Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I was, and it was fascinating.   I would like to hear more, if there's more that's relevant to the question.

I'm glad someone got something out of it.  The fella I responded to sure didn't.  It seems like it may have been a while since he opened the curtains and let any light shine in.

[Amo]

http://www.educatetruth.com/news/newly-discovered-human-footprints-undermine-evolutionary-assumptions/

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Additional problems for this story include a long-known fact that modern human footprints have been found in the same layers as the Australopithecine remains, dating some 3.6 million years old (the Laetoli Footprints)... which poses a problem since Australopithecines did not have human-like feet, but feet like tree-climbing chimps.

Now, it turns out, that actual human footprints have been found outside of Africa, in Crete of all places, dating at 5.7 million years old (The age of the footprints were analyzed using foraminifera, a method to analyze marine microfossils, as well as the position of the prints in the sedimentary layer where they were found which were dated by radiometric dating techniques – Link). This makes these footprints quite a bit older, by the dating methods used, than the supposed human ancestors in Africa that had yet to evolve detectably beyond what would today be recognized and nothing more than a tree-climbing chimp. The prints were originally discovered by Polish Geological Institute paleontologist Gerard Gierlinski, while he was on a Crete vacation in 2002. The prints have undergone over a decade of study since then. "The unique shape of the footprints found in Crete reflect a foot that supports upright-standing human beings. The long sole, short toes, one big toe, distinctive foot ball, and absence of claws of this print are undeniably human. If this was a print of a great ape it would more likely resemble a human hand."

The most reasonable conclusion is, of course, that all of these creatures lived at the same time... and that these sedimentary layers are not records of millions of years of time and evolution, but of shortly-spaced events in the geologic record.


https://world.wng.org/content/unexpected_footprints_deal_blow_to_evolution

Unexpected footprints deal blow to evolution

Researchers just discovered ancient human footprints on the Greek island of Crete that undermine the Darwinian theory of the descent of humans.

Per Ahlberg, one of the study authors, admitted in a statement, "This discovery challenges the established narrative of early human evolution head-on and is likely to generate a lot of debate."

The new discovery presents difficulties for evolutionary theory in two ways.

First, evolutionary scientists believe human beings originated in Africa and remained isolated there for a long time before they migrated to Europe and Asia. But the footprints could indicate humans trekked on the Greek island long before evolutionists thought they migrated out of Africa.

In light of creationists' differing viewpoints about the age of the Earth and the creation of human beings, it's not clear exactly what the study proves about early humans. But it serves to disprove Darwinian assumptions about where humans originated and how they spread out.

Second, the appearance of the footprints doesn't make sense within an evolutionary framework. The unique structure of the human foot—with a long sole, five short, forward-pointing toes, no claws, and a big toe larger than the other toes—does not appear in any other animal, including apes.

Evolutionary theory would expect human feet to appear later in the fossil record than other fossils without human feet. But the footprints on Crete are older than many fossils of animals that evolutionists consider the ancestors of modern humans.

[The Barbarian]

Additional problems for this story include a long-known fact that modern human footprints have been found in the same layers as the Australopithecine remains, dating some 3.6 million years old (the Laetoli Footprints)... which poses a problem since Australopithecines did not have human-like feet, but feet like tree-climbing chimps.

You've been misled about that.   While Australopithecine toes were somewhat different than those of modern humans, their toes and feet were far more like those of modern humans than like those of other apes.   No opposable big toe, for example.   

Though the prints found in Eritrea are believed to be the oldest Homo erectus footprints discovered to date, they are far from the oldest hominid prints known to exist. In the late 1970s, a team of archaeologists led by Mary Leakey found a trail of footprints measuring some 27 meters (88 feet) long, preserved in layers of wet volcanic ash in Laetoli, Tanzania. The 70 footprints in the trail were identified as 3.8-million-year-old tracks made by Australopithecus afarensis, the first of man's ancestors to walk upright.
http://www.history.com/news/archaeologists-discover-possible-homo-erectus-footprints-in-east-africa

Would you like me to show you some fossil Australopithine toes to see how they differ from apes and humans?

