Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

[Mercury]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Saddly what we "Actually see here" is that EVERY time an attempt is made to hold evolutionists accountable to the ACTUAL wording IN THE TEXT of scripture they... change subjects.

Really?

</font>

• In [this post] I challenged your interpretation of Genesis 6 where you claimed that T-Rex didn't make it onto the ark. You quickly changed the subject.</font>
• In [this post] I asked whether Gup interprets Genesis 1:29-30 as listing the only permitted food sources, or just some permitted food sources (and, if the list is exhaustive, then what were fish to eat?). Gup quoted an AIG article about animal souls that didn't address the issue. In the following posts, it was revealed that Gup and other YECs draw a major division between creatures who have "the breath of life" and living things that don't (such as plants, insects, single-celled organisms, and perhaps fish). On the other hand, theistic evolutionists draw a major distinction between humans (created in the image of God) and all other life.</font>
• In [this post] I brought up what Psalm 104 says about God providing good things for his creations to eat, including prey for lions. The only response was to say that this is obviously post-fall, and God's standards of what is "good" are lower now than they were before.</font>
• In [this post] I addressed what I see as serious problems in the way Gup interprets Romans 5, and I laid out my interpretation and why I think it fits better with a clear reading of the text. Gup ignored that post. Bob tried to get me to instead discuss savages eating monkey brains.</font>
• In [this post] I responded to Gup's creative reading of Proverbs 26:4-5 by showing what the actual wording in the text of Scripture is. Gup ignored this issue.</font>

So, Bob, I can't agree that evolutionists have been shying away from addressing Scripture. It appears the YECs in this thread are the ones who dodge when a passage of Scripture is seriously addressed. Interestingly, they also dodge any in-depth discussion of science. YECs (at least the ones here) seem to only be willing to discuss things superficially, relying on catch-phrases, quote mining and misdirection, and are never willing to dig deep.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW

I think you just might get your wish for an cell to be made in the lab one day. It is looking like, if you follow the link I gave you above, that some may be close with RNA.

RNA is a molucule NOT a cell. Living Cells are composed of proteins, acids, and "yes" even DNA.

But you are right about one thing - I would view the creation of an "Actual living cell" in the lab a HUGE leap forward for the myths and "stories" of evolutionism. (And apparently so would they.)

UTEOTW -- I have spent much time answering your questions. But yet you spend ZERO time answering the questions I have put before you. You make no attempt to even answer the issues I put before you. Why? Why?

I have shown you that PROVEN science disputes the myths and stories of evolutionism. Your response has been that "NO DATA" is your great "PROOF" when confronted with the fact that ALL the data supports mono-chiral cell biology and that NO CELL in all of sciens is comprised of racemized chiral distributions.

This is a "best case" and "Worst case" scenario. It is one where you "show your true motive" because even you have to admit you have nothing.

IF THIS is not "sufficient" to disuade your endless devotion to evolution over science and evolution over the Word of God - what ELSE could there be?

Each of your attempts to misdirect the topic of the thread or the one or two cases where we contrast evolutionism to PROVEN science - you appeal to obscure speculations. (Typical tactics in evolutionism's back of tricks).

I prefer to stay on focus - stay on topic rather than strew red herrings all through the thread.

UTEOTW
So, where did those chalk deposits come from?

Surely you "see" the absurd nature of this misdirection above??

The thread is on the Word of God and Christ's appeal to creationism. You reject it - and avoid discussing it.

I then point to ACTUAL - PROVEN science as it relates to basic proposals of evolutionism. In response you claim that though "ALL the data is the side of creationism" - yet NO data is PROOF, in fact it is all the proof you need - that your blue sky speculation and appeal to junk-science with lots-o-imagination is correct.

UTEOTW
* I know you'll hammer me for admitting this, but it is important. First, we are still discussing abiogenesis and NOT evolution.

I suppose if you "continually ignore" the statements by Richard Dawkings claiming that EVOLUTIONISM's CLAIM is to SHOW "from nothing" how a living planet is formed -- then you can keep pretending that actually FORMING life is a part of that "story".

UTEOTW Second, it is important to realize that the RNA world, and other abiogenesis ideas floating around out there, are at this point best to still be called hypothesis. As I have pointed out, we have no possible way of having hard data from the time of the origin of life.

Ineed. One "wonders" why you cling to "any old myth" that evolutionism offers you in those area - "As if it was more trustworthy" than the Word of God.

You keep claiming that the only reason you abandon God's Word is that your junk-science stores were so compelling - but here you admit that your junk-science is know by you - in this case - to ONLY be guesswork.

And so "guesswork" is all you need to challenge the Word of God successfully? That is the level at which you abandon trust in scripture????

Your confession here is not scientific, but it would make an atheist proud. Surely you see that.

The model you are using here - is flawed.

I don't know why you can't see that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Having convinced yourself that God's Word is up for a trade - in exchange for pure guesswork, you find yourself adopting the SAME model as the atheist who says

"I have nothing but a guess here - but WE ARE here after all so this guess is as good as we have. After God's Word can't ACTUALLY be an alternative to believe over our exaulted guessing."

UTEOTW said
These fragile organic compounds just do not survive billions of years. So the best that can be done is to make educated guesses. You might could come up with some good ideas, but you could never have hard proof to support them.

That's ok - because that is all you need to challenge the Word of God.

UTEOTW
Which makes this whole subject a bit on the strange side. God may have used a pathway we would never think of to bring the first life to this planet.

As in "God SPOKE and IT WAS" ???

Or "God Spoke and then came up with a neat evolutionists SCHEME to get life to appear after trying for billions of years"???

