Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[The Barbarian]

I don't know that the author of Genesis wasn't there to observe these events, it certainly reads like a first person observation.  And if God chose to show the author creation over a six day period..... 

That makes sense.   I'd have to think about that for a while, but it connects pretty well to what ancient Christians like Augustine wrote about it.

[4WD]

Of course the big dilemma is that if Genesis 1:1-2 are to be taken figuratively, then God Himself should be taken figuratively.
Fill in any entity you desire, the term God is just a figure of speech.

But then that raises another big dilemma and that is if everything is literal then Jesus is apparently just another name for some door somewhere now long gone.  Or maybe instead or also Jesus is just a vine now long dead and of no use to anyone.

[Alan]

Which figurative phrases should we dismiss?


-The Lord is a sun and a shield
-Jesus is a rock
-Ancient Israelite's drank of the rock
-Jesus is a cornerstone
-Jesus is a lamb
-Jesus is a door
-Jesus is a vine
-Jesus is the living bread
-Bread is Jesus body
-Wine is Jesus blood
-God will shake the heavens, the earth, the sea, the dry land
-God will shake all nations
-God will make the sun go down at noon
-Pluck out your eye
-Wolves are in sheep's clothing
-Mountains will sing
-The earth has 4 corners
-Trees will clap their hands

This list could go on and on. The Bible is full of metaphors that are designed to interpreted figuratively.

[Ginger Rella]

Of course the big dilemma is that if Genesis 1:1-2 are to be taken figuratively, then God Himself should be taken figuratively.
Fill in any entity you desire, the term God is just a figure of speech.

I never said figuratively. But you would be correct ... if that were proven to be so.

I believe literally within the margin of error that the human equation will bring to the mix. Human error would be the misunderstanding of what came by thought or dream. Also Human error would be putting it to words in terms that would be understood by their contemporaries. Also human error would be with the translators, who, in the case of King James... put Easter in where it never was and put replenish in Genesis when Hebrew never said that... all because they were putting their own spin on things.... and who would be around to challenge them?

Let's take a quick look at 2 Peter 3 : 1-

1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder),

2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of [a]us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,

3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,  ( Scoffers abound today in every facet of life... not just waiting for Jesus)

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 creation."

5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,

6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. ( NOW...?... preserved by the same word! Were not always preserved by the same word?

8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

(do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.)

9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward [c]us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Therefore, it is conceivable that the "evening and morning were day# whatever..... could well have been a thousand human years per day.

There is no way of knowing...

For we do not know how the inspirations came to man.

I do know that Genesis 1 vs 1 could have been 6,000 years ago... or 6 million. Even Peter tells us "by the word of God the heavens were of old"... which could well be an understanding by Peter that the heavens were made long before man walked earth.

[Ginger Rella]

Which figurative phrases should we dismiss?


-The Lord is a sun and a shield
-Jesus is a rock
-Ancient Israelite's drank of the rock
-Jesus is a cornerstone
-Jesus is a lamb
-Jesus is a door
-Jesus is a vine
-Jesus is the living bread
-Bread is Jesus body
-Wine is Jesus blood
-God will shake the heavens, the earth, the sea, the dry land
-God will shake all nations
-God will make the sun go down at noon
-Pluck out your eye
-Wolves are in sheep's clothing
-Mountains will sing
-The earth has 4 corners
-Trees will clap their hands

This list could go on and on. The Bible is full of metaphors that are designed to interpreted figuratively.

You call these figuratively, but I call them descriptive...

The same way I have said more then once in certain circumstances The God had my back. Or I might tell you not to worry I have your back.

[Carey]

Please prove to me light was hundreds to thousands of years after what you call the initial expansion.

BTW , perhaps I missed it.... will you explain to me if there was an initial expansion.... from what did it expand?

I cannot, I would have to leave that to more knowledgeable men than I, but from what I can gather it is a commonly held belief among those who are more knowledgeable and familiar with the evidence.  But they can offer no "proof" either, only theory.

It expanded from a singularity, which kind of means we don't know.     

[Ginger Rella]

I cannot, I would have to leave that to more knowledgeable men than I, but from what I can gather it is a commonly held belief among those who are more knowledgeable and familiar with the evidence.  But they can offer no "proof" either, only theory.

It expanded from a singularity, which kind of means we don't know.   

IOW.. anything that leaves God out of the equation, or minimizes His input. 

[Alan]

IOW.. anything that leaves God out of the equation, or minimizes His input. 

