’t expect to ever see, has been preserved,” said Alex Liu, co-author of the research from the University of Cambridge. “It just speaks volumes [about] the spectacular preservational quality that can be obtained in the fossil record even 130 million years after this dinosaur is alive.”
"We have shown the presence of protein preserved in a 195 million-year-old dinosaur, at least 120 million years older than any other similar discovery," study co-author Robert Reisz of the University of Toronto Mississauga, told AFP.
"These proteins are the building blocks of animal soft tissues, and it's exciting to understand how they have been preserved," he added.
Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material
- Two Dinosaur Soft Tissue Predictions Confirmed! Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams had predicted on air and in writing at rsr.org/predictions that:
- Dinosaur soft tissue will be found not only in rare circumstances, but rather easily, i.e., when looked for. CONFIRMED in 2015! The journal Nature Communications reported original tissue in six of eight dinosaur bones investigated, leading to the conclusion that "preservation is more common than previously thought." And:
- Original dinosaur and other biological tissue will be found largely independent of the claimed age of the fossil. RECONFIRMED in June 2016! The journal Nature Communications reported original biological material in Gunflint chert allegedly from 1.88 billion years ago in the Proterozoic "Eon" (i.e., layer). First CONFIRMED in 2014, The Journal of Paleontology reported original soft tissue in Precambrian "beard worms" that are allegedly 530 million years old! (See 60+ similar discoveries.)
America’s Most Complete Armored Dinosaur, Soft Tissues Intact, Found in Montana
Finding a complete skull and tail intact, along with a host of well-preserved soft tissues, may illuminate the physiology and evolution of these unusual animals, said Drs. Victoria Arbour and David Evans of the Royal Ontario Museum, who reported the find.
“The new specimen … is the most complete ankylosaurid ever found in North America, making it a key reference skeleton for interpreting more fragmentary specimens,” the researchers write, in the new issue of Royal Society Open Science.
Although at first glance the skeletal remains of that fossil are not fabulous compared with some other Confuciusornis, what makes this one lovely is that, on peering at it with multiple microscopic and other imaging techniques, he (and me, and a China-UK collaboration that grew over the years) found striking evidence of very well-preserved fossil soft tissues. Our paper reporting on these findings has gone live in Nature Communications so I can blog about it now.
MASSIVE DINOSAUR SOFT TISSUE DISCOVERY IN CHINA – INCLUDES SKIN AND FEATHERS!
A fossil bed in China that is being called “Jurassic Park” has yielded perhaps the greatest dinosaur soft tissue discovery of all time. According to media reports, “nearly-complete skeletons” have been discovered that even include skin and feathers. But of course if these dinosaurs are really “160 million years old”, that should be absolutely impossible.
Here is some more evidence of young earth and creation you can deny and explain away according to your faith.
A fossil bed in China that is being called “Jurassic Park” has yielded perhaps the greatest dinosaur soft tissue discovery of all time. According to media reports, “nearly-complete skeletons” have been discovered that even include skin and feathers. But of course if these dinosaurs are really “160 million years old”, that should be absolutely impossible.
Scientists have known for a very long time that organic material can survive for many millions of years. Coal, oil, plant resin, and invertebrate connective tissue have been known for a very long time. So far, no one has actually found tissue or even cells as anything but fossils of equal age.
The fact that collagen can survive hundreds of millions of years in anoxic conditions, if sufficient iron is present is a relatively new discovery. Interestingly, these discoveries have provided one more bit of evidence for evolution.
A bit of heme (part of a hemoglobin molecule found in blood) was isolated from a T-rex fossil. When injected into rabbits, it formed antibodies against the heme. The antibodies reacted more strongly against the heme of birds than that of modern reptiles, validating the other evidence, showing birds evolved from dinosaurs.
And now you know the rest of the story.
Knowing it, doesn't increase the chances of it happening one bit,Quote
It merely shows the reality that such molecules can survive for many millions of years, under the right conditions. No one is surprised by that.Quoteaccept in the minds of those exercising authentic faith in that which they choose to believe.
No point in denying what is already known, is there?QuoteSo, a fossil formed antibodies?
When a bit of the heme (fraction of a hemoglobin molecule) was injected into a rabbit, the rabbit produced anitbodies against it. The antibodies reacted most strongly to the heme of birds, rather than that of modern reptiles, confirming again the prediction that birds evolved from dinosaurs.QuoteSomething about your above argument doesn't add up bro.
It's not an argument. It's just a documented fact.
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Abstract
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.
Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted. Twist it how you wish, the evidence continues to confirm evolutionary theory.
Here's more...
Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.
"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.
In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html)
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Abstract
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.
Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted. Twist it how you wish, the evidence continues to confirm evolutionary theory.
Here's more...
Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.
"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.
In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.
Who cares about logic though, when supporting ones religion, right?That most definitely is the position of the Young Earth Creationists.
I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old. There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them. He knew best, after all.The lesson we can learn from the presentation of the man made Theory of Evolution is that man still needs to overcome his pride and to stop trying to supercede the authority of God.
Let God be God, and have it His way.
The lesson we can learn from the presentation of the man made Theory of Evolution is that man still needs to overcome his pride and to stop trying to supercede the authority of God.Supersede the authority of God?? Seriously?? The only thing that is being superseded is your, and most YECs, interpretation of Scripture.
Soft tissue, and fossilized soft tissue are two different things.
