The earth is the center of creation!

That reminds me.... Can anyone send me a copy of the Flat Earth Society membership application? I seem to have lost mine. I mean, as long as I'm taking scripture literally...

 

I tried that arguement, and I was told by a geocentrist on this board that if the earth only appears to rise, then we can't trust the Bible when it says the Son only appeared to rise.

 

That reminds me.... Can anyone send me a copy of the Flat Earth Society membership application? I seem to have lost mine. I mean, as long as I'm taking scripture literally... </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure if they are accepting members.....

 

glad to know my post is being seriously looked at...

 

I've long since come to the conclusion that my current physical form is nothing compared to my spiritual form. It's hard to see that right now, since we're currently in phycial form, but upon death, the phyisical form becomes incredibly trivial. I'm not physical person on a spiritual journey, I'm a spirutual person on a physical journey.

 

Johnv

Mark 10:1-12 has Jesus is referring to Adam and Eve as “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female…” IMO Jesus just debunked evolution.

To me it’s obvious that a belief in a literal Adam as in Genesis, not some humanoid, is crucial to the plan of salvation. If Adam didn’t fall from his original perfect state, then there is no sin, and no need of a savior, hence Jesus died for nothing. This is what the atheist I know claim.

PS. Hows the softball team coming?

 

So now you are making God into a liar. Around and around we go. Why would God present us solid evidence of evolution, yet then tell us that wasn't the way God created things? Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.

 

Outside of your supposed “solid evidence” which is a joke, re-read Genesis and tell me who’s making God into a liar.

If God wanted Genesis to be written in a way to suggest evolution, He would’ve made it so. God isn’t illiterate.

 

John, I don't think you really understand the evidence supporting evolution.

Explain to me how a plant can live without heat or the sun.

 

There’s not one drop of creditable evidence that supports evolution. It’s all assumptions!

Look at it this way; if God through the Holy Sprit guided the author of Genesis to write Genesis in a way to suggest evolution and long ages, then we’d probably wouldn’t have many non-believers. God moved the author of Genesis the way He did for a reason, b/c that’s the way it happened. God has left it up to us to accept His word as TRUTH or allegory. If you choose the later, that’s between you and God!

Light and heat is more than a physical substance; it also has supernatural aspect. In Revelation speaks of a new heavens and the new earth, there won’t be any sun or moon for GOD will be the source of ALL light!

The plants were created not as seeds, but as full-grown plants each bearing seeds. They were thus created as mature plants, having the "appearance" of age. Sorry to bust your evolutionary chicken Meatros, but chicken really did come before the egg!

God being the source of Light and heat could’ve easily sustained the plants for a measly 24-hr period, which He will do for an eternity one day.

 

I would disagree because of the immutable attributes of the God of scripture. The evidence is what it is and it says absolutely nothing. It lays there waiting for someone to interpret it. The interpretations are always guided by a paradigm/presuppositions/worldview/philosophy.

I am convinced that evolution is philosophically and logically flawed. Therefore, I am suspicious of the conclusions of those operating under the paradigm of the theory being "scientific truth."

None of the radiometric dating methods used to prove an old earth are any more accurate than the best guess of the tester. At some point, they must decide whether a date is "reasonable" or not based on their expectations. None of these test can say how much mother and daughter elements were present when the rock hardened. All of these test rely on a uniformitarian approach to natural history which may or may not be true. And, most importantly from a Christian perspective, none of these dating methods take into account a supernatural Creator who for His own purposes could speak the earth into existence exactly as desired.

I find it no more unbelievable that God should create water than Jesus walked on water. I find it no less believable that God created the earth than that Jesus walked through walls made of earthen brick. I find it no less believable that God created each animal and plant from non-life than that Jesus was literally dead and rose again.

Simply put, the Christian faith is dependent on a miraculous event that defies naturalistic explaination- the resurrection. The God-man spent part of His ministry demonstrating His sovereign ability to ignore the laws of nature at will. I find no reason not to believe that the God that made lifeless flesh alive in an instant could create the universe in six days, six hours, six minutes, or six jiffies (1/100's of a second).