UTEOTW -- And we will never know for sure. This is quite a contrast to true evolution where the evidence is overwhelming

Ohhhhh I see. Then THIS would be the case where you WOULD be "Accepting" -- "God SPOKE and IT WAS" instantly - because you have "NO SCIENCE" to show you anything else for this case of the first living cell??

Odd - that you never go that direction don't you think?

Odd that you ONLY take the atheist's "assumption" that guesswork is all we can have - and that guesswork is MORE than have as reliable in the Word of God on this subject of the CREATION of LIFE (by the CREATOR??)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"Clearly - in my view "the important part" is to have PROVEN science SHOW cells comprised of random chrial distributions today (you know - MADE UP of them??) OR to show in the lab - a contrived way of building all the proteins needed for a living cell - comprised of mono-chiral L-amino acids."

Again, no need to assume racemized mixtures. Catalyst have been shown to make one isomer preferred.

"RNA is a molecule NOT a cell."

Everything in a cell is nothing but molecules. I ahve pointed out that RNA is capable of performing all the tasks needed for life. It can store genetic information. It can make copies of RNA. And it can perform the functions performed today by proteins such as acting as a catalyst and binding to important molecules.

"THERE ARE NO RNA based organisms capable of life WITHOUT fully functional DNA based cells to "feed on".

Or are you proposing that AFTER abiogenesis was fully successful THEN after that - RNA based organisms evolved to feed on the DNA based cells??"

What in the world is this supposed to mean?

I am proposing that RNA is capable of performing all the functions needed to have a simple life begin to grow and evolve. Since RNA can make DNA, you should see how DNA could be a later innovation. DNA performs the genetic storage role better than RNA and would be fovored once a means of making it came about. By the same token, was the RNA started assembling some proteins, proteins can perform a wider variety of functions than ribozomes and the proteins would be favored. As proof, you still see some functions normally associated with proteins performed by RNA in some organisms. You also still see RNA around in its more common (now) messanger function.

"How are you going to ever address the problem of getting to an actual living cell - you know - DNA, Nucleus - cell membrane enclosed structures??"

I think I did.

"True enough - a catalyst IS NOT a protein and does not make up cell structures. "

But you miss the point. YOu complain about racemized mixtures but I show you that catalysts make non-racemized mixtures.

"By the way - thank you for that article on borate minerals.

Are you proposing that they worked the same buhzillions of years ago as they work today?

I would tend to think so -- wouldn't you?"

Yes I do. Thanks for agreeing with me. I mean, I cannot see any reason they would work differently, do you?

"The point remains - we have NO LAB experiment (contrived or otherwise) that shows mono-chiral amino acids as the sole product and with sufficient diversity to form viable mono-chiral proteins usable in living cells."

Which way do you want to go with this. We can first go the route where catalyst make the amino acids that are no longer racemized. Or can we can go the route where RNA comes first and then makes proteins useful to it. Either way, it works and avoids your hypothetical problem.

"CONTRIVING the successful experiment in the lab does not show that it HAD to happen the way we controved it"

I am glad you finally understand that point. The way in which life arose can never actually be known. We can debate some proposals, but we have no way to know for sure that it was not some path that we would never think of. But I can be sure that God wanted life on this planet and therefore made sure that it arose.

"Interesting that you fall back from trying to show the first living cell - to now trying to show a molecule existed."

Cells are collections of molecules. I think I showed how a collection of RNA that could store genetic information, make copies of itself, and carry out other cellular fuctions could be inclosed in a "cell" with water and surrounded by a semi-permeable membrane made of fatty acids.

"Hmmm. We are 70% water. (another molecule you may recognize). I suppose the next thing you are going to tell me is that condensation on the bathroom mirror is "evolution proved!""

Don't be ridiculous. That sounds more like that claims of a young earther.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[qb]Saddly what we "Actually see here" is that EVERY time an attempt is made to hold evolutionists accountable to the ACTUAL wording IN THE TEXT of scripture they... change subjects.

Originally posted by Mercury:
Really?

In [this post] I challenged your interpretation of Genesis 6 where you claimed that T-Rex didn't make it onto the ark. You quickly changed the subject.

(Off topic -- How do you get that link to just point to that one post?)

Ok - so I say that we CAN't GET evolutionists to STAY on the Bible subject of HOW their view squares with what Scripture ACTUALLY says..

Then you respond with the great scritpural quote of "T-REX on the ARK" and ask how I know that it was not there.

??????????????????????????????????

Is that supposed to "prove evolution"?

Is that supposed to be a Bible text in favor of evolution?????

Is that supposed to be an evolutionist's answer to a Bible text challenging your POV??

What was the text again??

Are you paying attention??

Wasn't that "in fact" just another excellent example of "red herring" tossed in INSTEAD of addressing the point of evolutionism rejected in scripture?????????

Originally posted by Mercury:

[this post] I asked whether Gup interprets Genesis 1:29-30 as listing the only permitted food sources, or just some permitted food sources (and, if the list is exhaustive, then what were fish to eat?).

Hello!!

Can you say "Red Herring"???

Isn't that supposed to be MY point agains your posts? Isn't this where I SAY evolutionists misidrect and change topics every time we get on the subject of whether or not the Word of God uses CREATIONIST models or evolutionist models??

I fail to see your strategy in pointing out your own efforts to DO what I am accusing you of doing - as "a kind of defense"?

Whats up with that??

Originally posted by Mercury:
Gup quoted an AIG article about animal souls that didn't address the issue.

I have to admit - I did not see Gup20's reference to animal souls.... but...