If finding similarities between species equalled proof of theories,
T-Rex to chickens, really?
Again, the countless ages necessary for changes of such an enormous and extremely complex nature, do not logically allow for the preservation of soft tissue in ay way shape or form for hundreds of millions of years.
Supersede the authority of God?? Seriously?? The only thing that is being superseded is your, and most YECs, interpretation of Scripture.
We should always be humble enough to recognize that we can be wrong, and while the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, neither YE creationism nor evolution are confirmed by scripture. Theologically, YE creationists are no less Christians than the rest of us.
We often forget this; if I have failed to confirm that from time to time, I have been wrong in failing to do so.
As goes pretty much any issue especially doctrine. It's always a matter of arguing over what God said to whom based on a given perspective viewed through a particular semantic filter through the sieve of long held dogma.
Yep. So far, no one has actually shown unfossilized tissue that is millions of years old. As you just learned, we do have examples of heme and collagen (which are organic materials, but not tissue) that have survived hundreds of millions of years. As you see, that's not new; we knew that could happen. Amber, for example.
Biological Material Found: As of 2017, in fossils from dinosaur-layer and deeper strata, researchers have discovered flexible and transparent blood vessels, red blood cells, many various proteins including beta-keratin, the microtubule building block tubulin, collagen, the cytoskeleton components actin, tropomyosin, and the related motor protein myosin, and hemoglobin, bone maintenance osteocyte cells, pigment and evidence of melanosomes, DNA-related histone proteins, and powerful evidence for DNA including positive results from multiple double-helix tests.
On the other hand, tissues, which are assemblages of intact cells, remain to be demonstrated.
In 1992, while peering through a microscope at dinosaur bone fragments that had their hard minerals removed, Schweitzer discovered red discs that appeared identical to reptile red blood cells. She wrote in the December 2010 issue of Scientific American:
And those ruby microscopic structures appeared only in the vessel channels, never in the surrounding bone or in the sediments adjacent to the bones, just as should be true of blood cells.1
The find was an utter shock because of the long-held belief that fossilized bones have had all their original materials replaced by external minerals. Thus, a colleague's admonition to prove they aren't red blood cells has motivated Schweitzer's research ever since. So far, she has been unable to do this. She has also been unable to prove that fresh-looking blood vessels, various soft protein samples, and structures identical to bone cells (osteocytes) are anything other than what they appear to be.
These discoveries presented profound mysteries. Researchers had always expected that "after millions of years, buried in sediments and exposed to geochemical conditions that varied over time, what was preserved in these bones might bear little chemical resemblance to what was there when the dinosaur was alive."1 But this is an extraordinary understatement. In fact, given what is known of tissue and biomolecular decay, after all that time there should be nothing preserved at all and, thus, zero resemblance to any original dinosaur tissue.
The point is, that these intact materials once again verified evolutionary theory which says that birds evolved from dinosaurs. There are a few ornithologists who say that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor, but the discovery that dinosaur heme and collagen is most like that of birds would be the case for either of those.
“Similarities” is too vague. This shows that the molecular structure of bird heme and collagen are most like that of dinosaurs, which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicted.
To be precise, T. rex (the species part of the name is always lower-case) is a distant cousin to the dinosaurs that actually gave rise to birds. Huxley, over a hundred years ago, first proposed that connection, based on anatomical features of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs. The discovery of feathered dinosaurs and numberous transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds was further confirmation. And now, the predicted fit of dino/bird collagen and heme further verify the theory.
The Bathybius affair was one of the first instances of false evidence being used to support Darwin’s theory. It becomes clear that finding such evidence was of utmost importance to men like T.H. Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, and this clouded their judgment. When found out, Huxley admitted his error in 1875, but not whole-heartedly, leaving a measure of doubt in people’s minds even in 1879. Haeckel continued to allow fictitious examples of ‘Monera’ to be used in textbooks for decades afterwards. The Duke of Argyll complained about such lack of integrity in science, that involved a failure to investigate properly, overconfident statements and attempted bullying of critics to gain their silence.
It was Thomas Henry Huxley’s enthusiasm that brought Bathybius into the world (figure 1). He was encouraged in this endeavour by Ernst Haeckel, who was one of the foremost supporters of abiogenesis during the latter part of the nineteenth century; the idea that life can arise from non-life. Bathybius though was to turn into a real embarrassment for both when it was found to be merely a chemical precipitate (amorphous gypsum). Seemingly their judgment was clouded due to their strong determination to find evidence for Darwin’s new theory. But there is also evidence that Huxley was engaged in a campaign of rhetorical bullying at the time as well to silence critics. The Duke of Argyll (George Douglas Campbell) for instance complained about a ‘reign of terror.’
I realize you really, really want to believe this. But the evidence shows that you are incorrect. We have known for a very long time that some organic molecules can survive for many millions of years in the proper conditions. It's not just heme and collagen. Reality wins out over anyone's beliefs.
I hardly think Amber and animal soft tissues are enough alike to use as complementary examples of decay over time.
You know nothing.
You illogically claim to know these things survived over a hundred million years,
Short of being around for more than a hundred million years to examine dead animals you witnessed buried in the ground for that amount of time, you know nothing.
You presume organic materials can last so long, because that allows for your faith.
