Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

"We need to come at this issue from the Bible's perspective, and not worry so much about trying to refute the science."

Agreed. That is exegesis. Let the Bible speak for itself. Let the first and primary meaning as understood by the primary audience have full influence in interpreting the text.

Its one thing not to agree with what the Bible says - it is quite another not to even allow yourself to know WHAT IT says because you are so busy trying to prop up evilutionism.

Wrong again. You are simply using your own "assumpton that evolutionism might be true" as the "assumed truth" in your opponents point. But your opponent is NOT assuming evolutionism is true. RATHER the opposing view is saying that you should exclude your bias in science when reading the text and seeking to know what GOD said.

EVEN SCIENCE will tell you that what is said today in science as "gospel truth" is up for revision tomorrow when "better data is available". Tying your faith and your god to the foibles of what "some atheists believe about origins" is not "exegesis".

What is more amazing is that THOSE ATHEISTs agree with this - even THEY see this point!

As has been pointed out before - there is no form of exegesis whereby you take your faith in evolutionism and wishful thinking about what you would LIKE to have found in nature - and use that as your guide for interpreting God's Word.

Classic examples of your blunders here were already pointed out in the clear and obvious case of entropy and now HERE again in the case of the chirality of amino acids in living cells.

You admit you DON't find what you "need" for abiogenesis so you simply "hope" that it occured some time in the past.

And then your "hold hands and pretend we all don't see it" model for entropy fell flat when prominent atheist evolutionists like Asimov "admit" that entropy is SEEN in the destructive, disordering, decaying pricinciple acting on all biological systems.

So even when what SEE in science is CONFIRMING the Word of God - you STILL cling to error and then inject that bias for error into scripture AS IF you had been proven right in EITHER science OR scripture.

Obviously there is a whole lot of refuting you have to do to try and get these blatant facts of science and scripture off the table - but be that as it may...

In Christ,

Bob

 

The point remains. Either God ONLY communicated the fact that "HE is Creator" in which case your "too ignorant" and "too stupid/superstitious" argument to excuse what God said is silly because you are supposedly claiming that He ONLY said "God is in some way the Creator".

OR God in fact communicated CREATIONISM a 7 day CREATION week that exactly matched the 7 day week of Sinai. In which case your "too ignorant" argument is that God used that language rather than "Telling the the truth" because they were too ignorant in the art of actually creating planets and living systems to get the real truth about carnage, death, disease, starvation, extinction and predation (though inexplicably for you - they were fully aware of all of that at the time ).

You can't have it both ways. (see the point - yet?)

Either the text of scripture JUST says "God is the creator in some way without actually creating anything" or the scripture is fully "creationist" and the reason for that format is the ignorance of the audience.

Which is it? You have answered both ways so far.

Pick one not both or else admit that you are simply flailing about for answers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Creation shows that all experiments to form amino acids are forming invalid building blocks for living cells. Randomized distribution of chiral orientation. 100% failure.

Creation is showing the principle of entropy applied to all living systems in the form of driving them towards decay and disorder JUST as Asimov observed.

Creation is showing massively complex DNA based systems ALREADY existing - that have NO way to have come from nothing (though Dawkings claims that is what happened - by faith in evolutionism).

And Christ is telling us in Mark 10 that from the beginning - it was male and female with BOTH MADE by God -

In Christ,

Bob

 

Obviously you do - because both my quote AND your OWN quote of Asimov only sustain the fact that entropy is SEEN in biological systems in the form of a consistent pervasive principle driving them to disorder and decay. AND Asimov admits that evolutionism NEEDS the exact opposite to be OBSERVED - because the evolution of the human brain represents a massive DECREASE in entropy - not predicted by what HE said we OBSERVE in biological systems.

The case could not be any worse for "lets pretend we don't see it" evolutionists when it comes to what Asimov said we SEE in Creation.

The same is true with the chiral distribution in amino acids that are formed outside of living systems.

Devastating to the case for evolutionism leaving tons to refute and no material to work with.

Now wonder you hope to avoid them.

But at least you HAVE been very clear on your "hope" that in the unseen past that even you admit you have no evidence for -- things would have been more favorable to your views. (Can you say Easter bunny?)