We have repeatedly said to you and others here that it was God in the beginning, not one of us has omitted His necessity to create this universe ex nihilo  .
Even in the fantasy version of a 6,000 year old universe, it's creation must have caused an awfully big bang. 

[Ginger Rella]

We have repeatedly said to you and others here that it was God in the beginning, not one of us has omitted His necessity to create this universe ex nihilo  .
Even in the fantasy version of a 6,000 year old universe, it's creation must have caused an awfully big bang. 

I am not others here. My thoughts, beliefs and knowledge is not as others here either.

And as usual, I am not understood. And I speak for only myself.

#1. I was not referencing anyone here. I was making a generic reference to Carey's posted reply of

"I cannot, I would have to leave that to more knowledgeable men than I, but from what I can gather it is a commonly held belief among those who are more knowledgeable and familiar with the evidence.  But they can offer no "proof" either, only theory.

It expanded from a singularity, which kind of means we don't know.

Which seemingly he was referencing the scientific community in general.

I see that scientific community as holding , by enlarge , a totally agnostic approach and attitude toward something they will never be able to definitively explain... leaving common man ( and woman) to accept or reject their suppositions .

I say suppositions because they cannot definitively explain anything about how anything originally came about, but are masters of double talk and 50 cent words that make them sound so intelligent people assume they have to be right....

So when Carey replied to my query of

"Please prove to me light was hundreds to thousands of years after what you call the initial expansion."

To which he responded "I cannot, I would have to leave that to more knowledgeable men than I, but from what I can gather it is a commonly held belief among those who are more knowledgeable and familiar with the evidence.  But they can offer no "proof" either, only theory.

And

BTW , perhaps I missed it.... will you explain to me if there was an initial expansion.... from what did it expand?

To which he responded "It expanded from a singularity, which kind of means we don't know.

And I merely said IOW.. anything that leaves God out of the equation, or minimizes His input.

No reference to anyone here at all.

#2 NOW as to  your   "Even in the fantasy version of a 6,000 year old universe, it's creation must have caused an awfully big bang."
 
I will repeat for the 47th time. I do not believe in a 6K year old universe.

I can accept 6k, 10k, or even 13K ( a figure that has been bandied around but I have yet to see an explanation on)
as to the age of the earth since Adam until now.

Yes, I said Adam..... which excludes

Gen 1

26 Then 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 [g]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 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 [h]moves on the earth."

And further instructed them

29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. (They were to be vegetarians)

A lot happened between Gen 1 and Adam being formed from the dust of the ground and placed in the Garden of Eden.........

But Gen 1:1, in and of itself,  is most certainly indicative of a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away from earth and the life He would create when the time was right for His purposes.

I am aware you will not understand me.... sigh.... This time I got smart, wrote it in a doc and can copy and paste as often as needed

[AVZ]

We have repeatedly said to you and others here that it was God in the beginning, not one of us has omitted His necessity to create this universe ex nihilo  .
Even in the fantasy version of a 6,000 year old universe, it's creation must have caused an awfully big bang. 

Why? What makes you think God created the universe from one singularity?
What do you mean with "an awfully big bang"?

[Alan]

The reason for my post was the statement below.

IOW.. anything that leaves God out of the equation, or minimizes His input. 

....to which I say that no one is leaving God out, it was indeed His doing.


Not quite sure why we are being bunked in with atheists that believe in an unknown singularity that set the universe in motion and life therein starting by chance. 

[Alan]

Why? What makes you think God created the universe from one singularity?
What do you mean with "an awfully big bang"?

Just my thoughts I suppose, absolutely no theory behind it but I imagine that creation would have been a violent event rather than flipping a switch to "voila".

[Ginger Rella]

The reason for my post was the statement below.


....to which I say that no one is leaving God out, it was indeed His doing.


Not quite sure why we are being bunked in with atheists that believe in an unknown singularity that set the universe in motion and life therein starting by chance. 

Why do you feel like you are  being bunked in with atheists?

It this not understandable? What I last posted?

I was not referencing anyone here. I was making a generic reference to Carey's posted reply of.............

Would it be better if I replied in French? Or hollar in all caps? 

No one here can be included with them...

[AVZ]

Just my thoughts I suppose, absolutely no theory behind it but I imagine that creation would have been a violent event rather than flipping a switch to "voila".

Why?
None of the other (re)creative events in scripture where Jesus healed people for example were violent events.
They were all acts of "flipping a switch..'voila'"

[AVZ]

Which figurative phrases should we dismiss?