If or when they present a list of comparison between molecular structure of heme and collagen of birds with every other species, then and only then could anyone know if they are most like that of dinosaurs.
you can continue to search for the real necessary evidence to back up your faith, finding more of the countless intermediary forms of developmental stages that should exist according to evolutionary faith.
If “Christian” evolutionists are correct, then the creation account of scripture is either a lie, or one that needs to be interpreted for all by the new evolutionary prophets for the rest of us.
Those who supposedly know the real truth, above the testimony of the prophets of God who wrote the scriptures.
Have a little humility. Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.
AMO,
The mention of the "flood" in Joshua 24:2 and 24:15 is "river" in nearly all other translations and therefore do not help you in your claim.
You're off by a little over 1600 years. The realization that Genesis was not a literal history came about long before Darwin or any sort of evolutionary theory.
All that traditional Christian believe refutes is the testimony of YE creationists, and their new interpretation of Genesis.
While denying the traditional Christian understanding of Genesis does not put you outside of His people, referring to those who don't agree with you by putting quote marks around the word "Christian" might be a bad idea.
Have a little humility. Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.
Have a little humility. Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.
It usually is not the word of God that is at issue. It is almost always in a particular interpretation of the word of God that there is a problem.
Yea, God's word makes simple conclusive statements, then some reinterpret them to mean whatever they wish.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Yes, now look up the Hebrew word yom which is translated "day":
From Strong's:
H3117
יום
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
From Vines OT:
Day
yom (H3117), "daylight; day; time; moment; year." This word also appears in Ugaritic, extrabiblical Hebrew or Canaanite (e.g., the Siloam inscription), Akkadian, Phoenician, and Arabic. It also appears in post-biblical Hebrew. Attested at every era of biblical Hebrew, yom occurs about 2,304 times.
Yom has several meanings. The word represents the period of "daylight" as contrasted with nighttime: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Gen_8:22). The word denotes a period of twenty-four hours: "And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day..." (Gen_39:10). Yom can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen_2:3). In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ. Compare Gen_2:4 : "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [beyom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...." Here "day" refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation. Another nuance appears in Gen_2:17, where the word represents a "point of time" or "a moment": "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day [beyom] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Finally, when used in the plural, the word may represent "year": "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year [yamim]" (Exo_13:10).
There are several other special nuances of yom when it is used with various prepositions. First, when used with ke ("as," "like"), it can connote "first": "And Jacob said, Sell me this day [first] thy birthright" (Gen_25:31). It may also mean "one day," or "about this day": "And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business..." (Gen_39:11). On Joseph's lips, the phrase connotes "this present result" (literally, "as it is this day"): "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" (Gen_50:20). Adonijah used this same phrase to represent "today": "Let king Solomon swear unto me today that he will not slay his servant..." (1Ki_1:51). Yet another nuance appears in 1Sa_9:13 : "Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him." When used with the definite article ha, the noun may mean "today" (as it does in Gen_4:14) or refer to some particular "day" (1Sa_1:4) and the "daytime" (Neh_4:16).
The first biblical occurrence of yom is found in Gen_1:5 : "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The second use introduces one of the most debated occurrences of the word, which is the duration of the days of creation. Perhaps the most frequently heard explanations are that these "days" are 24 hours long, indefinitely long (i.e., eras of time), or logical rather than temporal categories (i.e., they depict theological categories rather than periods of time).
The "day of the Lord" is used to denote both the end of the age (eschatologically) or some occurrence during the present age (non-eschatologically). It may be a day of either judgment or blessing, or both (cf. Isaiah 2).
It is noteworthy that Hebrew people did not divide the period of daylight into regular hourly periods, whereas nighttime was divided into three watches (Exo_14:24; Jdg_7:19). The beginning of a "day" is sometimes said to be dusk (Est_4:16) and sometimes dawn (Deu_28:66-67).
So much for your simple conclusive statement. As I said, it is almost never about what God said, it is almost always about one someone thinks God means when He said what He said.
AMO. what is the meaning of the word "day" in Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, ?
As far as that which you shared from Vines OT, this is the opinion of just another man such as yourself, that is all. God absolutely did not rest from creation to the first coming of Christ.It doesn't say God rested from creation to the first coming of Christ. It says God rested from "...all his work that he had done in creation." Many would argue that He is still resting from His work of creation and will until He creates the next "heaven and earth" (2 Pet 3:13).
It doesn't say God rested from creation to the first coming of Christ. It says God rested from "...all his work that he had done in creation." Many would argue that He is still resting from His work of creation and will until He creates the next "heaven and earth" (2 Pet 3:13).
And by the way, you still didn't answer how long was the "day" in Genesis 2:4.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen_2:3). In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ.
https://www.livescience.com/8312-canyons-form-quickly-gusher-suggests.html
[url]http://creation.com/the-rapid-formation-of-granitic-rocks-more-evidence[/url]
It is truly sad that you and your friends, I assume you have a group of like minded people, have tried to limit the power because that does not mean He has not sent this reat delusion you imagine o believe Barb.
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?I am not the one ginning things up, that is you and the
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?
I am not the one ginning things up
I am obeying Jesus when He said we must believe as a small child.
Dear Evolutionist.
What is one evidence for evolution, please?
Barbarian suggests:
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?
But you are. When you see something that could not have happened as creationists say it did, it's wrong to imagine a new miracle to cover the problem.
Then why not accept His word as it is, without adding new miracles?
Why add things to make your own ideas fit?