And those later hominins such as H. erectus were pretty much exactly like those of modern humans.    We differ from H. erectus almost entirely in our skulls; the postcranial skeletons of H. sapiens and H. erectus are very similar.

Now, it turns out, that actual human footprints have been found outside of Africa, in Crete of all places, dating at 5.7 million years old

Crete was then not an island, but a part of the Mediterranean shore, so that's not  so surprising.

The most reasonable conclusion is, of course, that all of these creatures lived at the same time... and that these sedimentary layers are not records of millions of years of time and evolution, but of shortly-spaced events in the geologic record.

That's a huge assumption, not supported by the evidence.   As as you see from Laetoli,  modern-looking feet are much more ancient than the genus Homo.

 

[Jean74]

You can either believe in Creationism which is from God. Or evolution that is not from God. Will leave it at that.

[Alan]

You can either believe in Creationism which is from God. Or evolution that is not from God. Will leave it at that.

Funny post after 30 pages of dialogue 

[The Barbarian]

You can either believe in Creationism which is a modern revision of the Bble,. Or evolution that is the way God made the diversity of life we see. Will leave it at that.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter to your salvation, which one you accept.   

[Amo]

You can either believe in Creationism which is a modern revision of the Bble,. Or evolution that is the way God made the diversity of life we see. Will leave it at that.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter to your salvation, which one you accept.   

So says self proclaimed prophet of God, Barbarian. The Apostle Paul prophesied otherwise however, concerning Barbarian and others of the like.

2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.[/b][/u][/size]

What do Barbarian and his cohorts do but deny Moses' account of creation, the fall, and the flood. They are "men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith", as Paul and the scriptures testify. According to them, Moses' accounts of the same are just stories with moral lessons, and certainly not the truth "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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." They argue against all evidence supporting Moses' accounts of these events, whether they be scriptural, historical, scientific. They choose to stand with Jannes and Jambres in defiance of Moses teachings given by the inspiration of God for humanity.

[Alan]

So says self proclaimed prophet of God, Barbarian. The Apostle Paul prophesied otherwise however, concerning Barbarian and others of the like.

2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

What do Barbarian and his cohorts do but deny Moses' account of creation, the fall, and the flood. They are "men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith", as Paul and the scriptures testify. According to them, Moses' accounts of the same are just stories with moral lessons, and certainly not the truth "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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." They argue against all evidence supporting Moses' accounts of these events, whether they be scriptural, historical, scientific. They choose to stand with Jannes and Jambres in defiance of Moses teachings given by the inspiration of God for humanity.

Your sarcastic reply says nothing of which you claim.

[Amo]

http://www.icr.org/article/812/

Evolution and the Pope
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation

According to the Vatican Information Service in a news release on October 23, Pope John Paul II was reported as saying that evolution is "more than just a theory." This seems to mean, despite the tenuous wording, that he now considers evolution a scientific fact. His written message to his science advisers, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, speaks of "a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge" which have convinced him to make this bold statement supporting evolution and suggesting that his millions of followers do the same.

One cannot help suspecting that the recent spate of events and media articles "puffing" evolution is being orchestrated somewhere to combat the modern resurgence of creationism around the world. The facts are so trivial but the propaganda has been so high and mighty. There was that widespread furor, for example, about the lone Colorado student who had the temerity to ask his local school to tone down its dogmatic teaching of the naturalistic origin of life.

And what about the sudden media announcement that a small rock found in Antarctica has now "proved" that life has evolved all over the universe? There is also the widespread publicity about Bill Moyer's series of public telecasts rethinking Genesis. And a new series of anti-creationist articles in such establishment journals as Time, Harper's, Life, Scientific c American, Newsweek, and others.

Now comes the Pope with his "surprise" announcement that it is acceptable for Catholics to believe and teach evolutionism. He did include the small proviso that they should still allow God to create each human soul. Atheism thus remains inappropriate for Catholics, and that's a relief to know!

As a matter of fact, this public papal evolutionism is hardly a surprise to anyone who has followed the pronouncements of the last four popes, or who is familiar with the teachings of the various Catholic colleges and seminaries in this country. Even the last true conservative pope, Pius XII, in his famous 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis, while not promoting evolutionism and still seeming to lean toward special creation, did make a point of allowing Catholics to study and accept evolution as a scientific theory of origins, again with the limitation that God created the soul, and that all men are descendants of Adam, along with the doctrine of original sin as inherited from Adam.

