A literal 6 24-hr days?

[Meatros]

I guess if you can admit being wrong about something (as you have stated), a vain, prideful, egotist like myself can’t let you out do me now can I? My apologies and God bless

Yes, I have been wrong a number of times and no doubt I will be wrong again. Thank you for admitting error, especially in light of my criticisms, for that you have garnered my respect. I also apologize to you for being brash and an A-----e throughout this exchange.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Meatros,

No need to apologize, I thought you handled yourself well. These debates are just that, debates. I think high energy debates are good as long as the Lord is there to constrain the combatants. My pride runs rampant sometimes in these settings, but the Lord's yoke constrains me (I know everyone in my circle of influence is glad too). One of my favorite phrases in the Bible is the last part of Psalm 39:5 ..."every man at his best state is altogether vanity". I certainly know this is true of me. Thanks for you understanding.

 

[BobRyan]

FF&F
Listen, if I can disagree with most scientists on most issues, don’t think that I’m afraid to challenge this issue of definitions, especially since I have a pretty good idea where this definition bending on the part of scientists comes from to begin with. I have read what you said, plus many other discussions I have come across. Let me ask you a question. If macro-evolution was observed in the environment, and could be replicated in the laboratory, would it still be a theory? If not, what would it be?

Well that point about "theory vs law" might not be as accurate as it "could be". But the key point that things like "spontaneous generation" held by our friendly alchemists - was "a theory" and still is "a theory". However "how popular is it" (a biogenesists seem to like it by another name - I know, but if we exclude them then how popular?).

Don't be sidetracked by the smoke. Your initial point is right on the money - by handwaiving and a little smoke the effort is made to "ignore" the blatant fact that "blue eyes vs brown eyes" is NOT the "key ingredient" for macro evolution.

Simply showing variation WITHIN a genetic pool - has no meaning at all for true evolutionism. The salient point of their argument is that "information goes INTO the system" And that the genetic pool exceeds the initial bounds - sometimes even getting to compound leaps up the chain.

In the great variation of features we see in dog breeds - we see a "demonstration" of "micro evolution" WITHIN the genetic bounds for canines.

What evolutionism needs is something BIGGER than THAT. If they had even ONE - or if they could MAKE even ONE by environmental changes "how nice" that would be.

However - only God can do that - and He did it in 6 days as God's Word says.

So the amazing thing is this - man fails at the macro evolution step AND he fails at the abiogenesis step - and STILL he trashes the Gospel AND the word of God as IF "he had proven something" about either macro evolution or abiogenesis that "disproved" God's Word?

Many Christians see that happening and wonder how anyone could believe in the integrity of God's Word and trust in the Gospel while being so easily disposed to disbelieve it.

Bob

 

[BrotherJesse]

I believe in every word of the Holy Bible. Especially Genesis. Every scripture verse I follow. For example, I like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. However, I DO NOT go out and practice what I read, see, and hear. Nor do I want to. I like these series because they are unique and expand my imagination. Over the past week, I found I am becoming more of a Fundementalist.

 

[Johnv]

I contacted several of Johnvs’ “rabbinic instructors” the same one’s that said that told Johnv that Noah and Adam really didn’t live that long lives.

While I'm sure you meant that to be sarcastic, let's just clarify that you did no such thing, as confirmed to me by emails from them.

 

[Meatros]

Well that point about "theory vs law" might not be as accurate as it "could be". But the key point that things like "spontaneous generation" held by our friendly alchemists - was "a theory" and still is "a theory". However "how popular is it" (a biogenesists seem to like it by another name - I know, but if we exclude them then how popular?).

Do you know the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation?

Don't be sidetracked by the smoke. Your initial point is right on the money - by handwaiving and a little smoke the effort is made to "ignore" the blatant fact that "blue eyes vs brown eyes" is NOT the "key ingredient" for macro evolution.

What are you talking about??

Simply showing variation WITHIN a genetic pool - has no meaning at all for true evolutionism. The salient point of their argument is that "information goes INTO the system" And that the genetic pool exceeds the initial bounds - sometimes even getting to compound leaps up the chain.

Again, what are you talking about?? Variation in a gene pool has meaning in evolution. I think you have a bad definition of evolution operating in your paradigm.

In the great variation of features we see in dog breeds - we see a "demonstration" of "micro evolution" WITHIN the genetic bounds for canines.

What are these genetic bounds that you are referring to? Have they been found in science? I'm betting you'll be surprised when you don't find them.

So the amazing thing is this - man fails at the macro evolution step AND he fails at the abiogenesis step - and STILL he trashes the Gospel AND the word of God as IF "he had proven something" about either macro evolution or abiogenesis that "disproved" God's Word?

And the utterly false strawman comes out. Evolution/abiogenesis is not an effort to 'disprove' God's word. Scientists work on what they can actually study Bob, you can't study the supernatural.

Many Christians see that happening and wonder how anyone could believe in the integrity of God's Word and trust in the Gospel while being so easily disposed to disbelieve it.

Yet many many more, in fact millions more, believe otherwise.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you know the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation?

Simple - abiogenesis is the "NEW spontaneous Generation of the NEW alchemists".

Now back to the topic - do you understand the "evening and morning" sequence and how that is "one day"??

Do you understand that "For in SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and ALL that is in them" - is arguing for SIX Days instead of "unknown units of time" in Exodus 20:11.

Or do you simply accept that "yes that is obvious" and then add "I just don't believe in it".

Does your model of evolution "allow" you to "see" design in nature?

Bob