Christian Forums

Quote from: Amo on Fri Sep 06, 2019 - 08:27:42Of course not. God does not lie. Nor does He need to create fairy tales to express truth. Evolution, Not. Genetics, we are far from precisely understanding, accepting among those with exaggerated confidence in our abilities apart fro God.

We directly observe evolution going on all around us.    God does not lie. But we do understand how inheritance works, and how populations change over time. 
 

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Apr 18, 2026 - 11:39:57We directly observe evolution going on all around us.    God does not lie. But we do understand how inheritance works, and how populations change over time.

Yea, I'm not going to go back to a post from 7 years ago to figure out the context of that being discussed at that time, to respond to your above 7 years delayed response.

We do not observe evolution going on all around us. Change is not evolution. It can and does often observably represent de-evolution. Often also observably representing adaptions, which may or may not revert when the conditions requiring adaption disappear. We have never observed the simple to highly complex organisms the theory of evolution purports. We have and do observe extinctions, and the evidences of mass extinctions, to the effect that the opposite of evolution is exactly what has been occurring on this planet for a long time now.

Species are quite apparently disappearing far more rapidly than any kind of theoretical evolutions can keep up with. As we observe even apart from the obvious mass extinctions of the past, several extinctions during our lives, while concurrently observing no increased speciations due to evolutionary processes at all.

God does not have to lie about anything related to the false theory of evolution, since His Holy Scriptures speak nowhere at all about any such thing.

Again, change is not evolution according to the theory. If the theory be true, there must be increased complexity, information required to such complexity, and functionality accordingly. All of which we do not and have not observed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekT6tBXhEoM

Basic Creationist observations.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Apr 18, 2026 - 18:21:43https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekT6tBXhEoM

Basic Creationist observations.

That view of the sedimentary layers is the most ridiculous theory that anyone could possibly conjure up.  He had earthquakes caused by plate tectonics occurring in the 150 days of the flood sending tsunamis back and forth across the earth building up the sedimentary layers seen at various locations. What absolute nonsense. In Arizona, Mt. Humphrey at 12,600 feet the San Fransico Peaks sits on top of those Grand Canyon layers.  Did that get washed up along with all those layers too as the tsunamis swept back and forth across the earth?


Tell me, Amo; is that some of that Holy Scriptures simply stated that you keep talking about?  What a joke.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Apr 19, 2026 - 04:12:16That view of the sedimentary layers is the most ridiculous theory that anyone could possibly conjure up.  He had earthquakes caused by plate tectonics occurring in the 150 days of the flood sending tsunamis back and forth across the earth building up the sedimentary layers seen at various locations. What absolute nonsense. In Arizona, Mt. Humphrey at 12,600 feet the San Fransico Peaks sits on top of those Grand Canyon layers.  Did that get washed up along with all those layers too as the tsunamis swept back and forth across the earth?


Tell me, Amo; is that some of that Holy Scriptures simply stated that you keep talking about?  What a joke.

Gen 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in. 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

The above is what is simply stated in Holy Scripture. All the fountains of the great deep being broken open, sounds a lot like earthquakes to me. The following link is regarding one theory concerning the biblical testimony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9ZGt9UA-U

This theory about that which was not observed by any, is certainly tenable according as Holy Scripture has described the global flood. It is still just a theory though, regarding the evidence which can be observed concerning an event which none have seen. Just like countless other theories developed over time. Moses described what God apparently revealed to him, which a great any theorists reject as an actual event. Including yourself I do believe, regarding it being a global event at least.

Creationist theories are certainly no more of a joke than those of evolutionists or anyone else regarding the unseen events of the past which have left the evidence we all may see or examine presently. They are simply based upon faith in the testimony of Holy Scripture as their foundation, rather than the conjectures or best guesses of fallen humanity. As always, the foundations of any theory, are based upon faith in those who lay the foundations. The proceeding examinations and deductions being performed in order to support or prove these foundations.

Holy Scripture and the global flood account are not jokes. Some people have great faith in them, including many a scientist. Who therefore proceed with their examination of the evidence we all have before us, according to this most trust worthy source and foundation. You and many others simply choose other foundations, and interpret Holy Scripture accordingly, rather than using it as the foundation of your research and attending theories. So be it.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You are free of course, to show us how the Holy Scriptures support what you believe, over and above that of others.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Apr 19, 2026 - 08:39:01Gen 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the ground. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the ground forty days and forty nights. 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the land after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in. 17 And the flood was forty days upon the ground; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the ground. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon theground; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the ground; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the ground, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the ground, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the ground: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

The above is what is simply stated in Holy Scripture. All the fountains of the great deep being broken open, sounds a lot like earthquakes to me. The following link is regarding one theory concerning the biblical testimony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9ZGt9UA-U

This theory about that which was not observed by any, is certainly tenable according as Holy Scripture has described the global flood. It is still just a theory though, regarding the evidence which can be observed concerning an event which none have seen. Just like countless other theories developed over time. Moses described what God apparently revealed to him, which a great any theorists reject as an actual event. Including yourself I do believe, regarding it being a global event at least.