The freedom to study and teach evolution with this constraint seemed very quickly to result in the widespread acceptance of theistic evolutionism in Catholic institutions and churches everywhere. As far as the present pope, John Paul II, is concerned, he has been an evolutionist in this sense probably since his youth. Despite this sudden supposed surprising pontificating, it is nothing new to his personal beliefs.....................................

Perhaps the most influential evolutionist among Catholic theologians was the Jesuit priest, Teilhard de Chardin, now considered in effect to be almost the "patron saint" of the New Age movement with his strong pantheistic evolutionism. Teilhard was involved in the controversial discoveries of both Piltdown Man and Peking Man, and vigorously promoted total evolutionism all his life, greatly influencing such leading secular evolutionists as Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Gaylord Simpson, and Sir Julian Huxley. His books were banned at one time by the Catholic church but have apparently become respectable, and even very influential among Catholics during the reigns of the recent more liberal popes.

There have been many other leading evolutionary scientists in the domain of Catholicism, and this description would certainly apply to most of the scientists of the Pontifical Academy. On the other hand, we need to recognize that there are many strong creationists, not only among lay Catholics, but also among Catholic scientists as well. We could mention Dr. Guy Berthault of France, for example, whose studies on sedimentation have been profoundly significant in refuting geological uniformitarianism. Two Italian creationists, Dr. Roberto Fondi (paleontologist) and Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti (geneticist) have published important scientific books and papers refuting evolution. There are many others.
.............................

All cults and movements associated with the "new world order" of the so-called New Age Movement have two things in common—evolutionism as their base and globalism as their goal. It is disturbing now to see even many large evangelical movements (e.g., Promise Keepers, charismatic ecumenism) inadvertently drifting into the same orbit while eulogizing this evolutionist pope.

The pope insists, of course, that Catholic evolutionists must still believe that God started the universe with its Big Bang and still creates each human soul. The scientific establishment, however, will never be content ultimately with anything less than total evolutionism.

[Amo]

Your sarcastic reply says nothing of which you claim.

There was no sarcasm involved.

[Amo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/07/16/piltdown-hoax-said-to-involve-jesuit-scholar/badaebe9-20b5-46c6-9d03-afe85d5d3da2/?utm_term=.bb8782550317

The Piltdown Man Hoax, the most spectacular scientific fraud of the 20th century, was cooked up in part by the well-known French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Harvard historian of science has concluded.

Writing in the August issue of National History, magazine published by New York's American Museum of National History, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould lays out a solid though circumstantial case that Teilhard was an active and willing accomplice of Charles Dawson, the British naturalist who has long been accused as the lone culprit in the hoax.

"I have found a pattern that seems hard to reconcile with his [Teilhard's] innocence," Gould writes after more than a year of scientific detective work in unearthing the French priest's role in the hoax. "My case is, to be sure, circumstantial, but I believe that the burden of proof must now rest with those who would hold Father Teilhard blameless."

[Alan]

There was no sarcasm involved.

So says the self proclaimed prophet of God, Barbarian.

Sounds pretty sarcastic to me, especially since he's never made such a claim.

[The Barbarian]

So says self proclaimed prophet of God, Barbarian.

It is quite a serious thing for someone to claim to be a prophet of God.   And as you know, I did not do that.   I think you wrote without thinking about the implication, and I forgive you.  Often, when someone posts something that makes me upset, I go away from the keyboard for a bit, and only respond later.   It's kept me from embarrassing myself more than once.

By showing you the undeniable evidence for evolution, I am not in any way disparaging your faith in God.   There are perfectly decent and God-loving Christians who are YE creationists.    We should all have the humility and charity to realize that Christians are not united on this question, and to accept that it is not a salvation issue unless one makes an idol of science or of creationism.   Far as I know, no one here does that. 

Let's treat each other with charity and respect.