I think the POINT is that the Bible uses CREATIONIST models "You know"

-- FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE...
-- And EVENING and MORNING where the FIRST DAY...
--- IT was ADAM who was FIRST CREATED and then Eve
--- FROM THE BEGINNING God MADE them Male and femail

Hello!!

Why do you go to T-REX and "What to fish eat" -- when confronted by these Bible issues?

And did I mention "the Fall of man"???

Originally posted by Mercury:
In [this post] I brought up what Psalm 104 says about God providing good things for his creations to eat, including prey for lions.

The only response was to say that this is obviously post-fall

Indeed we can all agree - Psalms was written POST fall. And in ACTS 14 where God claims to provide rain and food for life on earth - that is also POST fall. God STILL provides.

How this is "making" your case is beyond me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

" have shown you that PROVEN science disputes the myths and stories of evolutionism."

You sure have asserted this. But you have run like the wind from the opportunities of demonstrating that this is so.

"Each of your attempts to misdirect the topic of the thread or the one or two cases where we contrast evolutionism to PROVEN science - you appeal to obscure speculations."

I think I have answered most if not all of your claims. Maybe not to your satisfaction. But you have not answered any of mine.

"I prefer to stay on focus - stay on topic rather than strew red herrings all through the thread."

Uh...no. YOu prefer to post the same thing over and over ignoring the refutations presented to you. You care not to enter into a real debate. To you staying on topic is simply posting the same thing over and over and over no matter how many times you are shown to be incorrect.

"Surely you "see" the absurd nature of this misdirection above??"

Nope. Pointing out that you run from the opportunity to justify your assertions by, again, asking you where did the chalk deposits came from. You want a debate yet you never ever never will answer anyone's questions of you. Look at the list of things Mercury has above for you. You went through them but never answered any of them.

"You keep claiming that the only reason you abandon God's Word is that your junk-science stores were so compelling - but here you admit that your junk-science is know by you - in this case - to ONLY be guesswork."

I prefer to be honest. And here honesty means pointing out that we can never be sure about abiogenesis. But we can be pretty sure about evolution. Remember, those are two different topics. Of course, YECers like to hop from one topic to another, calling them all "evolution," to avoid having to deal with the facts. When you get in over your head in one subject, just jump to another.

Will you ever answer a question?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Mercury:

[this post]

I addressed what I see as serious problems in the way Gup interprets Romans 5, and I laid out my interpretation and why I think it fits better with a clear reading of the text.

I pointed out that in Romans 8 - it is very clear that ALL creation was subjected to death and decay as a result of the fall of man - and that only at the redemption of the body - the 2nd coming and the resurrection would creation finally be set free from that which it suffers since the fall of man.

But that is LESS directed at the SPECIFIC issues of the CREATIONIST MODEL that we see in scripture than the ones I quoted above.

-- FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE...
-- And EVENING and MORNING where the FIRST DAY...
--- IT was ADAM who was FIRST CREATED and then Eve
--- FROM THE BEGINNING God MADE them Male and femail

Remember?

I even showed you the CENTRAL issue of the fall of man - CENTRAL to the Gospel message and our NEED of Christ and how evolutionism corrupts that with ITS FAIRYTALE about the hominids bashing in the monkey brains...

Originally posted by Mercury:

Bob tried to get me to instead discuss savages eating monkey brains.
[this post] I responded to Gup's creative reading of Proverbs 26:4-5

An interesting dodge of that central GOSPEL point about the fall of man Mercury.

Lets get back on topic.

Originally posted by Mercury:

So, Bob, I can't agree that evolutionists have been shying away from addressing Scripture. It appears the YECs in this thread are the ones who dodge when a passage of Scripture is seriously addressed.

I don't think the evidence bears that out. If you will notice in ALL of your examples you seek to avoid the classic areas of CREATIONIST language used in scripture INSTEAD of the fables and myths of evolutionism.

The is the internet - I repost those same Bible points until you tire of finding ways to avoid them.

But be serious for a minute - haven't you already "seen" the evolutionist here "admit" that the REASON for that creationist language is the gullability of the OT/NT reader, the ignorance of those not familiar with the evolutionary tales widely published in modern times?

That means you could never be successful at actually addressing these points raised here - which explains why evolutionists keep dodging them and changing the subject.

I mean that is pretty obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
(Off topic -- How do you get that link to just point to that one post?)

At the top of each post, right beside where it says the posting date, there's an icon of a piece of paper with a pushpin. Click on that icon, and then copy the resulting address from your browser's address bar into your post.

Is that supposed to "prove evolution"?

Is that supposed to be a Bible text in favor of evolution?????

Not at all. That's the difference between our position and yours. When science convinces you of something, such as the extinction of dinosaurs, you try to twist Scriptures to make your point instead of just relying on the scientific evidence for or against your position. We, on the other hand, don't try to force our positions into Scripture. Both UTEOTW and I have stated that the Bible does not teach evolution. It is as silent about it as it is about gravity or the electromagnetic force.

Creation itself provides the evidence for evolution, just as it provides evidence for gravity and the electromagnetic force. What I have been showing from Scripture is that many of the reasons given for why there can't be death before the fall do not line up with a clear reading of the Bible. I'm perplexed as to why nobody wants to address those passages.

asn't that "in fact" just another excellent example of "red herring" tossed in INSTEAD of addressing the point of evolutionism rejected in scripture?????????

If so, it was a red herring that you tossed in. You brought up the point that according to Genesis 6 T. Rex did not make it on the ark because dinosaurs were being judged by God, and I just challenged that with Scripture. When I did so, you dodged.