Except total lack of evidence and data to support your speculative "no reason to suppose against me - in the unseen past" argument.

But then we will "pretend we don't notice that huge flaw in your speculation above" since that policy is a key defense of evolutionism.

Again you simply circle back to your own speculation about the past AS IF in the past IT EVER DID work to have random distributions of amino acid chirality in proteins composing the living cells.

Your rather flawed "hope" is that the enzyme currently used in living cells to CORRECT the problem did not exist at one time. This is so silly it is not worth addressing - but I will for a minute. You can ALREADY compose amino acids WITHOUT that enzyme. The problem is that NO living system can be built out of what you are making.

(of course - you can't even build living systems WITH properly oriented amino acids - but that is another matter)

Obviously.

But they SHOULD be useful in LIFE without the dreaded correcting enzyme that you are free to assemble (if your speculation had merit). Can't? Huh? Wonder why that is.

Now your next impossibly flawed defense is that WITH all the emperical data IN my favor - ALL left handed amino acids - and NO emperical data NO science in your favor - you claim "we are equal"

How rediculous!

That is crazy! How in the world do you work yourself into THAT corner.

The correcting enzyme is NOT on your side because it does NOT support your blue-sky notion that random chiral distributions WORK or that they MIGHT work in all of time. IN fact you are free to delete that enzyme and SEE if the living system survives with the incidentals that result and are not corrected. You know - emperical data - science.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is the poster child for how UTEOTW spins himself in such circles based solely on his own speculative blue sky notions that eventually he begins to accept his own speculation as "historic fact".

After admitting that we ONLY see IN creation exactly what I have said - ONLY left handed Chiral orientation with no way to "Get there" based on experiments with amino acids today - and NO evidence that this was EVER anything different in the past...UTEOTW said

There you have it!

Simply SAYING "Things WERE different at the time we are discussing" is all the "evidence" UTEOTW needs to prove that things actually WERE different in the past for the chiral orientation of amino acids in living cells.

How sad that anyone could bring themselves to such a flawed basis for argument! I can't believe I am reading it!

Now here is the MOST disturbing thing about the vaccuous argument-from-speculation-alone that UTEOTW is using. Ask yourself the question - "What is driving UTEOTW to such desperate lengths that he would argue as FACT - an easter bunny speculation of HIS own about what he has no evidence for in science?"..

Yes! What indeed!

IT is that you - UTEOTW - can not tolerate the idea that God could even create a single living cell!!!

I can't believe that your bias has led you to such impossible arguments based on such a low view of God.

Truly evolutionism has claimed you as its own! Please reconsider! Please accept the Bible as the true Word of God. At the very least - accept the use of some form of believable logic and reason.

What a lovely way to complete change the subject when your argument has slid from the rediculous to the sublimely ludicrous. Expect to see yourself reminded of this flawed point in your argument again.

As for index fossils - take a look at turbidity currents, and fossil densities and at the natural sorting function of a flood event among animals. Also remember that the 100 mile geologic column does not actually exist anywhere as described. At best you can find one or two places that are a mile in depth - but that is the max. Everything else was hopeful thinking.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Marvelous misdirection. Comparing the spiritual death of mankind in moral disobedience to the carnage, death, extinction, starvation and predation that evolutionism's god uses to "CREATE" new species.

Fascinating misdirection.

</font>[/QUOTE]No, it was Gup20, and now you, who was practicing misdirection on this part. By the verse I quoted, it is obvious that the "death" meant was spiritual death, otherwise they would have suffered physical death the day they ate. You have played misdirection by saying that there could not have been any physcial death in the world before there was any spiritual death. I think that in the world of informal fallacies this fall under the category of Equivocation. You are using shifting defintions in an attempt to equate two things that are not equal.

 

"100% correct. Survival of the fittest relies (as in lies and re-lies) on the idea that new more faviorable traits result in more offspring and better chances of survival. It relies on the extinction of all the various flavors of less-favorable traits to explain away the fact that we don't see those transitional forms any more."

I believe enough evidence has been presented to demonstrate that Archaeopteryx is a fine example of a transitional creature. It possesed a wonderful mix of avian and reptilian features. So we have proven that this one has "stood the test of time."