Dear Evolutionist.Here's few:
What is one evidence for evolution, please?
I guess your not going to tell us what non scriptural miracles you were referring to.
I assume you have a group of like minded people, have tried to limit the power because that does not mean He has not sent this reat delusion you imagine o believe Barb.
Just showed you one.
(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood. It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
And the response was that:
Can God set aside the rules by which He makes this world work? Sure, He can. But if you try to cover up the problems with your new doctrine by imagining unscriptural miracles, then any belief is equally valid.
Just showed you one.
(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood. It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
And the response was that:
Can God set aside the rules by which He makes this world work? Sure, He can. But if you try to cover up the problems with your new doctrine by imagining unscriptural miracles, then any belief is equally valid.
Here's few:
Observed speciations.
Observed fitness increasing in populations under natural selection
Huge number of predicted transitional forms either alive or in the fossil record
Zero transitional forms where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be any
Genetics, showing the same nested hierarchy of species in a family tree of all living things
Molecular data showing heme and collagen molecules of dinosaurs are more like those of birds than of modern reptiles
Suboptimal structures like human hips, backs, and feet, that show common descent from 4-legged animals.
Observed fitness increasing in populations under natural selection
Huge number of predicted transitional forms either alive or in the fossil record
Genetics, showing the same nested hierarchy of species in a family tree of all living things
Molecular data showing heme and collagen molecules of dinosaurs are more like those of birds than of modern reptiles
Suboptimal structures like human hips, backs, and feet, that show common descent from 4-legged animals.
Common structures show a common DESIGNER. Again, just because apes and humans LOOK similar, that does not mean the ape is my granddad.
Observed FITNESS?
Really?
Natural selection SELECTS, it doesnt CREATE anything.
This is NOT "evolution".
Common structures show a common DESIGNER.
Again, just because apes and humans LOOK similar, that does not mean the ape is my granddad.
You can build many different things with metal. It is a good building material and usually a building material does not need to be made if metal will do the job.
If you are saying that birds came FROM dinosaurs
you are not up with current research as the so-called dino-birds have been proven to be false.
There is no such thing as a LIVE "transitional" form.
You DO know that the so-called "fossil record" exists NOWHERE except in the textbooks, right?
We see polystrata fossils. Petrified trees in the upright or even upside DOWN position going through SEVERAL rock layers that are supposedly thousands or millions of years apart in age.
There are, in fact ZERO transitional fossils.
If you find a fossil in the dirt or rock the ONLY thing it can tell you is that SOMETHING DIED.
let alone how old it is as radiometric carbon dating methods DONT work.
Of course this could of happened in a single flood.
Barbarian observes:
Just showed you one.
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood. It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
No, it can't and you'll never see it happen like that. Meanders require slow, gradual erosion. A strong sudden flood would just have gouged out surface marks. We have such examples like the scablands. Meanders are never suddenly produced. Would you like to learn why?
Barbarian observes:
Just showed you one.
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood. It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
No, it can't and you'll never see it happen like that. Meanders require slow, gradual erosion. A strong sudden flood would just have gouged out surface marks. We have such examples like the scablands. Meanders are never suddenly produced. Would you like to learn why?
God is not a designer. He's the Creator. Design is what imperfect creatures do. And your assumption is incorrect about common structures. For example, sharks, icthyosaurs, and dolphins have common structures, but when you look closely, they are derived from different things. You're assuming analogous organs, while evolution is about homologous organs. For example, dolphins are anatomically more like us than they are like sharks, even though they are analogous to sharks.
Common descent is marked by homologies.
Again, you're confusing analogies with homologies. The evidence that humans and other apes have a common ancestor is based on homologous structures like brain, jaws, and so on. It is confirmed by genetic data showing that chimps and humans are more closely related than either is to other apes. So we shared a common ancestor that had already diverged from other apes.
And no one who understands evolution would ever assert that to be the case. I am not necessarily a proponent of evolution, but totally inaccurate posits like that do not help the discussion.
Yep. Fitness is usually not hard to quantify. Would you like some examples?
Mutation and natural selection do tend to increase fitness in a population. That is what evolution is.
No, its natural selection.
Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. And that's what we see. Random mutations are winnowed through natural selection, so that fitness increases.
But because of details in the metal, it's possible to find where two metal objects have a common origin. For example, archaeologists can determine by the mix of trace elements in copper artifacts that the ore from which they were made, came from a common source in Cyprus.
This shows a common origin, not a common designer.
Good point, my friend. But, i only used this as an analogy. Do you at least get what i am trying to say?
And we can check these findings by seeing if related individuals have more similar molecules than more distantly related ones. In the case of the dinosaur heme and collagen, the prediction was that it would be most like that of birds and crocodiles, and not as much like other modern reptiles. The prediction was confirmed.
So in other words ( so i understand you, i am not an academic ) because i have nails and some mammals have nails, that proves we are related somewhere along the line, is that what you are trying to say?
There's no functional reason for this; it just shows common descent.
This pretty well nails it, since it shows that they are closely related.
Fine.
You've been misled about that. Ornithologist Alan Feduccia has claimed that birds did not descend from dinosaurs, but that both birds and dinosaurs descended from a common thecodont ancestor. The results from heme and collagen show this is very unlikely, and numerous new transitional forms demonstrating the origin of birds, has convinced most scientists that Feduccia is wrong.