Indeed we can all agree - Psalms was written POST fall. And in ACTS 14 where God claims to provide rain and food for life on earth - that is also POST fall. God STILL provides.

How this is "making" your case is beyond me.

It makes my point because God is still the same. If God can declare something to be "good" now, then I see no reason to assume that God could not have declared the same thing "good" when he created the world.

And, of course this psalm was written post-fall. So was Genesis. I'm not sure why you even mention that.

[ July 17, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
But that is LESS directed at the SPECIFIC issues of the CREATIONIST MODEL that we see in scripture than the ones I quoted above.

-- FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE...

Indeed. That sure throws gap theory out the window, doesn't it? First off, this verse is commentary (but inspired commentary) on the commandments, and not part of the commandments themselves. If you doubt this, just check Deuteronomy 5:12-15 where the commandments are listed again, and this same commandment is tied to the exodus instead of to creation.

When was the Sabbath first commanded? According to Deuteronomy 5:15, God saved the Israelites from the Egyptians "by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day." So, God commanded the Israelites to observe the Sabbath because of the exodus. I believe that Genesis 1 presents creation in a six-day framework to further cement the template of the work week and the importance of the Sabbath. The same way Jesus told parables of shepherds and sheep and vineyards and wine because these things were familiar to his audience, so too creation is presented in the framework of six days of work and a Sabbath which is also familiar to the audience. (Or, perhaps part of reason sheep, vineyards, wine and many other things were created in the first place was to give us metaphors that can teach us about God!)

-- And EVENING and MORNING where the FIRST DAY...

Absolutely. No day-age theory for me. The days of Genesis 1 are as literal as the sheep in some of Jesus' parables. What is in question is whether the story is a historical account, not whether the words within the story should be mangled to mean something else.

--- IT was ADAM who was FIRST CREATED and then Eve

Right, first Adam was created before there were any plants in the earth, then a garden was planted, trees grew up, and animals were formed out of the ground. But, still no helper was found for Adam, so Eve was created.

Or, if you go by Genesis 1, all plants were created on day 3; the sun, moon and stars were created on day 4; all birds and sea creatures were created on day 5; and all land animals and creeping things were made on day 6, climaxed with male and female human beings being created in the image of God.

I think Genesis 1 and 2 present the details of creation differently because they have different focuses. Genesis 1 focuses on God's transcendent power and the orderliness of creation. Genesis 2:4-25 stresses God's immanence and how he walked with Adam in the garden, and how he providentially creates in response to needs. The first account shows us as ruling creation, while the second has us taking care of it. Both are true, but they stress different aspects. By reading both seriously, we gain a better view of God and creation than if we try to read the details of one account into the other.

--- FROM THE BEGINNING God MADE them Male and femail

Correct. There never was a time when human beings were sexless.

 

[Gup20]

I have never said that these people were off. Look closely at what I said. Their knowledge of the world was limited and they wrote how they saw things. So what? God gave them a revelation of Himself that they understood according to what they "knew" about the world. This seems to be a very smart thing to do, IMHO. He taught them the truths they needed to know. There are many cases of this in the New Testament. Have you ever read any of the parables? I think those contain a lot of truth.

You did indeed say that what they wrote was "a litte off" and you also said that you didnt' think God felt it necessary to tell us the truth. Lets look at the quote:

I think they were writing what they believed at the time and that their worldview on such things was a little off did not matter. I do not think that God considered taking the time to bother giving us the true shape of the world important...

You admitted... as has every other evolutionist here... that there is nothing in scripture to support evolution. As a matter of fact, the Bible gives us a very different picture. In order to believe evolution, you have to throw out not only Genesis, but also most of the new testament. For example, Jesus quotes Genesis... if Genesis isn't true - or if it's a litte off as UTE suggests ... then Jesus quoted a lie. That means we can pretty much thow out anything else Jesus said cause he's a known liar. I don't think so! In fact, Jesus is not a liar... neither is God... the Bible is not 'a little off' and God did indeed find it important to tell the truth in the Bible.

Please quit attributing the slanderous term "fairy tale" to me. How many times do I have to remind you that if I did not believe the Bible, I would not be here? Why would I be a Christian if I did not believe in the virgin birth, Christ's death and ressurrection and so on?

A fairy tale is exactly how you have described scripture. So tell me - Did God create the world exactly how Genesis 1 & 2 says? Did he create our universe, our world, our solar system, our planet during the 6 literal days of creation? Did he create people and land animals separately in the space of 24 hours? Did create the Sun in our solar system the day after he created the plants on earth? Do the kinds reproduce after their own kind... or do they change into other kinds? (a kind being grass, herbs, trees, sea creatures, birds, cattle, creeping things, beasts and man).

So which is it? Is the Bible true? Did these things happen as the Bible says they did, or did evolution happen? We all admit the Bible says nothing about evolution... so where do you fit evolution into Genesis 1 & 2?

You never gave an indication of what conditions you would accept as a prerequisite for having such a discussion.

When you admit to me that you believe that Adam entered this world approximately 24 hours after the first whale. When you demonstrate that you are willing to believe what the Bible says over what man (evolution) says. Also... you keep trying to assert that it is simply a difference of interpretation. It is not. You have no other interpretation to give... you only assert that the YEC interpretation is wrong. You have already admitted that there is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever for evolution in the Bible. So then, how can you take an interpretation that doesn't even exist over the plainest clearest interpretation that YEC present?

You continue to use the tactic of slandering me, misrepresenting my views, and using the fallacy of the slippery slope. You have no real interest in examining the data at all.