I have also given a short list of some of the other transitional fossils. Some of the easiest to see transitionals come from those animals at the border between aquatic life and terrestrial life.

Utatsusaurus is an early ichthyosaur who is basically a lizard with paddles. The skeleton is very much like a land dwelling reptile except for the adaptations that allow it to live in the water. Its bones even indicate that it still swam similar to the way that other reptiles swim whan they get into the water unlike later ichthyosaurs who adopted a more efficient means of locomotion.

Acanthostega is a walking fish. OK, that is not really true. It did not have a skelton that could have done a very good job of moving it about on land. But it is a "fish" with four legs and eight digits on each foot. It would have been well adapted for scurrying around on the bottom of shallow, murky waters. And even limited ability to get around on land may be useful if none of your predators can get out of the water. A fish with legs.

Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus are different stages between the land dwelling artiodactyls and the water dwelling whales. Ambulocetus most likely spent time both in the water and on the land. It would have been something like the mammal version of a crocodile. Basilosaurus was a fully aquatic animal in which the legs had shrunk to something no longer useful on the land.

Cynognathus is an interesting transitional between reptiles and mammals and it contains both the mammalian and the reptilian jaws at the same time.

Here is my short list again. Acanthostega, Adelobasileus, Ambulocetus, Australopithecus, Basilosaurus, Cantius, Caudipteryx,Confuciusornis, Cynodesmus, Dimetrodon, Eusthenopteron, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Hovasaurus, Hylonomus, Ichthyostega, Kenyapithecus, Microraptor, Oreochima, Osteolepis, Pachycynodon,Pakicetus, Panderichthys, Parapithecus, Parasemionotus, Peramus, Proailurus, Probainognathus, Proconsul, Procynosuchus, Proganochelys, Proterogyrinus, Protoclepsydrops, Rodhocetus, Sinoconodon, sinornithosaurus, Spathobatis, Thrinaxodon, Triadobatrachus, Tristychius, Ursavus, Ursus, Utatsusaurus

The differences between mammals and reptiles are considerable. A chief difference is that reptiles have at least four jaw bones and one middle ear bone while mammals have one jaw bone and three middle ear bones. To make matters worse, two bones in the fetal reptile that turn into jaw bones turn into ear bones in developing mammals. Other key differences. Reptile have undifferentiated teeth while mammals have incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. Reptile teeth are continuously replaced, mammals teeth are replaced at most once. Reptile teeth only have a single root while mammal molars have two roots. Reptiles lack a diaphragm. Reptiles have their legs sprawled out to the sides while mammals have their legs underneath. The pelvis of a mammal is fused. They have different numbers of bones in their toes. Reptiles are cold blooded while mammals are warm blooded.

A list of transitional animals with limited comments (still long and still a cut and hatchet job but editted to reduce length):

Paleothyris - A reptile
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris - Showed a slight change in teeth
Varanops - Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature...lower-limb musculature starts to change Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus - Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall...Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont - More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor... Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum..
Biarmosuchia - Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle)...more mammalian femur & pelvis. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian.
Procynosuchus - The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Jaw hinge still reptilian. Scapula beginning to change shape. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia - First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge.
Thrinaxodon - Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. All four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Number of toe bones is intermediate between reptile number and mammalian . The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it.
Cynognathus - Teeth differentiating further; rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon - Mammalian toe bone numbers, with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon - Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Second jaw joint stronger. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus - Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Mammalian number of toe bones.
Exaeretodon - Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium - Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion. Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones...this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus - Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel. Double jaw joint, with the second joint ...fully mammalian. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral.
Adelobasileus cromptoni - Currently the oldest known "mammal."
Sinoconodon - The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Mammalian jaw joint stronger. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
Kuehneotherium - A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon - Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
Peramus - A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials.
Endotherium
Kielantherium and Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani - The first known definite monotreme.
Vincelestes neuquenianus - A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits.
Pariadens kirklandi - The first definite marsupial.
Kennalestes and Asioryctes - Canine now double rooted.
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops - Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.

So we have a finely divided set of fossils going from purely reptile to purely mammal with intermediate features seen gradually changing throughout the sequence.

