Jesus Christ was a YEC

Good posts, Mark. Your infidel friend, however, also presents the truth about belief -- it is a choice, and a very personal one. This is one reason Romans 2 mentions that the kindness of God is what leads people to repentance. It is not facts, it is Christ's character within us. The facts help bolster believers, but unless someone actually wants to believe, the facts don't mean a thing to him or her.

 

Wow, you sure showed him! If this guy was dumbfounded by such a silly thing, then he wasn't too bright.

(1) These two steal gizmos are called male and female and they fit together.
(2) If we evolved then they did too.
(3) They didn't evolve.
(4) Thus, we didn't either.

Presenting arguments in syllogism form really lets you see how silly they really are.

Mark, if you think I'm so bent on rebellion and not on truth, why do you think I remain a Christian? If I wanted to be rebellious, wouldn't it be more logical for me to stop having faith if I wanted to rebel?

 

Actually, you are both wrong. A syllogism is made up of two propositions called premises and one proposition called a conclusion. Both or you have more than those three propositions.

Let us also look at the quote of Christ's - namely, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." If we read Genesis completely literally, then we see that Jesus must be in error. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, but he did not make males and females until the sixth day. You must, therefore, allow that Jesus isn't speaking of the VERY beginning of creation, as humanity wasn't created until five days later, according to 1:27-28.

We must allow and understand that Jesus was talking about the beginning of the creation of humans for the two passages to harmonize. Thus, we cannot use the quote of Christ to prove or disprove either theory.

So to answer each point:

1. It is clear that asexual reproduction of animals occurred before the sexual reproduction of humans because of what happened on the fifth day at least, with the waters filling up with the creatures, which we must conclude also had plankton, which are asexual. Your first point falls.

2. As to your second point, the Bible clearly says that humans were created at the end of creation. The earth, water, light, sea animals, land animals, the stars, the moon, and so on were all created BEFORE humans. Point two falls.

3. It demonstrates that Jesus believed that humans were created male and female at the beginning of their creation. This doesn't prove one way or another. In fact, if we read carefully, we see in the next chapter (and see referenced in I Timothy) that man was made first, and after that the female. So a literal reading would show Jesus to be in error, as they weren't created male and female at the VERY beginning, but at the general beginning. Would you agree?

4. I don't think you can prove a causal link, but I'd be intrigued to see you try. I would propose that many, many other things are to "blame" for the disintegration of the family. Taking Genesis less historically has nothing to do with it. Baptists, on average, divorce just as much as the non-believing world, and many of them take Genesis to be literal.

 

>>>>>>That a diregard for Genesis fosters divorce cannot be denied, because Jesus said it did. <<<<<

So let me guess. You will not provide any hard data to back up your claim, will you?

 

>>>>>That a disregard for Genesis fosters divorce cannot be denied, because Jesus said it did. <<<<

But he didn't quite say that, did he? In fact, he didn't say anything even close to that.

 

The article doesn't exist in the Greek, so the word "THE" to specify the creation is inexact at best.

But you're changing from your original statement. Man wasn't created at the literal beginning, but after the literal beginning. Five days after the literal beginning.

But you agree that the word "beginning" has a little bit of leeway, correct? Either we must take "beginning" to mean something other than the specific point in time in which the universe began or understand that the beginning that is mentioned is the specific beginning of the specific creation of humans. I would lean toward the latter reading, and I am, indeed, an advocate of the young-earth, although I am willing to listen and dialogue to the other side.

I agree that a disregard in God's plan for mankind is a big cause of divorce, but I disagree with the rhetorical question, "Whereas Jesus cited the creation record as the basis for marriage and as a preventative against divorce, is it any wonder that as Genesis has come to be more and more rejected, family decay has risen to staggering proportions?" Christians who believe in evolution would, I believe, agree with Jesus that a misunderstanding of the purpose of male and female would also lead to divorce. However, to intimate that family decay is directly related to the literality of Genesis cannot be proven by Christ's words.

Not necessarily. No matter what a man without Christ believes as far as how the earth was created, he still frees his mind to behave in animalistic ways. Scripture indicates that this is all that he knows. I cannot see this same mindset in Christians who believe in evolution.

 

Interesting stuff!

Dave

 

It doesn't matter. "male and female" is what matters. Jesus (the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity-The Creator) defines human creation as sexual (not asexual). In addition Genesis itself REJECTS evolution with the words ...

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

There is a divine genetic barrier between a monkey and a man, a dog and a cat, an alligator and a canary, etc...

However, if folk wish to believe they came from baboons that is their perogative.

HankD

 

But we know luers did not evolve. We know that we make them. How does this imply that we did not evolve? Indeed, if you're pointing out the argument of a designer, then, well I agree with you - we show clear evidence of design, just as the luers do. We simply differ on how that design was accomplished.

 

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

If there is a time lapse of millions, perhaps billions of years between original creation and the differentiation of male and female humans, there is just no way this verse can be interpreted as referring to the same time. Either Jesus is wrong or these are indeed referring to the same time (not the same instant but, the same time frame).

 

These words make perfect sense regardless of the time frame before there was an Adam because they evidently refer to the creation of mankind.

 

the definite article 'the' in front of beginning, indicates ONE beginning, not one of the beginnings of various parts of earth history.

Adam and Eve were created on day 6 -- the sixth normal day after creation on day 1.

 

These words make perfect sense regardless of the time frame before there was an Adam because they evidently refer to the creation of mankind. </font>[/QUOTE]They only make sense if you are talking about the BEGINNING of creation, not the beginning of the creation of mankind. They do not "evidently" refer to just mankind, there is NO indication that it refers to anything except THE beginning of creation.