-The Lord is a sun and a shield
-Jesus is a rock
-Ancient Israelite's drank of the rock
-Jesus is a cornerstone
-Jesus is a lamb
-Jesus is a door
-Jesus is a vine
-Jesus is the living bread
-Bread is Jesus body
-Wine is Jesus blood
-God will shake the heavens, the earth, the sea, the dry land
-God will shake all nations
-God will make the sun go down at noon
-Pluck out your eye
-Wolves are in sheep's clothing
-Mountains will sing
-The earth has 4 corners
-Trees will clap their hands

This list could go on and on. The Bible is full of metaphors that are designed to interpreted figuratively.

Sorry I had you waiting a little while.

I am not sure what point you want to make with the above.
That there are metaphors in scripture is undeniable, but that does not grant you the right to arbitrarily call things to be a metaphor as you deem fit.

You say: "The Bible is full of metaphors that are designed to interpreted figuratively."
Duh...of course they are. Metaphors are indeed designed to be interpreted figuratively, otherwise they wouldn't be metaphors.
More importantly however, most of the samples you provided could be interpreted other than metaphorical.
And in case where something could be interpreted both ways, we look at context.

So what you are attempting to say is that you are at liberty to declare Genesis metaphorical because metaphors exist elsewhere in scripture.
In that case I could declare the book of Matthew poetic because poems exist in scripture as well.
The situation in the creation story however is completely different from the list you provide above.
The creation story is completely intelligible if taken literal.

De facto you are setting up a strawman argument that insinuates that if you declare something to be a metaphor, you are entitled to do so because there are other places with metaphors in scripture.
At the same time you also insinuate that the claim is made that metaphorical expressions should be "dismissed", whilst in fact such a claim has never been made.

[Alan]

Why do you feel like you are  being bunked in with atheists?

Because you said "anything that leaves God out of the equation". I don't know any other way to take that statement when no one is claiming that God isn't the designer.

[4WD]

The situation in the creation story however is completely different from the list you provide above.
The creation story is completely intelligible if taken literal.

The creation account is not intelligible if taken literal given what we now know to be the case.  Given all the evidence to the actual physical age of the universe, the Genesis account of creation cannot be considered a literal description.  The description of light, which comprises only a very narrow range of the complete electromagnetic frequency spectrum, must be taken as figurative; other wise there is no basis for the existence of gamma rays, X-rays, and all the rest of the spectrum of electromagnetic energy. The statement of "there was evening and there was morning" must be taken as figurative given what we know to be the literal cause of literal evenings and mornings. And so much more of the complete description as presented must be taken as figurative given what we know about such things today.

De facto you are setting up a strawman argument that insinuates that if you declare something to be a metaphor, you are entitled to do so because there are other places with metaphors in scripture.

But, AVZ, you hoist yourself with your own petard.  De facto you are setting up a straw man argument that if you declare a description to be literal, you are entitled to do so because there are other places that are not figurative in the Scriptures.

At the same time you also insinuate that the claim is made that metaphorical expressions should be "dismissed", whilst in fact such a claim has never been made.

Here again you commit the same or similar infraction. You insinuate that the unless we take your literal interpretation as the true meaning that God intended we have left God out of the creation account.  That is simply not true.

[Carey]

IOW.. anything that leaves God out of the equation, or minimizes His input. 

Science does not address God or the supernatural, it's only concern is the natural world and the laws that govern it.  In the case of the big bang, there is an extremely short period of time at the very beginning known as the Planck Epoch.  Here God is at work, and science cannot comment as natural laws do not apply during this period. 

God created a self sustaining system.  Beyond the initial creation of energy, matter, life, and the natural laws that govern them, most of universe and the events therein, there is no need for Him to tinker.
You may believe that this minimizes His input, perhaps it does quantitatively, but qualitatively it does the opposite.  Any fool can perform a simple task repetitively, it takes wisdom and knowledge to create a process that performs the task automatically.

[LastCall]

Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?    While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."

If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.

One can ascertain what yom in Genesis meant when that yom is defined by an evening and a morning that day.

Indeed, the first day of creation was the establishment of what a day was by that creation of light whereby there was evening and morning that very first day.

Then you have the creation of the sabbath day as signifying God rested that day from the 6 days of creation.

Exodus 20:11 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.

So it is plain to Moses since he did write Genesis & Exodus what he was led to write as inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that God created everything in six days.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?    While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."

    If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.

One can ascertain what yom in Genesis meant when that yom is defined by an evening and a morning that day.