In fact it is evolutionists who refuse to actually examine the evidence. In fact, in the light of scripture we can interpret all evolutionistic evidence to show how creation in 6 days happened. Just as Eve looked at the apple without regard for God's word, evolutionists look at the evidence without a regard for truth. The only prerequisite for something to be evolutionisticly viable is that it goes against scripture, and upholds an entirely humanistic worldview.

I will have to ask for a reference

I will see if I can find it.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
Do the kinds reproduce after their own kind... or do they change into other kinds? (a kind being grass, herbs, trees, sea creatures, birds, cattle, creeping things, beasts and man).

Wow! You've whittled down the kinds to just nine. You're about the first YEC I've seen who's presented a solid definition of what they mean by kind.

So, do you accept that evolution (or micro-evolution, whatever you want to call it) happens within the bounds of these nine kinds?

 

[Gup20]

Romans 5 directly states that death spread to all men as a result of one man's sin.

Well... why don't we take a look at Romans 5:12.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Lets look at some other scritpure that might support this -

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1Cr 15:56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.

Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.


A couple of points of logic. First of all... it clearly says that Death entered the world because of Sin. Secondly, even if we dismiss this portion of the verse and just say that death passed upon all men at that point, the question would come to surface - how did natural selection direct mutation to build on previous genomes without death? Furthermore, if man is indeed the apex of the evolutionary process, what mechanism caused men to become eternal beings when there had been so much death in the evolutionary tree leading up to man? How can an eternal being result from beings bound by death. Also, the Bible says that death is the result of sin. Did each species of animals that mutated start out eternal? What caused death to occur millions of years before man? Did the animals sin and die? If so, why are the new species that come about in today's day not live forever? Furthermore... God calls death a bad thing - resulting from sin ... why would God call each day of creation BEFORE man came upon the scene Good? Would God really call a world filled with death good? Furthermore, there are fossilized thorns that have been dated millions of years before man supposedly evolved. The Bible clearly says that Thorns were a result of the curse. Furthermore, what process of mammal sexual reproduction would cause an asexual being - or is the story of how God created Eve just a complete fairy tale aswell?

Absolutely. No day-age theory for me. The days of Genesis 1 are as literal as the sheep in some of Jesus' parables. What is in question is whether the story is a historical account, not whether the words within the story should be mangled to mean something else.

In other words... is Genesis a fairy tale, or did it really happen. I vote it really happened... we all know your vote.

So, do you accept that evolution (or micro-evolution, whatever you want to call it) happens within the bounds of these nine kinds?

Yes. I believe there was an original dog kind, for example, that all breeds of Dog came from. Many dogs are considered separate dog species... but they are all ... still... dogs. Also, horses... there are many varieties of horses. But they are all still horses. If you look at the 9 kinds... you will see that they cover fish, birds, land animals, men... so clearly... these could not have all evolved from each other, as evolution predicts, but they were created separately.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
Well... why don't we take a look at Romans 5:12.

Yes, lets! Now, why don't you interact with what I wrote about Romans 5:12 [here] instead of just restating your interpretation from before. I already addressed why your interpretation does not line up with a clear reading of the text. Do you disagree? If so, show why my points aren't valid, or why you disagree with them.

How can an eternal being result from beings bound by death.

How can an eternal being result from dirt? With God, anything's possible! Maybe being made in the image of God would do that. Or, maybe that's what the tree of life was there for -- as long as they eat from that, they live. Really, it's not something the text is clear on.

Also, the Bible says that death is the result of sin.

Indeed, but not all death, as you've admitted earlier. When pressed, you claim that it's only death of creatures with the "breath of life" (e.g. not plants, insects, single-celled organisms, and perhaps not fish either). However, the distinction you're making isn't found in Romans 5, while the distinction I'm making (focusing on human death) is stated repeatedly.

Did the animals sin and die?

No, and animals don't sin and die now either. Sin applies to creatures like us who are made in God's image and are capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. Animals don't need a saviour. They do die, though.

Would God really call a world filled with death good?

Why would the Bible call prey for a hungry lion a good gift from God's own hand? If you disagree with God's definition of "good", take it up with him, not me.

Originally posted by Gup20:
I believe there was an original dog kind, for example, that all breeds of Dog came from.

Oh, so you believe there are more than the nine kinds you listed? So much for a straight answer about what the word "kind" means! Are there nine kinds, or are there more than nine kinds?

Many dogs are considered separate dog species... but they are all ... still... dogs. Also, horses... there are many varieties of horses. But they are all still horses.

Indeed, and there are many varieties of mammals, but they are all still mammals. There are many varieties of plants, but they are all still plants. What's your point?

 

[UTEOTW]

"You did indeed say that what they wrote was "a litte off" and you also said that you didnt' think God felt it necessary to tell us the truth. Lets look at the quote:"

YOu know exactly what I meant. The way you were quoting me is different that what was said.

These people, thousands of years ago, had a particular world view. You know this or you would accept somewhere along the way that they really did believe in a flat earth, surrounded by the deep, with a dome overhead. You cannot accept this, because that is the beginning of showing that the Bible is not concerned with scientific details but in the nature of God and Man and their relationship. If you are forced to accept that these people really thought the world was flat, then your whole reasoning falls apart. Instead you are willing to twist the plain reading of the scripture on the matter to fit your modern notions, rather than accepting what it says and understanding it in the proper context. But then you condemn me for trying to understand the scripture on Creation in the context of the great age of our universe.