Creationist theories are certainly no more of a joke than those of evolutionists or anyone else regarding the unseen events of the past which have left the evidence we all may see or examine presently. They are simply based upon faith in the testimony of Holy Scripture as their foundation, rather than the conjectures or best guesses of fallen humanity. As always, the foundations of any theory, are based upon faith in those who lay the foundations. The proceeding examinations and deductions being performed in order to support or prove these foundations.

Holy Scripture and the global flood account are not jokes. Some people have great faith in them, including many a scientist. Who therefore proceed with their examination of the evidence we all have before us, according to this most trust worthy source and foundation. You and many others simply choose other foundations, and interpret Holy Scripture accordingly, rather than using it as the foundation of your research and attending theories. So be it.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You are free of course, to show us how the Holy Scriptures support what you believe, over and above that of others.

From Strongs:

H776

אֶרֶץ

'erets

eh'-rets

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): -    X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Apr 19, 2026 - 10:04:42From Strongs:

H776

אֶרֶץ

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Apr 19, 2026 - 10:04:42From Strongs:

H776

אֶרֶץ

'erets

eh'-rets

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): -    X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

Probably meaning tells me if someone else comes along with a plausible definition/explanation it will be considered as valid because there may not be any probably in it.   

This kind of thing drives me nuts

Quote from: Rella on Wed Apr 22, 2026 - 06:30:53Probably meaning tells me if someone else comes along with a plausible definition/explanation it will be considered as valid because there may not be any probably in it.   

This kind of thing drives me nuts

It is not the word "erets" that probably means firm, it is the unused root. There is no probably about the meaning of erets". It takes on, depending upon the context, the words indicated.

My point in the post is that what was identified as what was "simply stated as Holy Scripture" could just as well be, and probably was, presented as a local or regional extent of the flood of Noah and not the global catastrophe as required by the YEC. 

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Apr 22, 2026 - 07:59:37It is not the word "erets" that probably means firm, it is the unused root. There is no probably about the meaning of erets". It takes on, depending upon the context, the words indicated.

My point in the post is that what was identified as what was "simply stated as Holy Scripture" could just as well be, and probably was, presented as a local or regional extent of the flood of Noah and not the global catastrophe as required by the YEC. 

 

Quote from: Amo on Sat Apr 18, 2026 - 18:19:00We do not observe evolution going on all around us.

We do. 

QuoteChange is not evolution.

That's exactly what the word means.  More specifically, biological evolution:
Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification

It's merely a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.  Or as Darwin put it, descent with modification.

QuoteIt can and does often observably represent de-evolution.

Just as there is no such thing as deceleration in physics (acceleration is a change in velocity), there is no such thing as "de-evolution" in biology.

QuoteOften also observably representing adaptions, which may or may not revert when the conditions requiring adaption disappear.

"Evolution" and "adaptation" are two different things. 

• Getting a sun tan is adaptation, but not evolution.
• A neutral mutation in a population is evolution, but not adaptation.
• Ability to digest lactose in adult human populations is adaptation and evolution.

QuoteWe have never observed the simple to highly complex organisms the theory of evolution purports.

We've never observed a miles-high mountain erode to low hills either.   For the same reason.   No one is puzzled as to why.   But we see populations evolve all around us.   Even human populations are seen to evolve.

QuoteSpecies are quite apparently disappearing far more rapidly than any kind of theoretical evolutions can keep up with.

That happens periodically.   Likewise, we see that there were periods of great speciations, such as the early Cambrian, the Devonian, and the Jurassic.

QuoteGod does not have to lie about anything related to the false theory of evolution, since His Holy Scriptures speak nowhere at all about any such thing.

He doesn't speak of protons or RNA, either.   

QuoteAgain, change is not evolution according to the theory.

That's exactly what it is.   A change in allele frequency in a population over time.

QuoteIf the theory be true, there must be increased complexity,

No, that's wrong.   For example, the evolution of mammals was due to simplification of many features.   Would you like to learn about that?

However, we also see examples of increasing complexity.  The evolution of a new digestive organ in some Adriatic Island lizards, for example.
 

Quote from: The Barbarian on Thu Apr 23, 2026 - 16:40:52We do. 

That's exactly what the word means.  More specifically, biological evolution:
Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification

It's merely a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.  Or as Darwin put it, descent with modification.

Just as there is no such thing as deceleration in physics (acceleration is a change in velocity), there is no such thing as "de-evolution" in biology.

"Evolution" and "adaptation" are two different things. 

• Getting a sun tan is adaptation, but not evolution.
• A neutral mutation in a population is evolution, but not adaptation.
• Ability to digest lactose in adult human populations is adaptation and evolution.

We've never observed a miles-high mountain erode to low hills either.   For the same reason.   No one is puzzled as to why.   But we see populations evolve all around us.   Even human populations are seen to evolve.

That happens periodically.   Likewise, we see that there were periods of great speciations, such as the early Cambrian, the Devonian, and the Jurassic.