As Christians noticed over 1500 years ago, it is logically absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.   This is one of the major reasons the text itself tells us that it is not a literal history.

So it is plain to Moses since he did write Genesis & Exodus what he was led to write as inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that God created everything in six days.

I do not think that if Moses repeated a figurative passage, that such a repetition would convert it to a literal one.    I'd be open to your evidence that it does.

[4WD]

Carey, Barbarian,

[LastCall]

Barbarian asks:
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?    While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."

    If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.

Macroevolution has never been observed nor proven as real science and since it changes the facts of the evolution theory from gradual macroevolution to rapid macroevolution, it proves that the theory only exists in the realm of the imagination while God's words are unchanging in the KJV.

As Christians noticed over 1500 years ago, it is logically absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.   This is one of the major reasons the text itself tells us that it is not a literal history.

If it is absurd, it is only because they believe in the evolution theory which is more absurd than to NOT take God at His word since Jesus validated scripture as something that cannot be broken.

I do not think that if Moses repeated a figurative passage, that such a repetition would convert it to a literal one.    I'd be open to your evidence that it does.

If you can find evidence of genetic information being added to a living organism, without the aid of mad science, then you would have macroevolution as real science that can be observed and proven, but as it is, there is no mutant registration act passed  by Congress nor any science facility to give wings to the general public that would allow them to continue as a homosuperior specie with that added genetic information through reproduction.  Not happening ever. 

Why?  Because the Law of Biogenesis says macroevolution can never happen.  The law of science states that life cannot come from nothing;  that life comes from similar life. 

The evolution theory borrowed the term microevolution from the Law of Biogenesis to make macroevolution believable.  If you look online for the definition from dictionary and universities websites, you will find that the definition between microevolution and macroevolution will be separate at some sites while some will blur the definitions between the two, and a few have them reading as if they are the same thing.  How is that for discipline in the field of science today?

Then you have some evolutionists proposing that gradual macroevolution and rapid macroevolution are both true when rapid macroevolution was proposed because gradual macroevolution cannot be true due to the huge gaps of "transitional fossils" in the fossil record.  Gould that proposed the more favored theory said that a global flood had to tap that capacity for the explosion in the fossil record.  While most evolutionists would argue that Gould never meant for that to mean a global flood that covered the mountains, yet fossilized marine life including whale bones have been found buried together with fossilized land animal bones on the mountaintops in the Andes. In some places, all they have to do is bend down and pick them up.  So while they gave that presentation in the media only in "if the evolution theory is true" mentality, by citing that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea, trapping marine life, they overlook the fossilized land animal bones buried together with them, as well as the obviousness of the evidence for the global flood.

Many can argue for the "facts" of the evolution theory, like they are now saying that dinosaurs evolved from the birds rather than the other way around now, but it ought to don on you now that there are no facts of the evolution theory at all when they borrow that term microevolution from the Law of Biogenesis to make gradual macroevolution believable and they cannot keep the definitions straight any more.

So it is time for you to decide who you are going to believe;  the Lord Jesus Christ Whom has validated scripture and Genesis regarding the seventh day "created" for man and the first marriage linked to the creation of man and woman or you believe that false science being paraded around as real science when nothing about macroevolution has ever been proven.

And the false science that is the Theory of Evolution being spouted as true science has caused many to lose their faith in God's words and have turned away from believing in the Lord Jesus Christ altogether. 

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

As long as the evolution theory is taught as true in schools all over the world, you will always have bullying and abortion in the world as naturally selecting the weak and the vulnerable to extinction.   Now is that something God would call "good" in finally getting man made right in His image after hundreds of millions of years rather than in one day with the woman from his rib in that same day?  That would mean death was in the world before Adam & Eve and sin is not responsible for death in the world because of sin, and therefore how can you be sure of your eternal salvation in Christ Jesus when death, sin, and hades will be cast into the lake of fire signifying that we, the saved believers, will never be separated from God ever again?

May God open your eyes to the lies of the evolution theory and why many have had their faith in Him overthrown because of that false science.

[Michael2012]

I do not think that if Moses repeated a figurative passage, that such a repetition would convert it to a literal one.    I'd be open to your evidence that it does.

Barbarian, are you suggesting that this isn't literal language but figurative?

8 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Also, I have these questions:

1. If as you say, the days in the Genesis creation are figurative, perhaps of millions, if not billion of years each, is the day, when God rested also figurative?
2. If the day, when God rested also figurative, how can that be remembered, in keeping with the 4th commandment of God?
3. God said of the Sabbath day, that He rested from all His work which God had created and made. How many years do you think is the figurative seventh day?
4. God commanded "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." How does one keep a figurative day holy?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?    While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."