[Amo]

Anyone claiming superior knowledge of the word of God to instruct others, is claiming to be a prophet of God. Moses, a prophet of God, says one thing about creation, the fall, and the flood, and you say another. Your claim is that you know what Moses really meant, which is not what He simply said. Who but a prophet can know for certain what another prophet really meant by his testimony, which is not what he plainly said. The prophet Moses could not express what you claim to know, and can and do express and tell humanity concerning our existence. How is it that one with such superior knowledge of God's word, would not be considered a prophet? You can explain what Moses, a prophet of God could not.

[The Barbarian]

Anyone claiming superior knowledge of the word if God to instruct others, is claiming to be a prophet of God.

My wife was religious education director for our parish.    I had no idea she was a prophet...

Moses, a prophet of God, says one thing about creation, the fall, and the flood, and you say another.

Nope.   As you know, early Christians recognized that the Genesis account was figurative, not a literal history.   But even the dissenters who said it was a literal account, were still Christians as much as those who accepted Moses' version.

Your claim is that you know what Moses really meant, which is not what He simply said. Who but a prophet can know for certain what another prophet really meant by his testimony, which is not what he plainly said.

If so, every theologian in history was a prophet.    I don't think so.   Moreover, if you're claiming to know what Moses really meant, aren't you now claiming to be  prophet, by your own measure?

We may disagree on  whether Moses meant it as a literal history or as a figurative parable.   Christians have always disagreed on this.    It doesn't mean that you or I are claiming to be prophets; we just disagree.   And it doesn't affect our salvation either way.

[Amo]

It is quite a serious thing for someone to claim to be a prophet of God.   And as you know, I did not do that.   I think you wrote without thinking about the implication, and I forgive you.  Often, when someone posts something that makes me upset, I go away from the keyboard for a bit, and only respond later.   It's kept me from embarrassing myself more than once.

By showing you the undeniable evidence for evolution, I am not in any way disparaging your faith in God.   There are perfectly decent and God-loving Christians who are YE creationists.    We should all have the humility and charity to realize that Christians are not united on this question, and to accept that it is not a salvation issue unless one makes an idol of science or of creationism.   Far as I know, no one here does that. 

Let's treat each other with charity and respect.

You have not shown anyone any undeniable evidence of the evolutionary theory. Your claim to be able to do so though, at the very least, is the claim of a prophet of God. You claim to reveal that which is undeniable. This is an attribute which belongs only to God, and those who serve Him. God alone will back this claim up with His personal presents and actions in the near future. Those who have served Him will be vindicated and justified at that time as those alone who presented the undeniable truth. They are the prophets of God, and will be proved to be so by God Himself when He returns to set all records straight. At that time, one of us will be revealed as a false prophet, and the other as a true prophet. Contrary to popular belief, it is not OK to preach and teach a lie, nor will any who do such enter the kingdom of heaven.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

[Amo]

My wife was religious education director for our parish.    I had no idea she was a prophet...

Nope.   As you know, early Christians recognized that the Genesis account was figurative, not a literal history.   But even the dissenters who said it was a literal account, were still Christians as much as those who accepted Moses' version.

If so, every theologian in history was a prophet.    I don't think so.   Moreover, if you're claiming to know what Moses really meant, aren't you now claiming to be  prophet, by your own measure?

We may disagree on  whether Moses meant it as a literal history or as a figurative parable.   Christians have always disagreed on this.    It doesn't mean that you or I are claiming to be prophets; we just disagree.   And it doesn't affect our salvation either way.

All who preach or teach the word of God, are professed prophets of God. One does not need to have a vision or communication directly from God to prophesy. All who claim to believe and teach what the scriptures proclaim, prophesy when they do so. Thus many who do so are false prophets who preach and teach the word according to their own understanding, rather than the plain testimony of the word of God or special revelation concerning the same.

Mt 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

1 Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

[Amo]

My wife was religious education director for our parish.    I had no idea she was a prophet...

Nope.   As you know, early Christians recognized that the Genesis account was figurative, not a literal history.   But even the dissenters who said it was a literal account, were still Christians as much as those who accepted Moses' version.

If so, every theologian in history was a prophet.    I don't think so.   Moreover, if you're claiming to know what Moses really meant, aren't you now claiming to be  prophet, by your own measure?