To read more see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

The latter has drawings of the jaw in transistion to see what it looked like. The former has the full text of most of what I posted above.

Still think there are no transistionals? The mammal sequence even seems to be rather finely divided, don't you think?

 

"Agreed. That is exegesis. Let the Bible speak for itself. Let the first and primary meaning as understood by the primary audience have full influence in interpreting the text. Its one thing not to agree with what the Bible says - it is quite another not to even allow yourself to know WHAT IT says because you are so busy trying to prop up evilutionism... As has been pointed out before - there is no form of exegesis whereby you take your faith in evolutionism and wishful thinking about what you would LIKE to have found in nature - and use that as your guide for interpreting God's Word."

OK, Bob, but let's be consistent here. Following your own rules, show me that the earth is not flat. (Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" where the word for circle means a flat disk. Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world." Being able to see the whole world from a high mountian indicates the writer thought the world to be flat.)

Show me that the sun does not go around the earth. (Joshua 10:13 "And the sun stood still." Psalms 19:6 "His [the sun] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it." Job 38:19-20 "Where is the way where light dwelleth... and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?")

Show me that the snow and the hail are not kept in storehouses waiting to be used. (Job 38:22 "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail.") Or that the rain is not caused by the windows of heaven being opened. (Genesis 8:2 "The windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.")

The point is made, there are many cases where you are perfectly willing to bring in outside information or else you would be arguing for the things above, also. But I do not see you arguing for geocentrism or a flat earth not do I see you arguing against modern weather theories. These things that I have quoted here, if you were to just take the plain, literal reading, would indicate that you should be holding some interesting positions. But you do not. So you can either use your own rules to disprove these things or you can admit that sometimes it is OK to allow outside knowledge in to help you understand the true meaning of Scripture.

 

"Either the text of scripture JUST says "God is the creator in some way without actually creating anything" or the scripture is fully "creationist" and the reason for that format is the ignorance of the audience. Which is it? You have answered both ways so far."

God is the Creator. He caused all that we see to come into being. I believe the evidence shows that once He got the universe going that he did much of it through natural means. This, IMHO, makes it no less miraculous.

I still remember a sermon my pastor preached when I was a teenager. He was preaching about the crossing of the Jordon by the Israelites. He said that in places, the river flows through areas with high cliffs and that on occasion that there will be landslides that completely block the flow of the river for some number of hours. The pastor indicated that he though that this is what happened to allow the Israelites to cross. A natural means was used to create the passage, but this makes it no less miraculous becuase it still happened just when it was needed and because of God.

That God used natural means to create does not take away from His power. What kind of intelligence and power does it take to create a whole unierse with the intial conditions such that it eventually leads to us!

 

You did not answer the question.

Try again - and this time with some attention to the point of "scripture" not what you feel apart from scripture.

Are you saying that SCRIPTURE just limits itself to saying "God created things in a way where He did not actually create anything. So we CAN trust it for that is ALL that it says."

OR are you saying that SCRIPTURE says that
"God created EVERTYHING by direct action of His own HAND using CREATIONIST terms -- but He does this in scripture because the people were too ignorant to know exactly how to create a planet and life. So we CAN NOT trust its details"?

Please pick ONE.

So far - you have selected BOTH.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Also remember that the 100 mile geologic column does not actually exist anywhere as described. At best you can find one or two places that are a mile in depth - but that is the max."

So where does geology predict there should be 100 mile column around the whole world? It does not and you know it. Layers are constantly being eroded and subducted. There are very few layers left older than a few hundred million years old, much less the whole world covered in ALL the layers. (Though we do have isolated cases of much older rocks.) If the layers were not eroded, where would the deposits for the next layer come from? Plus, I know Paul has pointed out to you in the past a few places where the whole column does exist.

"As for index fossils - take a look at turbidity currents, and fossil densities and at the natural sorting function of a flood event among animals."