If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.

Macroevolution has never been observed

Even many professional creationists now admit the fact of speciation.   New species evolve from old, and they accept the fact.   What they have done, is deny that evolution of new species is "really evolution."    As you probably know, "microevolution" is are changes in allele frequency within a species, and "macrevolution" is the evolution of new species.

Barbarian observes:
As Christians noticed over 1500 years ago, it is logically absurd to speak of literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.   This is one of the major reasons the text itself tells us that it is not a literal history.

If it is absurd, it is only because they believe in the evolution theory

There was no evolutionary theory 1500 years ago.   

Barbarian suggests:
I do not think that if Moses repeated a figurative passage, that such a repetition would convert it to a literal one.    I'd be open to your evidence that it does.

If you can find evidence of genetic information being added to a living organism,

Sure.   The HbC mutation in humans is a recent mutation.   In the population in question, there were at least two other alleles for hemoglobin.   Let's say they were 50% each.   Now, the formula for information in any given gene locus is:



So assuming two alleles with 0.5 frequency each, the information for that gene locus is: 0.5 X log(0.5) X 2 or about 0.3.0.    Now suppose the new allele becomes equal in frequency to the other two.   Then it would be   .333 X log(.333) X3, or about 0.48.   As you see, an increase in information.   It also produces a new form of hemoglobin in the population that happens to provide good protection against a common parasite, without the debilitating effects of a similar allele, but that really is irrelevant to the question of information.

then you would have macroevolution as real science that can be observed and proven,

No.  See above.   New information generally does not result in speciation.    And sometimes, speciation can be the result of a loss of information.    Would you like to learn how that works?

but as it is, there is no mutant registration act passed  by Congress nor any science facility to give wings to the general public that would allow them to continue as a homosuperior specie with that added genetic information through reproduction.  Not happening ever.

Forget X-men.  It doesn't act that way.   Would you consider stronger bones or more powerful muscles to be a favorable change?   That's not a rhetorical question; I'd like to know your opinion.

Why?  Because the Law of Biogenesis says macroevolution can never happen.

No, you've been misled about that.   Indeed, Pasteur, the an who proposed the law, acknowledged the fact of evolution.    Biogenesis says life can only come from life.   God says otherwise, but that's beside the point.

The law of science

There is no "law of science."   

states that life cannot come from nothing

That's what evolutionary theory shows us.   Evolution produces nothing that is not a modification of something already there.   Would you like to learn about that?

[quoteThe evolution theory borrowed the term microevolution from the Law of Biogenesis[/quote]

No.  Biogenesis says nothing about microevolution.   
Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

Then you have some evolutionists proposing that gradual macroevolution and rapid macroevolution are both true when rapid macroevolution was proposed because gradual macroevolution cannot be true due to the huge gaps of "transitional fossils" in the fossil record.

You've been misled about that, too.   Here's YE creationist (and PhD paleontologist) Kurt Wise on the subject:

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

Gould that proposed the more favored theory said that a global flood had to tap that capacity for the explosion in the fossil record.

No.  That's not remotely what he said about punctuated equilibrium.   Would you like to learn about that?

Many can argue for the "facts" of the evolution theory, like they are now saying that dinosaurs evolved from the birds rather than the other way around now,

No, you have that wrong, too.   There are still a few ornithologists that say that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs.   Instead, they have claimed that both birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common thecodont ancestor, which was neither bird nor dinosaur.   Since the, the accumulation of evidence strongly supports a dinosaur ancestry for birds.   Would you like to learn about that?

As you now realize, you were fed a lot of foolishness by people who knew no more than you do.   Wouldn't it be better to learn what science really says about evolution?   

And the false science that is the Theory of Evolution being spouted as true science has caused many to lose their faith in God's words and have turned away from believing in the Lord Jesus Christ altogether.

You have that backwards.   It is YE creationism that is the great atheist-maker...

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry.  I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.  One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.  I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity.  I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

"Answers in Genesis" has that as one of their "arguments we believe creationists should not use."    "Science" in NT times, did not mean what it does today.   It meant something like "learning."

[quoteAs long as the evolution theory is taught as true in schools all over the world, you will always have bullying and abortion in the world as naturally selecting the weak and the vulnerable to extinction. [/quote]

You think there was no bullying and abortion until evolutionary theory?   No, that's just absurd.