Wow, so a person CLAIMS that birds did NOT descend from dinosaurs? I have seen many professors say the opposite.
Show me a "transitional form", please. NOT a whole list, just ONE please and lets discuss it.
Would you like to learn more about the issue?
Actually, it's been known for a very long time that a huge release of water can scour out canyons in relatively short time. Decades ago, the scablands were determined to be the result of a sudden flood when Lake Missoula suddenly broke out of a glacial trap. It was a model for the Martian canyons that seem to have been similarly formed. What can't happen suddenly is this:
(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)
This sort of formation can only happen over millions of years, in a rejuvenated river where the bed becomes trapped and cuts deeper and deeper into stone.
There is in fact much scientific evidence that the various layers of sediment are deposited in a very short time, some instantaneous, which explains why fossils are preserved in those layers.
The formation in your picture could have been shaped in a very short time.
There is in fact much scientific evidence that the various layers of sediment are deposited in a very short time, some instantaneous, which explains why fossils are preserved in those layers.
The formation in your picture could have been shaped in a very short time.
Plus, you said you are NOT an evolutionist, so why would i come to YOU?
I would prefer to hear form an EVOLUTIONIST.
Thats ONE very loose definition of evolution.
No-one disputes changes within a kind. big dogs, little dogs, etc.
Nope. Never does. Sudden erosion never meanders. Those are almost kilometer-high banks. They were solid rock when they were eroded. Soft sediment always slumps and collapses when it erodes more than a few meters. Would you like me to show you?
There is in fact much scientific evidence that the various layers of sediment are deposited in a very short time, some instantaneous, which explains why fossils are preserved in those layers.Indeed, and with our Omnipotent God it could all be done in less than 24 hours.
The formation in your picture could have been shaped in a very short time.
In the Grand Canyon several of the layer deposits are the result of desert conditions not sea conditions. There is no way that could have happened in a short period of time. And your argument completely avoids the data provided by radiometric dating methods. An excellent discussion of the subject may be found here
[url]http://www.reasons.org/articles/radiometric-dating---a-christian-perspective[/url]
You're off by a little over 1600 years. The realization that Genesis was not a literal history came about long before Darwin or any sort of evolutionary theory.And Jesus teaches us that except you believe as a small child you cannot enter into the kingdom! When I taught the Primaries Class I never, even once, had one of them ask me how the Big Bang "theory" and/or the "Theory" of Evolution fit into the Scriptures.
All that traditional Christian believe refutes is the testimony of YE creationists, and their new interpretation of Genesis.
While denying the traditional Christian understanding of Genesis does not put you outside of His people, referring to those who don't agree with you by putting quote marks around the word "Christian" might be a bad idea.
Have a little humility. Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.
You are not serving the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob for whom nothing is impossible including the Great Delusion e promised to send, the very thing a part of is being discussed here? And Jesus taught us, "Except you believe!"
And Jesus teaches us that except you believe as a small child you cannot enter into the kingdom! When I taught the Primaries Class I never, even once, had one of them ask me how the Big Bang "theory" and/or the "Theory" of Evolution fit into the Scriptures.And it is probably a good thing they didn't since you don't really have a clue about what either theory is; or for that matter even what "theory" means with regard to either.
Again and again, all your presumptions are based upon the false concept that all things are the same as they once were, and continue the same as they always have.
Tell us, since the flood didn't happen
And Jesus teaches us that except you believe as a small child you cannot enter into the kingdom! When I taught the Primaries Class I never, even once, had one of them ask me how the Big Bang "theory" and/or the "Theory" of Evolution fit into the Scriptures.
In the Grand Canyon several of the layer deposits are the result of desert conditions not sea conditions. There is no way that could have happened in a short period of time. And your argument completely avoids the data provided by radiometric dating methods. An excellent discussion of the subject may be found here
[url]http://www.reasons.org/articles/radiometric-dating---a-christian-perspective[/url]
In the Snake River canyon, shown above, there are deserts and forests at different levels in the rock along with animal burrows, insect hives, etc. Seems unlikely that those would have had time to appear in flood deposits being laid down and then be covered during a year-long flood. How do you suppose that happened?
Nope. Never does. Sudden erosion never meanders. Those are almost kilometer-high banks. They were solid rock when they were eroded. Soft sediment always slumps and collapses when it erodes more than a few meters. Would you like me to show you?
In the Grand Canyon several of the layer deposits are the result of desert conditions not sea conditions. There is no way that could have happened in a short period of time. And your argument completely avoids the data provided by radiometric dating methods. An excellent discussion of the subject may be found here
[url]http://www.reasons.org/articles/radiometric-dating---a-christian-perspective[/url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXMcR1D-vSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Maa_V3_GQA
4) God can do in 1 day what man claims should take a 1000 years
Whether He can is not the question. The question is whether He did. God's own creation says He didn't.
DO you have issues with the term "day" in either of the above accounts...or is it only in Genesis where you dispute the term "day"?
And how about you?
Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
How many hours in that day? 24? 144? And how many hours in "the day of the Lord"? 24? 0? Not even measurable in physical earth time?
Yeah, predictable response. You pretend not to see the difference between Genesis 1 & 2?
Yeah I do see the difference. And in neither case is "day" speaking about a 24-hour day as we measure hours and days. You like to insist on a literal reading concerning Genesis, the creation, the garden etc. What is the literal reading of Genesis 3:24?