We may disagree on  whether Moses meant it as a literal history or as a figurative parable.   Christians have always disagreed on this.    It doesn't mean that you or I are claiming to be prophets; we just disagree.   And it doesn't affect our salvation either way.

None of the prophets or apostles ever disagreed at all over this issue. What you claim always existed, does not exist in scripture. It is a lie.

[The Barbarian]

You have not shown anyone any undeniable evidence of the evolutionary theory.

Young Earth creationist Kurt Wise says:

Evidences for Darwin's second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Even many YE creationists admit the fact.

Your claim to be able to do so though, at the very least, is the claim of a prophet of God.

No.  It is scientific evidence, and has nothing to do with religious belief.

You claim to reveal that which is undeniable.

As you see, a YE creationist (who happens to be well-educated, with a PhD in paleontology) acknowledges the fact.

[The Barbarian]

All who preach or teach the word of God, are professed prophets of God.

Perhaps you don't know what "prophet" means in Christian theology.   All the OT prophets received their message directly from God.   The last prophet was John the Baptist, who foretold the coming of Christ.

Our role as teachers is not to produce new revelations, but to spread the good news given by the prophets.

[The Barbarian]

None of the prophets or apostles ever disagreed at all over this issue.

None of them even commented as to whether Genesis was a literal history or a parable.   It just wasn't an issue of much concern, since it didn't matter to the lessons God was teaching.   Only after the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the early 1900s, did it become an issue.


 

[Amo]

Young Earth creationist Kurt Wise says:
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

Even many YE creationists admit the fact.

No.  It is scientific evidence, and has nothing to do with religious belief.

As you see, a YE creationist (who happens to be well-educated, with a PhD in paleontology) acknowledges the fact.

Oh Kurt says, well that certainly makes evolution undeniable. Not.

No, YE creationists do not believe the millions of years scenario of gradual evolution which the theory requires. Change is real, the theory of evolution is false. There is nothing undeniable about it, but within the minds of those who think to highly of their own intellect and wisdom above all others.

[Amo]

Perhaps you don't know what "prophet" means in Christian theology.   All the OT prophets received their message directly from God.   The last prophet was John the Baptist, who foretold the coming of Christ.

Our role as teachers is not to produce new revelations, but to spread the good news given by the prophets.

1 Corinthians 14King James Version (KJV)

14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. 6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? 7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. 11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. 12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. 13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. 16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. 18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. 23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. 26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

All should seek to prophesy, and all who expound upon scripture and claim knowledge enough to explain it to others prophesy. What will we share with humanity of the truth of God and His word that has not come to us by revelation from God Himself. All who share supposed truth from God which does not come from the revelation of God Himself, are false prophets. They preach, teach, and prophesy their own understanding in defiance and contradiction to the plain testimony of God's word.

Mt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

We either teach, preach, or prophesy under the influence of the Holy Spirit of God, or under the influence of another. If our words are inspired by the Holy Spirit of God then they are truth and we will be justified in sharing them. If they are inspired from the evil one or self we will be condemned in sharing them, for they will be lies against the Holy Spirit of God who convicts all of the truths of God's word. Your evolutionary theory is found nowhere in scripture, and contradicts the plain testimony of Moses a prophet of God. Do you admit, that you have no inspiration from the Holy Spirit of God in stating that the theory of evolution is undeniable? Or do you claim to be under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God when you claim such? 

[The Barbarian]

So, we understand then, that you are a self-proclaimed prophet?

Quite a change from your claim that I was a self-proclaimed prophet.

[Amo]

None of them even commented as to whether Genesis was a literal history or a parable.   It just wasn't an issue of much concern, since it didn't matter to the lessons God was teaching.   Only after the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the early 1900s, did it become an issue.

This is a lie, and complete denial of scriptural testimony. It has increasingly become an issue since the theory of evolution has been increasingly developed over the years, and has been accepted by professed "Christians". This was and is unavoidable because the theory of evolution and the scriptures contradict each other. Thus the increasing friction between the proponents of either. The bible does not support the theory of evolution at all, save in the minds of those who will make it so according to their own will and understanding.