Someone's given you many erroneous ideas about Christianity and science.    Take a little time; read your Bible with a mind open to the Holy Spirit, and learn a little about biology.   Both will do you good.

[LastCall]

Barbarian asks:
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?    While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."

If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.

If any one tries to fit the evolution theory into God's words, then they are not understanding God's words that debunks the evolution theory for what it represents.

Even many professional creationists now admit the fact of speciation.   New species evolve from old, and they accept the fact.   What they have done, is deny that evolution of new species is "really evolution."    As you probably know, "microevolution" is are changes in allele frequency within a species, and "macrevolution" is the evolution of new species.

Microevolution includes all different and new variations of that specie;  as in a cow will always be a cow; a rose by any other name is still a rose.  For Macroevolution to be true, that "new specie" can no longer be identified with that former species.  That means the cow cannot look like nor be a different variation of a cow in order for that cow to be called something else entirely to qualify as a new specie, and thus no longer a cow.

Evolutionists would like to troll out the new specie of lizards and new species of birds that was never known to have existed on a volcanic island.

Problem #1; That so called new species is still a lizard and still a bird.  Hardly macroevolution at all.

Problem #2: The new species was never observed as coming from that former species as each report lay claims to this new species.

Problem #3  They never bothered to prove that this new species is coming about because of that supposed known former species being on a volcanic island.

Problem #4  We do not see evolutionists scurrying to the island in the hopes that the volcanic activity will somehow macroevolve them as they claim must be the cause for the new species.

Any real scientist knows that hypothesis are to be proven or disproven.  You just don't let it go with a casual observation and making assumptions as if by being able to do so makes it a fact.

How hard is it to prove that the new species came from the know species from the island?  Did the new species come from the eggs of the former species?  That was not the report, now was it?  All they did was say.. wow.. where did that come from?  We have found a new specie!!  Yippee.

So let's be real.  El Nino can carry birds away from their regular locale and wind up far away from their usual areas they are known for.

With volcanic activity on the island, bushes and tress where this new specie of bird have been living in obviously have been burned away and therefore exposed to sightings what otherwise would never have been known to have also existed on that same island.

Then you have the same problem of the ground as there are creatures that lives beneath the earth for why volcanic activity would drive the lizard up from beneath the ground to be spotted.

I would not be surprised that someone that lives on that island knew of that "new specie" of bird and that "new specie" of the lizard but just rarely seen before the volcanic activity.

Bottom line; they just don't prove anything as far as macroevolution in ever taking place and they just cheat by saying any new species of cows that has never existed before is proof of macroevolution when it is not.  The same applies to these new species of lizard and birds spotted on the volcano island that they assume was never before seen on that island.

Anybody ever take a nature walk in the woods around your place?  I am sure you will discover living things that you have never seen around your house, but that doesn't mean you just discovered a new species.

When thespians have seen the audience before the curtains rise for their play to begin, noticing a quarter of the seats not taken, and after the play is over, they noticed some of those seats are taken by newer people, none of them are claiming macroevolution, so I don't know why anyone can take anybody else at their word when seeing something that wasn't there before and yet did not actually observed the macroevolution in the process of creating that new species.

So let's cut the bull scientifically and call it for what it is;  assumption not proven as evidence... yet, BUT even if we succeed to get them to admit that, they will not care to prove it scientifically.  That should irk you, me, and all of us.

[The Barbarian]

If any one tries to fit the evolution theory into God's words,...

It would be as silly as trying to fit protons into God's words.   That's not what scripture is for.   As you learned, scripture neither supports nor denies evolution.   But since we directly observe it happening, we know it's true.

Barbarian observes:
Even many professional creationists now admit the fact of speciation.   New species evolve from old, and they accept the fact.   What they have done, is deny that evolution of new species is "really evolution."    As you probably know, "microevolution" is are changes in allele frequency within a species, and "macrevolution" is the evolution of new species.

Microevolution includes all different and new variations of that specie;  as in a cow will always be a cow; a rose by any other name is still a rose.  For Macroevolution to be true, that "new specie" can no longer be identified with that former species.

Yep.   As you learned, the professional creationists now acknowledge the fact of new species coming from old ones.   They just now say that macroevolution "isn't really evolution."

Any real scientist knows that hypothesis are to be proven or disproven. 