So you cannot accept their geographic worldview because of the implications to your whole line of thinking. On the other hand, you know that if you were to pick up a text book or do a little Googling, you would find that my claims would be substantiated. I have already given you one link to such a reference. So you cannot deny that they thought this in good honesty because you know that it is easy to demonstrate. So you take the typical YEC third way. You cannot accept the fact, yet you cannot deny the fact, so you slander the messanger. You accuse me of taking Man's word over God's word in accepting the historical beliefs of the Jews and other people of the Middle East. In reality, you do not even have to take it that far. Using the plain language of the scripture and the most common uses of the words, you should be able to come to the same geographical worldview as what I have asserted. BUt this destroys your whole argument. So instead you slander.

Now, let's extend the idea of the worldview. Contrast the Jewish creation accounts with the others of the region. What do you find? (Let me disclaim that this is not something I am well versed in.) I think you will find that they share some similarities. But there is one big difference. In the Jewish version, God confirms His role as the One True God. No gods. Just God. God the Creator. Not a mixed bag of gods. God used what they understood in a way to reveal His nature to them.

Surely you do not take every word of the Bible literal. I am sure you recognize that there is figurative language used in places. Well I assert that this was figurative language. And I feel confident in that based on the revelation of God in His Creation. God told those people just what they, and we, needed to know. It need not be literal. Non-literal does not mean not true no matter what you assert. Do you think every word of the parables were literally true or is this a case were God (as Jesus) used things that were not factually true to present Truth? If they were not literal, does this mean that God lied? Hardly.

"then Jesus quoted a lie. That means we can pretty much thow out anything else Jesus said cause he's a known liar."

You are the one making the assertion, not me. Ignore for a second that you disagree with my interpretation. Do you mean to say that if God really did use figurative language to give us the Creation account, that you think this means God lied?

I hope you sleep well, because I am not going to be the one to accuse Him of lying.

God gave us what He wanted us to have. I find it amazing that you are willing to question God Himself. I find it amazing that you in your human folly have decided that if God did not do something the way you think that He has lied to you. Simply amazing the hubris in such a thought. We cannot fathom the mind of God or why He would choose to do things the way He does. Yet you are not even open to the possibility that He might have choosen non-literal language for His own purposes. No, you would rather tell us that you, a mortal man, would judge God to be a liar if He did such a thing. And you would rather slander and demean a fellow believer who disagrees with you over how the creation was accomplished. Simply amazing.

"the Bible is not 'a little off' and God did indeed find it important to tell the truth in the Bible."

As I have said, I think God was more concerned with bigger things that the shape of the earth or whether species can evolve when deciding what to put in the Bible. I think He worked through the worldview of those to whom the message was being given. It was not important enough to bother pulling Moses to the side and saying BTW, the earth is actually a ball. I offer as proof of this that you can pick up a reference book and see what the Jews believed about geography and then you can see that the plain reading of the Bible agrees with this. Agree much better than the spin you put on it to defend yourself.

"A fairy tale is exactly how you have described scripture."

No, a fairy tale is the phrase you have chosen to slander me with. Again, we should always be careful when someone tells us they have the "Truth" and then declare anyone who does not agree with them heretics and against God and people who call God a liar and such. Just like you should take note of people who automatically declare those who disagree with them politically "unpatriotic." It is a slander technique and a scare tactic. "Don't listen to him, he hates God."

"Did God create the world exactly how Genesis 1 & 2 says?"

Not in a literal sense.

"Did he create our universe, our world, our solar system, our planet during the 6 literal days of creation?"

No.

"Did he create people and land animals separately in the space of 24 hours?"

No.

"Did create the Sun in our solar system the day after he created the plants on earth? Do the kinds reproduce after their own kind... or do they change into other kinds? (a kind being grass, herbs, trees, sea creatures, birds, cattle, creeping things, beasts and man)."

Let's see. No. Yes and no. An animal will always give birth to the same species, however with time, populations can evolve into new species.

Speaking of which, do you think you could give us a precise definition of "kind" and some examples? You list above seems a tad broad. Or are all "beasts" the same "kind?" That would an impressive rate of evolution.

"Is the Bible true?"

Absolutely.

"Did these things happen as the Bible says they did, or did evolution happen?"

Yes.

God really created everything and evolution was a part of that process.

You know, earlier you bothered to quote an anecdote from my childhood where my pastor at the time used a common idea that the Isralies were able to cross the Jordan because God arranged for a landslide to temporarily dam the flow. Can I take this to mean that you disagree with that idea and further that you do not think that God uses natural means at times to accomplish His will? That would be an interesting admission. But you took care to quote it in a manner that suggests strongly that if I think that God used a natural means to accomplish that miracle that I do not believe the Bible as written. Bob also has quoted the same anecdote with the same implications. Again, I find that an amazing bit of hubris that you would so put God in a box of your construction and tell Him how he can and cannot accomplish His will.

"When you admit to me that you believe that Adam entered this world approximately 24 hours after the first whale..."

Yes, and here you confirm my assertion. You will deal with the facts of the case only when I first say that I agree completely with your version. So you never will.

"You have no other interpretation to give... you only assert that the YEC interpretation is wrong."

Nope. I assert the God used non-literal language to reveal Truths to us. Just as was done wit the parables to give one example.

"So then, how can you take an interpretation that doesn't even exist over the plainest clearest interpretation that YEC present?"

So then, how can you take an interpretation that doesn't even exist over the plainest clearest interpretation that the Jewish geographic worldview presents?

Oh yeah, you spin it with your modern thoughts.

"The only prerequisite for something to be evolutionisticly viable is that it goes against scripture, and upholds an entirely humanistic worldview."