 

God didn't write it. God inspired it. The author(s) wrote a non-literal account. It's no less scriptural, inerrant, or imperfect as a non-literal account.

The arguement is less about evolution and more about whether one believes that Genesis is literal, or non-literal. I believe it is non-literal.

 

There's plenty of evidence to support an old earth model, and a gradual change in the appearance of life forms over time.

There's no scientific evidence that all that life forms that ever existed on earth existed at the same time.

Some folks would insist that, if evidence doesn't fit someone's interpretation of the Bible, that the evidence should be discarded.

 

That's not true at all. Christians don't believe what they do based on works of magic. Jesus rose from the dead. That's a fact which we agree on. To require a belief that the resurrection, miracles, the turning of a staff into a snake, or healings are all supernatural events would be extrabiblical doctrine on our part. If all these things could be explained scientifically, they would still be miracles, still be works of wonder, and still be acts of God.

I believe in a Jesus who is the Great Physician, not the Great Magician.

 

Not a drop of truth, eh? So are you going to give up immunity shots?

Post-hoc assertions, evidence please. Light and heat are measurable and so are their effects on plants.

Don't side step the issue, how did these plants survive without heat or light!

Post-hoc assertions, take a step back and look at the mental gymnastics you are committing. You are adding your interpretations to the bible. Yet when others put there interpretations on the bible, you have a problem.

 

Just b/c some medical scientists discovers an immunity drug, this automatically proves evolution? If this were the case evolution would’ve been proven fact a loooong time ago. Try again, you sound like the atheists that love to use the immunity shots as proof…

Don’t restrict God to our level of dimensionality. That’s your first problem. God SAID He will be the source of light…R-E-A-D Y-O-U-R B-I-B-L-E. (Exodus 10:21-22) talks of darkness so thick it could be felt…Gods pretty awesome huh… I believe if God can bring His Son back to life after three day, which the same scientists you revere says it’s impossible, God can sustain life a few days without sunlight…you think?

Let’s try this pal, if the days of creation were millions of years, how did the plants survive without sun and heat? I gave you my Biblical explanation, lets hear your scientific explanation…oh I forgot…silly me…the creation account is a fairy tale...

(Rev 21:23) “And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.” Yeah, I’m adding my interpretations…no more than your science gods are doing to destroy it. I wouldn’t put it past you that you believe the Revelation of Jesus Christ is an allegory as well, huh…

Try putting down the science journal tonight and dust off your Bible and try reading it. You just may discover the answer to all your needy questions.

 

Again John, "proofs" are for math, in any event YES it validates evolution. You are viewing science totally wrong. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity john.
You should really learn how the scientific method works, John, because statements such as you've just made reveal how little you know about it.

I also like how you continually try to sneak a corrolation between atheists and evolutionists, it shows bias on your part (not to mention a sever lack of understanding about evolution).

I'm not restricting God, YOU are! You are insisting that Genesis is a science book-IT'S NOT, it's demonstratably not (as I've demonstrated).
And then you post a non-sequetor (sp?) logical fallacy. I don't revere scientists, nice 'attempt' .
God can do anything, but if you are going to make a case for a literal Genesis then don't you think God should have specified? Or provided evidence? Or, how about this-NOT provided evidence to the contrary of a 6-day creation?

Don't put strawmen in my mouth! I've already told you, I don't accept a literal Genesis. Do I now have to preface all my posts with this information for it to sink into your head? So take your ridiculuous strawman somewhere else.

You know John, your statements are truly bigoted and ignorant. You are a liar as well. Where have I ever said I worship scientists? Where have I ever said that my bible was dusty?
Do not make up lies in order to have something to attack John, that breaks a fundamental commandment and makes me question your faith in Jesus.
I'd rather you try to answer what I actually said, as opposed to making up ridiculous and absurd "opinions" that you feel I have. If you can't answer the questions I put before you-then don't, but don't outright LIE about my position.

I pray that you see the light and come back to Jesus, John, I really do. Jesus wouldn't bear false witness against his brothers, so why are you?