I'm a real scientist.   Guess how I know you aren't.   (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science)

 

[4WD]

I'm a real scientist.   Guess how I know you aren't.   (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science)

And that is precisely why he shouldn't get involved in discussions like this.  He has every right to present his own interpretation of Scripture as everyone does; but those with so little training in the sciences should usually stay away from discussions involving science.

[LastCall]

It would be as silly as trying to fit protons into God's words.   That's not what scripture is for.   As you learned, scripture neither supports nor denies evolution.

Scripture disproves the evolution theory outright.

But since we directly observe it happening, we know it's true.

Based on what?  The behemoth as described in Job chapter 40 is a dinosaur;  nothing else.  No creature has a tail like a cedar which is a tree.  And in that same verse 17 is knowledge that the sexual organs of the dinosaurs are inside long before scientists figured it out.

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Jesus validated scripture that it cannot be broken.  It is vain to imply yom to mean anything else than a 24 hour day as the Jews understand it that at sunset when evening has come, is the beginning of the next day.

Jesus even validated the sabbath day for why it was created for man to rest in and why as mentioned in scripture as the day God rested from the six days of creation.

Exodus 20:11 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.

Jesus testified that Moses was speaking of Him.

John 5: 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.....46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Jesus validated the creation of man and woman when He referred to that first marriage in how God meant marriage to be forever with no divorce issued by man to separate.

Barbarian observes:
Even many professional creationists now admit the fact of speciation.   New species evolve from old, and they accept the fact.   What they have done, is deny that evolution of new species is "really evolution."    As you probably know, "microevolution" is are changes in allele frequency within a species, and "macrevolution" is the evolution of new species.

Yep.   As you learned, the professional creationists now acknowledge the fact of new species coming from old ones.   They just now say that macroevolution "isn't really evolution."

How come you cannot comprehend that " changes in allele frequency within a species" also means and includes the creation of a new variation of that specie within that specie?

I'm a real scientist.   Guess how I know you aren't.   (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science)

Well, I think you should demand your money back for your education.  You got ripped off bad.

Because the laws of science are proven as real science that can be observed and proven time and time again. 

You just got lost in theoretical science for why you believe that science can never be proven or disproven.  I can understand how that can happen to you when they infiltrate every aspect of our education with that false science that is called the evolution theory.

I am asking you, brother, to ask the Lord Jesus Christ to help you see the lies that have convinced you otherwise because the evolution theory as in macroevolution, is not true nor can it ever be true.

Indeed, for how you ended your post..." (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science) " , then I fail to see why you believe in the evolution theory at all rather than God's words as is?

[4WD]

Well, I think you should demand your money back for your education.  You got ripped off bad.

Hummmm.  And evaluation of the value of someone's education in science by another who apparently knows almost nothing about science.

Indeed, for how you ended your post..." (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science) " , then I fail to see why you believe in the evolution theory at all rather than God's words as is?

Perhaps you could begin by proving the truth of God's word or proving the very existence of God.  Once you have done that you can then begin to speak about what is proven or not proven in science.

[LastCall]

Hummmm.  And evaluation of the value of someone's education in science by another who apparently knows almost nothing about science.

Cute.  I recognize the need for personal attacks when you guys have nothing to counter on the issue when the laws of science is considered real science that can be observed and proven time and time again.

Perhaps you could begin by proving the truth of God's word or proving the very existence of God.  Once you have done that you can then begin to speak about what is proven or not proven in science.

I can prove the truth that evolution theory is a false science by the words of the one you defend:   here it is now:  The Barbarian said "" (hint: nothing is every "proven" or "disproven" in science) "

So then if nothing is proven or disproven in science, why take the words of science as fact or truth over God's words then when Jesus validated scripture as something that cannot be broken?

John 10: 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Did not Jesus refer to the scripture for the authority to rebuke and correct others by?

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Do you read afterwards if any of the Jews were mocking Jesus saying "Oh ho ho ho!  They are just stories, you stupid man!"  No.  You do not.  Why? Because by the authority of the scripture is how the Jews stone sinful Jews to death, even though the Jews did not understand everything written in scripture concerning Jesus Christ as Moses did write about Him.

John 5: 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life....46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

So you think God's words is something Jesus take lightly when scripture testifies of Him in the O.T. as the God that men have seen?  It is the Father that men have not seen, but the God that men had seen in the O.T. was Jesus before His incarnation.

Since Jesus was the man that Jacob was wrestling with in Genesis 32:24-30 and Abraham saw the Lord on numerous occasion including that one day in Genesis 18:1 for why Jesus said this:

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

How can you believe it took God a long time to make man right through the false science of the evolution theory?  Did you note how when everything was created, it was mature and bearing seeds as the living things were mature as well?  Was not Adam a man created from the dust?  The scripture says so and Jesus would back it up.