Don't see a problem. God expelled Adam and Eve and placed an angel to guard access to the garden of Eden.
As far as the Grand Canyon is concerned, there is no proof that desert conditions formed the layers.
Burial of fossils always happens in a short time, it cannot be done over a long time.
There is no evidence of corrosion between layers,
Radiometric dating is proven unreliable.
And where is the garden and that angel now? Where God put them?
How does that matter? Even if anyone knew where it was, you couldn't go there because the angel wouldn't allow you.
Anyway, being part of creation the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood.
And how about you?
Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
How many hours in that day? 24? 144? And how many hours in "the day of the Lord"? 24? 0? Not even measurable in physical earth time?
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were THE first day.
Don't see a problem. God expelled Adam and Eve and placed an angel to guard access to the garden of Eden.
The word translated as "day" can mean "lifetime", "Forever", "always", "in my time", and so one. Christians saw it as a parable, because it's absurd to talk about evenings and mornings with no Sun to have them.
The word translated as "day" can mean "lifetime", "Forever", "always", "in my time", and so one. Christians saw it as a parable, because it's absurd to talk about evenings and mornings with no Sun to have them.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were THE first day.
YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE
Astronomical Records. Because of the rarity of solar eclipses at any given location, and because astronomers can date every solar eclipse going back thousands of years, when an ancient tablet or manuscript mentions a solar eclipse, we can accurately date that record, and other events associated with it in other countries. Before 2250 BC, we have no records of any solar eclipse being seen by man. “The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 BC, based on an astronomical reference in the Book of History”. (Ralph Linten, The Tree of Culture (1955), p 520).
Writing. The oldest writing is a Sumerian pictograph written on clay tablets dated about 3500 BC.
Iron Pot in Coal. Professor W. Rusch has reported an iron pot encased in coal dated by evolutionary standards at 300 million years old. (Creation Research Quarterly (March, 1971) p.201). The pictured affidavit reads as follows: Sulphur Springs, Arkansas, November 27, 1948. While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla. in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression or mold of the pot in the piece of coal. Jim Stall (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines. Frank J. Kenwood Sworn to before me, in Sulphur Springs, Arkansas this 27th day of November, 1948. Julia L (?)
Metal Bowl. An intricately carved metal bowl was blasted out of solid pudding stone. (Scientific American, June 5, 1852).
Pollen in Pre-Cambrian Strata. Pollen from Angiosperm and Gymnosperm trees (woody plants supposedly 260 million years old have been found in Pre Cambrian Hakati shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly 570 million years old). The problem here for evolutionists is conifer pollen existing 300 million years before it appeared on earth. Some spores are stained with red oxide from surrounding rocks, thus proving that the spores are not from present day contamination. Source: Nature, R. Stainforth, 210 (1966) p.292.
Turkmenia. Notice this report in the Sydney Morning Herald, 21 Nov. 1983, “A report from the Soviet news agency, Tass, says that about 1500 tracks made by dinosaurs have been found in Turkmenia – but among those prints are those resembling the footprints of a man. According to Professor Amanniyazov, director of Turkmenia’s Institute of Geology: “If further analysis proves that the prints have been left by anthropoids, the history of mankind will be extended to 150 million, not 5 millionyears.””
Polystrate Trees. Crossing several rock strata are trees preserved as well at their tops as at their bottoms. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary imagined time span of millions of years, that would preclude their “in place” growth and fossilisation.
Galaxy star clusters (spirals with billions of stars) move so rapidly that they would not stay together if the universe were very old.
Large Stars. Some stars are so large that they radiate energy 10,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. They could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate this fast for millions of years, because their initial mass would have been too big.
Abundant Hydrogen in stars. Hydrogen in stars is continually being converted into Helium. Hydrogen cannot be made from other elements. Fred Hoyle states that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists think, then there would be little hydrogen left, as it would be converted to Helium by now.
Solar shrinking. Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun’s diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet per hour. At this rate, 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil earth’s oceans, making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large.
Comets elliptically orbit the sun and are thought to be as old as the sun. As comets orbit the sun, they lose some of their water and gases from the sun’s heat, gravity and tail formation. The tail consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. Some comets regularly seen in the 19th Century have broken up and vanished, or plunged into the sun. All comets should self-destruct in a short ime, less than 10,000 years. There should be no comets left. Evolution cannot explain comets in an old solar system. Comets are young objects created in a young solar system.
Meteoroids bombarding Saturn’s rings would have destroyed them in less than 10,000 years. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 18).
Jupiter’s Moons. If they evolved, they should be physically alike,
d little erosion, imply a young age for Venus.
If Venus was 4 billion years old, its dense atmosphere should have worn away its craters.
Mars has little erosion and some water. Mars has many sharp edged craters and volcanoes
Evolution predicts no surface water and much atmospheric oxygen
Lunar Recession. Due to tidal friction, the moon is moving away from earth at about 4 cm per year (1 ½ inches). At this rate, 5 billion years ago the moon would have been 200,000km. closer.
Meteorite Craters only occur on the earth’s surface, never being found in the rock strata.
Hey, Barbarian, I have to say, I do admire your patience.
[quote[Feinted ignorance. There is an explanation for that; God being light.