He doesn't speak of protons or RNA, either.   

That's exactly what it is.   A change in allele frequency in a population over time.

No, that's wrong.   For example, the evolution of mammals was due to simplification of many features.   Would you like to learn about that?

However, we also see examples of increasing complexity.  The evolution of a new digestive organ in some Adriatic Island lizards, for example.
 

Change and evolution are not identical terms. Change is broader; evolution in biology refers to inherited changes in populations over generations. It does not mean "things came from nothing," nor does the scientific term itself make a statement about whether God exists. It describes a natural process as understood in biology.

Where many believers raise concern is not over the word itself, but when natural explanations are treated as if they remove the need for a Creator or final cause. That becomes a philosophical claim, not merely a biological one.

Isaiah reminds us not to reverse the relationship between maker and made. Colossians warns against any philosophy that exalts itself over truth. Those are enduring cautions against pride, whether religious pride or secular pride.

A fair way to state your concern would be this: studying processes in nature is one thing; claiming those processes eliminate God is another. Those are not the same argument.

Faith and science often conflict most when each is asked to do the other's job.

In that way we do not know Christ who works in us with us after the dead rudiments of this world.

 In that way Christ said let the dead bury the dead.

Quote from: garee on Fri Apr 24, 2026 - 07:01:52Change and evolution are not identical terms. Change is broader; evolution in biology refers to inherited changes in populations over generations. It does not mean "things came from nothing," nor does the scientific term itself make a statement about whether God exists. It describes a natural process as understood in biology.

Yes.

QuoteWhere many believers raise concern is not over the word itself, but when natural explanations are treated as if they remove the need for a Creator or final cause. That becomes a philosophical claim, not merely a biological one.

Yes.   Science is methodologically naturalistic, like plumbing and auto repair.   Science can't find God, but scientists can.

QuoteA fair way to state your concern would be this: studying processes in nature is one thing; claiming those processes eliminate God is another. Those are not the same argument.

Faith and science often conflict most when each is asked to do the other's job.

Well said.
 

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Apr 19, 2026 - 10:04:42From Strongs:

H776

אֶרֶץ

'erets

eh'-rets

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): -    X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

Yes, this is why context matters. It is one thing to think one word might have a different meaning than some make of it. It is another altogether to ignore the entire context of an account which fully supports the meaning of the word as translated and accepted by Creationists.

Gen 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in. 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ0ocwMbluU

All descended from Noah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DarqvGP994

My sentiments exactly, as often stated upon this thread. It is about where one really centers their faith. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4vYkFSivpQ

Noah's Ark?

Quote from: Amo on Sat Apr 25, 2026 - 16:54:03https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DarqvGP994

My sentiments exactly, as often stated upon this thread. It is about where one really centers their faith. 

A classic case of really bad logic, i.e., beginning with the hypothesis that any view other than a YEC view is atheist. Bad logic because it the hypothesis is wrong.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Apr 25, 2026 - 18:05:12A classic case of really bad logic, i.e., beginning with the hypothesis that any view other than a YEC view is atheist. Bad logic because it the hypothesis is wrong.

The video wasn't saying that. It was saying that a completely naturalistic theory like evolution, is necessary to atheism. Not that everything other than YEC is atheism. How ones fundamental faith, effects how they will ultimately view the evidence, and form their theories. Such as -

Heb 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.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Apr 26, 2026 - 08:05:16The video wasn't saying that.

Then you didn't listen very well to what was said.  Clearly only Young Earth Creationism was considered to be creationism.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Apr 26, 2026 - 08:05:16Heb 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.

Nothing in that verse precludes God's creating by means of the Big Bang.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Apr 26, 2026 - 14:03:49Nothing in that verse precludes God's creating by means of the Big Bang.

Amen. nothing precludes the living word .

Paraphrased . By the powerful faithfulness of Christ, the living Word spoken—"Let there be"—we understand that all things seen were brought forth by God from what is unseen, revealing His eternal power and love

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Apr 26, 2026 - 14:01:26Then you didn't listen very well to what was said.  Clearly only Young Earth Creationism was considered to be creationism.

No, your presumptions lead you to that conclusion. YEC's know there are many others from other religions who believe in other forms of creation, and even Christians who believe in a different form of creation than the one Holy Scripture clearly and simply states. It is atheism alone which has no choice but evolution by natural processes.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Apr 26, 2026 - 14:03:49Nothing in that verse precludes God's creating by means of the Big Bang.

So, nothing can explode and create everything? God exploded nothing unto creation? Which required many billions of years?  Please do expound.

Quote from: Amo on Today at 08:23:13So, nothing can explode and create everything? God exploded nothing unto creation? Which required many billions of years?  Please do expound.

The creation was in the Big Bang.  Everything nonbiological after the Big Bang proceeded naturally from it. You don't seem to understand the difference between what God created and what was produced from what He created.

Quote from: Amo on Today at 08:21:11No, your presumptions lead you to that conclusion.

You obviously didn't listen very well to what was said there.