Did SDA creationists write the book of Genesis, or any other parts of the scriptures which back up and or refer to it's testimony as established truth. YE creationism began at creation of course, and was written down for humanity by Moses in the first book of the bible. Your denial of this most obvious fact, reveals the depth of your own denial and deception. Here you are denying the existence of YE creation 4000 years after it was recorded by Moses the prophet of God. SDA's didn't make this stuff up, they believe exactly what Moses said, which you deny. Countless Jews and Christians have believed in YE creation throughout history. Your choice to deny this changes nothing.

[Amo]

So, we understand then, that you are a self-proclaimed prophet?

Quite a change from your claim that I was a self-proclaimed prophet.

I prophesy concerning the teachings of scripture, you claim to be a prophet with new light. The light of long ages of evolution over the plain testimony of YE creation written by Moses. If what you say is true and revelation from God, then it is new light above and beyond scripture. I make no such claims. What I believe is based upon scripture, this alone is why it may be considered prophecy, because of scripture not me. What you believe and teach is not from scripture. It cannot be found anywhere in scripture, but by special revelation from God apparently, thus you claim special revelation do you not? If not what do you claim as the source of your revelation?

[Alan]

Not everything we encounter is written in the bible, nor do we need to stretch what scripture says in order to carry forth our beliefs.

[4WD]

Not everything we encounter is written in the bible, nor do we need to stretch what scripture says in order to carry forth our beliefs.

HEAR ! !  HEAR ! !

[Amo]

There is no getting the theory of evolution out of scripture, without stretching it.

[Alan]

There is no getting the theory of evolution out of scripture, without stretching it.

Just because it isn't written doesn't mean it isn't so, scripture fails to mention a heliocentric solar system, in fact it makes a few mentions of geocentrism related to an "unmovable earth", I'm sure at one time, many theologians discussed the unbiblical lie that the earth revolves around the sun. In time, evolution will be far more evident that can be verified even today, and the church will widely accept it because it is the truth.

[Amo]

Just because it isn't written doesn't mean it isn't so, scripture fails to mention a heliocentric solar system, in fact it makes a few mentions of geocentrism related to an "unmovable earth", I'm sure at one time, many theologians discussed the unbiblical lie that the earth revolves around the sun. In time, evolution will be far more evident that can be verified even today, and the church will widely accept it because it is the truth.

The explanation of our origins is written in the bible, evolutionists just reject what is written as untrue or just a story with moral implications. The bible does not attempt to explain the finer details of our solar system or the movement of its planets around the sun. It does specifically address our creation. Evolution is not verified today, it is only speculated and theorized, and proclaimed as fact by heady and high-minded individuals whom the bible predicted would arise. Those more sure of their own wisdom above and beyond that of the servants and prophets of God whose testimony we have in scripture.

http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2017/11/entropy-evolution-or-de-evolution.html

Entropy, Evolution or De-Evolution

Does the law of entropy (systems are breaking down; matter and energy are dissipating) rule against macroevolution? The evolutionist persistently argues that this is not the case:

·       Evolutionary biology in no way runs counter to [the 2nd Law of] thermodynamics. The earth is not a closed system, and it received a large amount of energy from the sun.

There is some truth to this. In limited ways, energy is transferred to life sources, which collect it. For example, plants can capture the sun rays and produce energy from them, although, on a grander scale, energy is dissipating.

However, this is not where the law of entropy spells death to the theory of macroevolution, which has hypothesized the large changes. One indication of the law of entropy is found in the deterioration of the genetic codes. Instead, of finding evolutionary development (an improvement in the genome and growth in complexity), we are finding the very opposite – de-evolution:

·       Modern science has difficulty explaining why cells stop making perfect copies. This is because modern science assumes evolution to be a fact which requires a belief that we are increasing in complexity – evolving upwards. Therefore, cell reproduction should be getting better with time, not worse. Furthermore, if humans have been around for 1 million years (or more), then there have been over 20,000 generations of humans in existence. It is documented that every generation has between 100 and 1000 mistakes added to the DNA code. [John C. Stanford, "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome," Third Ed. 2008, 45-88]

Breakdown of the species rather than development is what is found, as even evolutionists note:

·       Lynn Margulis, member of the National Academy of Sciences: "new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired." She further explained in a 2011 interview:

•       Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.