Absolutely, wholly untrue. You do realize that there are many fine Christian that work in the sciences. You think they base what they write on the "prerequisite ... that it goes against scripture, and upholds an entirely humanistic worldview." You have got to be kidding. What color is the sky in your world?

This is just another example of your willingness to slander and misrepresent the views of those with whom you disagree.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
(Off topic -- How do you get that link to just point to that one post?)

Originally posted by Mercury:
At the top of each post, right beside where it says the posting date, there's an icon of a piece of paper with a pushpin. Click on that icon, and then copy the resulting address from your browser's address bar into your post.

Way cool! Thanks.


(Now on with our story).

 

[BobRyan]

Is that supposed to "prove evolution"?

Is that supposed to be a Bible text in favor of evolution?????

Mercury --
Not at all. That's the difference between our position and yours. When science convinces you of something, such as the extinction of dinosaurs, you try to twist Scriptures to make your point instead of just relying on the scientific evidence for or against your position.

The point remains. The fact that dinosaurs don't exist - has nothing to do with the literal 6 days of creation described in the Bible.

As my question shows - your point does nothing to address the contradiction between the Creation-model of scripture and the opposing evolutionist stories.

The entire point of that post was that when confronted with those contradictions -- evolutionists "change the subject".

Your response was "oh no we don't" and then you come up with a story about T-Rex "AS IF" this shows evolution directly addressing how IT harmonizes with scripture.

clearly this following post of yours above - takes the opposite point (showing my point is valid) by saying that you don't care at all about how the myths of evolutionism directly contradict the Bible. (because supposedly you are placing your confidence in the junk-science and wild speculations of evolutionism).

Mercury

We, on the other hand, don't try to force our positions into Scripture. Both UTEOTW and I have stated that the Bible does not teach evolution.

Then when I claim that you are running away from the contradictions between the CREATION model used in the Bible as an explanation for "origins" and evolutionisms blue-sky "stories" - why don't you simply say "You are right! We don't respond when you bring up those contradictions. Instead we try to have a discussion about junk science".

(Or something like that)

Mercury

It is as silent about it as it is about gravity or the electromagnetic force.

What a gross lack of critical thinking and objectivity!!

Dawkings admits that evolutionism is a story about the ORGINS of all life forms on earth.

The Bible starts out with THE Account of the origins of all life forms on earth.

And you pretend that they are NOT talking about the same subject???!!!!

That is true devotion!! heat - but no light.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW - now that I have pounded on Mercury a little for not solving the Creationist-model of scripture vs the blue-sky contraditions of evolutionism - I DO appreciate the Mercury has been kind enough to at least respond to the point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Mercury said
Creation itself provides the evidence for evolution, just as it provides evidence for gravity and the electromagnetic force. What I have been showing from Scripture is that many of the reasons given for why there can't be death before the fall do not line up with a clear reading of the Bible. I'm perplexed as to why nobody wants to address those passages.

Because they are oblique points of pure speculation. Why major on the minor obscure speculative points of scripture when the plain clear blatant contradictions between the 6 days of creation week and the myths of evolutionism remain as glaring irreconsilable models - God vs humanism. Scripture vs junk-science.

I would much rather see us focus on the huge glaring problem rather than speculate about the days when T-Rex wanted on the boat but was probably booted off. Etc

Such non-Bible topics pale in comparison to the glaring problem of...

IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the HEAVENS and the EARTH.

And the other points raised in my previous posts on that subject.

Bob said of the chalk, T-Rex, What do fish eat etc...

Isn't that "in fact" just another excellent example of "red herring" tossed in INSTEAD of addressing the point of evolutionism rejected in scripture?????????

Mercury said --
If so, it was a red herring that you tossed in. You brought up the point that according to Genesis 6 T. Rex did not make it on the ark

Wrong.

My speculative was response TO the EVOLUTIONIST initiative/attempt to get OFF topic of Bible contradictions to the origin myths of evolutionism - was to engage IN speculation -- speculation vs speculation. Obscure point of scripture vs obscure point of scripture.

NEVER did I INTRODUCE the T-Rex "story" as a valid subject for addressing the glaring contradictions between the Bible account of ORIGINS and evolutionisms blue-sky speculations.

I was simply RESPONDING to the attempts of evolutionism to misdirect on that point.

And I was doing so in a consiliatory way - engaging that point though it is a total red herring -- misdirection from the topic!!

Now you accuse ME of wanting to go down that rabbit trail???

That is an example of the revisionism that I think is so central to evolutionism!

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said Indeed we can all agree - Psalms was written POST fall. And in ACTS 14 where God claims to provide rain and food for life on earth - that is also POST fall. God STILL provides.

How this is "making" your case is beyond me.

Mercury said --
It makes my point because God is still the same. If God can declare something to be "good" now, then I see no reason to assume that God could not have declared the same thing "good" when he created the world.

Well then you're just not thinking. Today God speaks about the benefit of the death of His godly ones (see Isaiah 57:1-29, Ps 116:15). You are wrong to think that He was speaking to Adam about what a wonderful and precious thing it would be for him to die.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
But that is LESS directed at the SPECIFIC issues of the CREATIONIST MODEL that we see in scripture than the ones I quoted above.

-- FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE...

Originally posted by Mercury:
Indeed. That sure throws gap theory out the window, doesn't it?

IF you are speaking of GAPS between the 6 evenings and mornings ... then obviously the answer is "yes"!.

Mercury said -- First off, this verse is commentary (but inspired commentary) on the commandments, and not part of the commandments themselves.

WHAT!!??

Exodus 20:8-11 IS the 4th commandment.