Genesis 1:27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Jacob wrestling with his Creator that was a man by Whom we were fashioned after His image is no ape man nor any thing remotely from the evolutionary tree.

Just because God gave maturity to living things and nature, does not mean mankind can tell how old everything is because He created the heavens that fourth day to give lights to the earth to givern its seasons so that mean as He spoke, those sources of lights in the heavens came about and filled in the gap from those sources of lights in the heavens to givern the earth that day.

Science cannot prove how old the earth is when they get errant dating results within know human history.  The dating of a living mollusk was carb dated as 2,300 years old dead but it is still alive.  Even carbon dating samples of the same creature has given dramatic different results.  Whennver they get errant dating results or find a human skeleton out of place, they confer with the evolutionary geological time chart which said chart does not exists anywhere in the world.

But you guys would take that false science of that theoritical science that cannot be proven nor disproven over God's words? 

By the way, scripture says only God can cause the increase;  so no matter what truths I convey, if the person is not seeking Him or if that person is a mocker, then I cannot convince him of anything unless God intervenes, and by His words, He wouldn't when only those that seek, shall find as promised by Him.

[Alan]

Cute.  I recognize the need for personal attacks when you guys have nothing to counter on the issue when the laws of science is considered real science that can be observed and proven time and time again.

It's not a personal attack, clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

[4WD]

So then if nothing is proven or disproven in science, why take the words of science as fact or truth over God's words then when Jesus validated scripture as something that cannot be broken?

Still ranting about something that you obviously know nothing about.

You would do well to select something about which you have some knowledge.  Unfortunately you won't do that.

You are looking for proof; again, I challenge you to prove that God exists.  And if you cannot do that, then how can you prove that anything you say about His word is truth.

On a different note, I don't take the words of science as fact or truth over God's word.  In the case at hand I do take science as fact or truth over your interpretation of various passages of God's word.  And that is certainly not limited to the subject of this topic.

[LastCall]

It's not a personal attack, clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

Still waiting for you to prove it, o seemingly educated one.  But wait.  You can't.  Because nothing in science is proven nor disproven.

So clearly you are only referring to theoretical science yet to become a law of science which can only become a law when it is observed and proven time and time again.

Or would you like to educate me what the law of science actually means if it is not about something that can be observed and thus PROVEN?

[LastCall]

Still ranting about something that you obviously know nothing about.

You would do well to select something about which you have some knowledge.  Unfortunately you won't do that.

And yet you claim any body can access that information to educate yourself but somehow you lack Christian love to share it as simply as you understand it that it seems so obvious to you.

You are looking for proof; again, I challenge you to prove that God exists.  And if you cannot do that, then how can you prove that anything you say about His word is truth.

On a different note, I don't take the words of science as fact or truth over God's word.  In the case at hand I do take science as fact or truth over your interpretation of various passages of God's word.  And that is certainly not limited to the subject of this topic.

A reconciled relationship with God is a personal thing whereby the believers will know He is in them.  We cannot convince others of the existence of God unless they are seeking Him to find Him.

Mockers do not care if the tomb of Jesus Christ is empty.  Those not seeking Him will not be convinced otherwise, but the evidence of God in creation is obvious to all, even to the mockers.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And since scripture has exposed the mockers as existing in our world, why is it that you cannot see them in that false science that is the evolution theory?

So I do not care to understand the fairytale spinning that is going on in that false science as if "oh yeah.. that is the way we do it in science;  not.  Science like detectives, are to prove or disprove the hypothesis;  not go spinning another hypothesis on the other one assuming it to be true as if because you can keep on hypothesizing, then  it must be true.  But if any evidence comes to the contrary, they can back peddle and spin the fairy tale better."  You do that in any other field or in life, it is considered LYING, and when people back peddle, they usually stop listening to that liar.

But I reckon the evolution theory appeals to your itching ear so I leave you to it.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

[Alan]

Still waiting for you to prove it, o seemingly educated one.  But wait.  You can't.  Because nothing in science is proven nor disproven.

So clearly you are only referring to theoretical science yet to become a law of science which can only become a law when it is observed and proven time and time again.

Or would you like to educate me what the law of science actually means if it is not about something that can be observed and thus PROVEN?

A scientific theory is above a scientific law, any text book will explain why that is but here is a short article so that you may become informed of your error.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b