Is evolution a fact, as some claim? Evidently, not:

·       "There is no theoretical reason that would permit us to expect that evolutionary lines would increase in complexity with time; there is also no empirical evidence that this happens." (John Maynard Smith, E. Szathmary—quoted from John Lennox's book, "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God," 107) (All the following quotations are taken from this masterful book!)

In short, there is no evidence for the increase of useful genetic information over time:

·       "In the whole experimentally accessible domain of microevolution (including research in artificial breeding and in species formation), all variations have certainly remained within the confines of basic types [species, more or less]." (Siegfried Scherer)

·       Cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of London argued that it is unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. He then points out that only one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious, so that the chance of five non-deleterious mutations occurring is 1 in a million billion replications.

This means that every organism will probably die before it adds a new organ! Even the in laboratory, where mutations can be induced, we have seen no net gain in genetic information:

·       In his book, Grasse observed that fruit flies remain fruit flies in spite of thousands of generations that have been bred and all the mutations that have been induced in them...More recent work on the E. coli bacterium backs this up. In this research no real innovative changes were observed through 25,000 generations of E. coli bacterium. (Lennox, 108)

Consequently, Bruce Malone concludes:

·       "No experiment has ever shown how useful functioning information can be added to the DNA molecule by random changes."

Even worse for the evolutionist, de-evolution is what has been observed in conformity with entropy. Malone cites the growing accumulation of genetic defects within the human genome:

·       "This [collection of defects] is exactly what is happening to the human genome at an alarming rate. Thousands of tiny mistakes are building up with each generation."

De-evolution is observed in many others ways. Instead of star creation, we have only observed star destruction:

·       "We have never seen a star born, but we have seen hundreds die." (Kleiss)

Across the board, 98% of all species have disappeared:

·       "One-third of all known species [of birds] on the [Hawaiian] islands have become extinct within the last 1,500 years. Yet no new species of Hawaiian birds have developed over the same period...This evidence implies that the millions of different life forms on Earth could not have come from evolution, because creatures become extinct far faster than they could possibly evolve into new types." (Kleiss)

De-evolution is the rule. It also confirms the Biblical account. God had made everything "very good" and without death. We have been degrading and dying ever since.

[Alan]

Evolution is not verified today, it is only speculated and theorized, and proclaimed as fact by heady and high-minded individuals whom the bible predicted would arise.

You're still quite confused about the difference between speculation, hypothesis, and scientific theory, which is also known to be fact. Why deny the evidence? It's all around you. Your persistence here is much akin to the person that argues without any knowledge of a subject, a contrarian for short.

[The Barbarian]

There is no getting the theory of evolution out of scripture, without stretching it.

No getting protons or hemoglobin, or electricity out of scripture without stretching it.   But like evolution, all of these are perfectly consistent with God's word in scripture.   As someone else mentioned, not everything that's true is in the Bible. 

[4WD]

http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2017/11/entropy-evolution-or-de-evolution.html

The author of that bit of nonsense would do himself well to actually take a decent course in thermodynamics.  As it stands he shows himself to be largely ignorant on the subject.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding the prophets and apostles:
None of them even commented as to whether Genesis was a literal history or a parable.   It just wasn't an issue of much concern, since it didn't matter to the lessons God was teaching.   Only after the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the early 1900s, did it become an issue.

This is a lie, and complete denial of scriptural testimony.

It's very true.   When Augustine wrote his commentary on Genesis, he acknowledged repeatedly trying to interpret it as a literal history, and concluded that it could not be a literal history.   His book was widely published among Christians, and no one thought to argue with him about it.   Only when YE creationism was invented in the early 20th century, was there a controversy.

It has increasingly become an issue since the theory of evolution has been increasingly developed over the years, and has been accepted by professed "Christians". This was and is unavoidable because the theory of evolution and the scriptures contradict each other.

There is not contradiction between God's word and His creation.   We observe evolution happening.   Truth cannot contradict truth.

Did SDA creationists write the book of Genesis,

They just re-interpreted it to fit their new doctrine of YE creationism.  That doesn't mean that they aren't Christians.   It just means that they are in error on that issue.   I do not mean to disparage SDA believers; my interactions with them have shown me that they certainly are God-loving and sincere Christians.