It not only COMMANDS observance of the 7th day of creation week - it also shows the origin, authority and purpose.

In the same way the 3rd commandment NOT only commands honor for parents it ALSO shows the benefit of doing it.

The commandment can not be carved up between "not the commandment vs commandment". Though such a red herring may be intertaining for a while.

Secondly - if the REASON God gives for the commandment is in fact bogus - (as the priests of evolutionism claim) then nullifying the commandment is the result.

Obviously.

As in the cases where God says HE is our creator and then commands obedience. If it can be SHOWN that He did NOT create us - then the REASON is voided and the basis for the action it compells negated.

Think about that.

Mercury said

If you doubt this, just check Deuteronomy 5:12-15 where the commandments are listed again, and this same commandment is tied to the exodus instead of to creation.

Hello!

In Exodus 20 we have God speaking the commandments Himself!

In Dueteronomy 20 the claim is made that Moses is giving a summary account 40 years later upon the point of His death. Moses ADDS to the REASONS for obedience - he does not REPLACE the Words of God spoken at Sinai.

(Though I am sure that red herring idea provides some entertaining value for a few people.)

The fact remains - GOD summarized the Creation "account" of Genesis 1-2:3 in the Exodus 20 brief statement.

His summary is devastating to the case of evolutionism. No rabbit trail misdirection or red herring side-topics are available to counter that plain fact of scripture.

Though I think we are in for a real treat as you attempt that very thing.

Mercury
When was the Sabbath first commanded?

Is this leading to the point where you show that God was wrong to summarize Gen 1-2:3 as He did?

So far I am not seeing it.

Further - the summary He provides could not BE more contradictory to the myths of evolutionism.

It is obvious for the reader.

Mercury said --
I believe that Genesis 1 presents creation in a six-day framework to further cement the template of the work week and the importance of the Sabbath.

No doubt that when God included the Sabbath in the 10 commandments in Exodus 20:8-11 as the 4th in that series of 10 - He showed explicitly the ONE AND ONLY reason in all of scripture for a SEVEN day cycle.

And in Gen 1-2:3 He shows the day is "made holy" at Creation.

IN Exodus 20:8-11 HE SHOWS the reason for the EXACT 7 day cycle and He EVEN tells them WHICH day of their week is the 7th day of Creation week saying "Tomorrow IS the Sabbath".

The entire argument that GOD makes (as opposed to man trying to misdirect) is that HIS role as creator means that HIS 7 day week (not one of our own choosing) is to be honored for "He sanctified and blessed" that 7th day of creation week (not man).

The language could NOT be more contradictory to the myths and speculations of evolutionism.

Is there any way to get around that fact???

-- And EVENING and MORNING where the FIRST DAY...

Mercury said --
Absolutely. No day-age theory for me. The days of Genesis 1 are as literal

And in Evolutionism??

The contradictory model of Creation that INCLUDES God telling mankind that the SAME 7 day week at Sinai is the SAME 7 day week of Gen 1-2:3 could not BE more opposed to the blue-sky myths of evolutionism!

Christ said "the Sabbath was MADE for mankind not mankind MADE for the Sabbath".

There Christ speaks of the MAKING of BOTH.

A statement that could not BE more opposed to evolutionism.

--- IT was ADAM who was FIRST CREATED and then Eve

Here again - using the term MADE and CREATED - appealing to the DETAILS of Gen 1 and 2 as though they are to be TRUSTED - could not be MORE opposed to the myths of evolutionism.

Mercury said --

Right, first Adam was created

Well you at least go that right. The Bible says "Adam was created FIRST and THEN EVE".

The Bible says that on the THIRD evening and morning plants were created but on the 6th evening and morning - Mankind was created. MALE and then FEMALE.

How blatantly contradictory to evolutionism. How obvious how glaring how impossible to sidestep and ignore!!

Mercury said --
before there were any plants in the earth, then a garden was planted, trees grew up, and animals were formed out of the ground. But, still no helper was found for Adam, so Eve was created.

You are simply not paying attention. Gen 1-2:3 is a chronological sequence an "account" historically accurate and true and appealed to by the Exodus 20:8-11 summary God speaks to.

Impossible to ignore. Impossible to misdirect.

Horribly contrary to evolutionism's blue-sky myths and stories.

But the Genesis 2 text is dealing with the basis for marriage NOT with the SEQUENCE of life plants and animals.

It gives the FACTS of rain not falling, the FACTS of animals and man formed of the dust of the ground the FACTS of Adam created first and then Eve - but it relies on the fact that the reader can "remember" chapter 1 as the chronological sequence in which those facts are placed.

Evolutionist seek to hide and misdirect inside of every effort to invent Gen 2 as a chronological sequence REPLACING Gen 1.

Entertaining as that is - it is clearly pointless.

God Himself affirms the 7 day literal week of Genesis saying that mankind is obligated to that SAME 7 day week.

Such an argument could not BE more contradictory to evolutionism.

How convenient that you ignore these glaring facts of scripture.

Is that turning-a-blind-eye model supposed to be an "explanation" for how Evolutionism fits??

Mercury
Or, if you go by Genesis 1, all plants were created on day 3; the sun, moon and stars were created on day 4; all birds and sea creatures were created on day 5; and all land animals and creeping things were made on day 6, climaxed with male and female ... in the image of God.

(Actually on the 4th day God created TWO GREAT lights ... count them ... TWO).

But yeah - "I go by the Word of God". And now when we compare HIS Word to the blue-sky myths and speculation of the humanistic-story of evolutionism -- we see huge glaring contradictions, don't we!

In Christ,

Bob