That won't work. "Morning" doesn't mean "big light appears in the sky." It means "When the sun comes up." Evening doesn't mean "light goes away." It means "when the sun goes down."
Whether He can is not the question. The question is whether He did. God's own creation says He didn't.
if they were NOT 24 hours, YOU tell US how long it was.
also, how long did the plants survive without light? 24 hours they can cope with. thousands of years? nope.
That statement is not defendable. How about parts of the globe where during specific seasons the sun does not come up?
Are you saying there is no morning?
We connect morning, afternoon and night to specific events,
God created the sun at a later stage
The mere question that needs to be answered is: Can God create something that has no source?
Why is is so difficult for you to accept the existence of God without a source, a universe without a source...and yet reject the existence of light without a source?
Quote from: AVZ on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 21:28:15Quote4) God can do in 1 day what man claims should take a 1000 yearsWhether He can is not the question. The question is whether He did. God's own creation says He didn't.
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
Oil Well Pressure. When oil drillers first penetrate oil wells, oil gushes out because the oil and gas are under great pressure from surrounding rocks. Sedimentary rocks surrounding the oil wells are porous. Studies of these show that the oil would seep out before 100,000 years, but this has not happened.
Earth’s Molten Interior. Deep within the earth, the rocks are molten. The earth is slowly cooling from the surface inwards according to Stefan’s Law of Radiation. Lord Kelvin in 1889 calculated that the earth could not be billions of years old because of earth’s known rate of cooling, the existing temperature gradient in the earth, and the assumption that the earth could not have been hotter than “white hot” initially.“Popular Lectures and Addresses”(London: MacMillan, 1889, p.415). If earth were billions of years old, it would have cooled far more than it now has, even if we assume a radioactively generated heating mechanism. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 17).
Radiohaloes are colour rings around microscopic radioactive minerals in rock crystals. “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohaloes indicate that Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado Plateau were deposited within months of one another, not from 225-255 million years apart, as evolution claims. “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohaloes, having no evidence of their mother elements,imply either instant creation, or drastic changes in radioactive decay rates
Ocean sediment. There is not enough sediment on the sea floors for earth to be 5 billion years old. Rivers add about 28 billion tons of sediment to the oceans each year. If this had occurred for 1 billion years, the continents would have eroded away many times.
Tree Rings. The oldest living things are Bristlecone pines growing in Eastern Nevada, aged about 4,600 years old (sometimes producing 2 growth rings per year, so their age would be less), and Sequoia Gigantea in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which are never older than about 4,000 years. These giant redwoods have no known enemies, and never have any dead trees among them.
Man’s Recorded History.If man has lived on earth for 1 million years, why do we only find human records going back to about 3500 BC?
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
I can't believe you're serious. If clouds diffuse the sunlight, you think people don't call it morning? Seriously?
That's what you seem to be saying.
Specifically, morning is at sunrise, evening is at sunset. That's how it's done.
Which is why Christians realized that Genesis 1 and 2 were not literal histories.
and that's not to say that the light in the first days had to come from the sun. Besides the sun has more functions than just light.
No, the question is: "Does it make sense to have mornngs and evenings with no sun? As Christians have said, no, it doesn't.
(Straw man alert)
Your new doctrine, you need to handle it.
God is truth. The "appearance of age" argument assumes God to be deceptive. So not credible.
You are completely turning my post upside down.
My challenge to you is: in places where the sun does not come up in the morning, are you therefore claiming that there is no morning in those places?
Similarly, there are times in the year in some places where the sun does not go under...
hence you claim those people there do not have evenings?
You say that is does not make sense to have mornings and evenings without the sun.
I disagree
You are simply saying that Genesis is incorrect
I am saying that that's not true
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
And I'm curious, do you believe that everything there is, except God, was created? Do you believe that there was a point in eternity that there was nothing but God, when no creation was yet?
Michael said:QuoteDid God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
God is not deceptive. So He would not do something that would mislead us.
Michael said:QuoteDid God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?I think Augustine had it right. God created the universe in an instant, and then used the nature he had created to develop it as He intended. Notice that He says in Genesis that he uses existing creation to make living things.
Michael said:QuoteAnd I'm curious, do you believe that everything there is, except God, was created? Do you believe that there was a point in eternity that there was nothing but God, when no creation was yet?Only God is eternal. So it's absurd to think of anything else not being created.
God is not deceptive. So He would not do something that would mislead us.
You really have very little esteem for those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
If God is not in the business of deception or misleading, then the accounts in Genesis must be true as they are written down.
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
So, can you tell me, according to your knowledge of things, of science
what of nature did God initially created that developed into the Adam that the Bible said God created?
Can you tell me what of nature did God initially created that developed into the other creatures that evolved into the animals and birds and fish and trees that the Bible said God created?
Also, if God created the universe in an instant, do you say that everything of the universe then is at the same age?
Perhaps, you can tell us, according to your knowledge of things, of science, what God have created instantly
and later go through the process of evolution to be created in time what God intended them to be?
It also suggests the even the phrase ,"there was evening and there was morning" probably does not mean what most think it does since there was no sun or moon to establish what we call evening and morning.AMEN to that. And for what it is worth, it is usually only the YECs that are the wedge drivers in all these discussions.
I personally do not know if evolution of species is true. I've not seen any convincing evidence of it. When I ask others for evidence, I get unjustified claims, and/or scientific jargon that I just don't understand.
When I ask for an explanation, I get, "well, I don't understand it either, but that's what the science says, so it must be true". Well, If I am going to believe something, I'm going to require evidence...not just any evidence, but evidence I understand...evidence that convinces me that it is true.
QuoteIf God is not in the business of deception or misleading, then the accounts in Genesis must be true as they are written down.
Of course they are. They just aren't the way YE creationists have revised them.
Most creationist organizations now acknowledge the fact of speciation. Most acknowledge higher taxa developing from others, perhaps new genera or families. As I understand it, scientists see a single bush with many branches, while most creationists see a series of independent bushes with few branches.
Here's what evolutionary theory says:
Darwin's theory:
1. More are born than can survive to reproduce.
2. Every individual is slightly different than it's fellows.
3. Some of these differences affect the chances of an organism living long enough to reproduce.
4. Those with favorable differences tend to leave more offspring.
5. Each generation, the changes accumulate,and explain the diversity of life.
Genetics, neutralist theories, and punctuated equilibrium have modified his ideas, but these five basic ones remain.
Linnaeus, not aware of evolution produced a tree of living things, a nested hierarchy of life:
The remarkable thing is that DNA tests of the sort that determine paternity and ancestry, produce something very, very close to the tree Linnaeus drew. That's one key point.
The other key point, is that such trees suggest transitional forms. And over time, we have found the predicted forms. What's more important is that we have never found a transitional where there shouldn't be one, according to evolutionary theory.
There are now directly observed speciations, and while this is consistent with the creationist idea of evolution limited to "kinds", the existence of transitional forms between "kinds" is strong evidence for evolution.
There's more. Would you like to talk about it?
Michael said:QuoteDid God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?Barbarian said:QuoteGod is not deceptive. So He would not do something that would mislead us.Michael said:QuoteNobody is saying that God is deceptive, nor that God would do something that would mislead us. So, perhaps you can just give your honest and direct answer to the question.
Michael said:QuoteDid God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?Barbarian said:QuoteI think Augustine had it right. God created the universe in an instant, and then used the nature he had created to develop it as He intended. Notice that He says in Genesis that he uses existing creation to make living things.
Michael said:QuoteCan you tell me what of nature did God initially created that developed into the other creatures that evolved into the animals and birds and fish and trees that the Bible said God created?Barbarian said:QuoteGod says living things came from existing creation, as He willed it to be.
Michael said:QuoteAlso, if God created the universe in an instant, do you say that everything of the universe then is at the same age?Barbarian said:QuoteNo, obviously not. God says from initial creation, there developed land, water, living things, and man's physical body. (He directly intervened to give each of us a soul)
Michael said:QuoteAnd I'm curious, do you believe that everything there is, except God, was created? Do you believe that there was a point in eternity that there was nothing but God, when no creation was yet?Barbarian said:QuoteOnly God is eternal. So it's absurd to think of anything else not being created.Michael said:QuoteI agree. And since that is the truth, then God have created from out of nothing, at least those which you consider what they are in their initial state as they were created.Barbarian said:
That's what He says in Genesis.
Michael said:QuotePerhaps, you can tell us, according to your knowledge of things, of science, what God have created instantlyBarbarian said:QuoteInitially, it seems, there was only energy. This is why atheists were initially so opposed to the Big Bang. It's as though someone said "let there be light."
Michael said:Quoteand later go through the process of evolution to be created in time what God intended them to be?Barbarian said:QuoteThe Bible says He intended living things to appear from his initial creation. We do know some of the details of what happened after life started. What would you like to know?
The only things that seem to have not changed from the initial creation are the rules by which He makes our universe work. Everything else in this world changes.
Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made all things good in their time, and hath delivered the world to their consideration, so that man cannot find out the work which God hath made from the beginning to the end.
Objection 1
If indeed the account in Genesis is true as it is written down, then do you subscribe to the sequence of events:
- Light was created before the sun was created
Land plants were created before sea creatures
Earth was created before any other planet
Objection 2
You say that leading the idea that the creation days are literal 24 hour day would be deceptive by God.
From the generation of Adam to the generations in approximately the 18th century, man did not have access to scientific data and the evolution theory.
Believers from the Jews in the Old Testament to the Christians in the 18th century believed in literal 24 hour creation days.
It is your claim that they were deceived and mislead by God?
According to you morning and evening make sense only when there is a sun.
The sun was created on the 4th day.
Is it therefore your conviction that at least day 4, 5 and 6 are literal 24 hour days since there is a literal morning and an evening in those days?
What do you exactly mean when you say "at an instant'?
Saying "in an instant" have me understand that the universe was created, everything that is what comprise the universe, at the same time and in a very very very tiny amount of time.
Now back to my question. Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
Can you tell me what to you, that which comprise the universe that God created at an instant then, which in time this very created things evolved and developed to be what God intended it to be?
Now, do you not say that evolution is happening this very day and will continue on? If so, do you say that God's intended creation is not yet and will be complete when the process of evolution stops?
Can you tell me what of nature did God initially created that developed into the other creatures that evolved into the animals and birds and fish and trees that the Bible said God created?
So what is your answer to the question?
Also, if God created the universe in an instant, do you say that everything of the universe then is at the same age?
What then do you and science say
was God's initial creation which developed land, water, living things, and man's physical body?
But then, in your take of creation, what creation we now see was not what God initially created.
As such, at the time God creat