Yes, and so how are fossils that are of similar size and shape sorted so differently? I have given you many examples of this in the past. Occasionally you will throw out the same stuff as here, but never bothering to explain how that works. Let's go to another example. Let's take the fossil ammonites. Creatures with spirally curving shells. These are all of about the same shape and density. So why are they scattered through so many layers of the past? But it gets more interesting. They are extinct, but there is another group of creatures, the nautilus, which have the same type and shape of shells. Yet they got sorted completely different. How? For that matter, how did all those fossil shellfish get sorted into what looks like evolution? SHould they not have simply been sorted based on size and density? But they were not.

You give a good, succinct answer, but it explains nothing.

 

"What a lovely way to complete change the subject when your argument has slid from the rediculous to the sublimely ludicrous. Expect to see yourself reminded of this flawed point in your argument again."

Nope. As I have pointed out we are lucky in that we can go to the actual evidence and see who has the right interpretation. This is just a way to point out that you have been side stepping the evidence for a while now.

You seem to be joining with Gup20 in asserting that you do not have to provide any evidence. It would be nice if we could all do that. But at this point is seems like you are trying to steer away from the evidence because you know it goes against you. If you thought the evidence was on your side, you would confront it head on with superior evidence and show that your interpretation of the facts is better than the mainstream.

Let's start with the retroviral DNA inserts. About 5% of the human genome is made of such LTRs. If they were all inserted in the last few thousand years, then there would be wide variety between humans as to which inserts they had. But there is not such a variety. In fact, we can even go to the apes and show where they have the same inserts that we do in the same places.

 

"Classic examples of your blunders here were already pointed out in the clear and obvious case of entropy and now HERE again in the case of the chirality of amino acids in living cells."

Let's make this simple.

First, in your own words, what is the problem posed to evolution by chirality? (I would not mind a brief description of what you think chirality is, also.) What problem does it present for evolution? Remember that abiogenesis is a different subject. You will go the abiogenesis route anyhow though, I predict. In that case you will assert that only left handed proteins can be used by life. Now, give me your evidence that this has always been the case. If you cannot show that life has always depended solely on left-handed proteins, then you have no argument. Remmeber, too, that I have already shown why life today is all left handed; it uses a left handed protein to make amino acids. Just tell us what the problem is.

I hate to open thi can of worms again. I asked this at least a dozen times before without an answer. But here goes. What does entropy prevent from happening in evolution and how? No blustering around about whether or not it applies to biology (it does) or misdirections on how much of a decline in entropy is needed to make Einstein's brain or any of the such. Simple question. Tells us what problem entropy presents to evolution. What does it prevent from happening and how?

 

"Are you saying that SCRIPTURE just limits itself to saying "God created things in a way where He did not actually create anything. So we CAN trust it for that is ALL that it says."

OR are you saying that SCRIPTURE says that
"God created EVERTYHING by direct action of His own HAND using CREATIONIST terms -- but He does this in scripture because the people were too ignorant to know exactly how to create a planet and life. So we CAN NOT trust its details"?"

Uh...Nope. I said "God is the Creator. He caused all that we see to come into being."

I am ignorant of how exactly to make a planet and life. So what?

You keep equivocating ignorant and stupid. Ignorant simply means that you do not have the knowledge. There are many things of which I am ignorant. I am not stupid however.

God directly caused everything in the universe to come into being. There was nothing. Then He willed it all into being. He then used natural processes to shape this Creation into what we see today. Is that specific enough?

The point of the Creation account was to establish Himself as the Creator. It accomplishes this with either a literal or non-literal reading.

 

Notice the impressionable teen - listening as random musing becomes "Fact" in the mind of the listener - replacing the truth of God's Word.

And so the model for each one of the evolutionary tales today.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob said You dodged the point AGAIN -- "Are you saying that SCRIPTURE just limits itself to saying "God created things in a way where He did not actually create anything. So we CAN trust it for that is ALL that it says."

OR are you saying that SCRIPTURE says that
"God created EVERTYHING by direct action of His own HAND using CREATIONIST terms -- but He does this in scripture because the people were too ignorant to know exactly how to create a planet and life. So we CAN NOT trust its details"?

Please respond to what you claim SCRIPTURE is saying.
"

Again you dodged the question. (How surprising).

Are you saying this is ALL that scripture says or (to continually repeat the question above until you actually bring yourself to address what you think about scripture)

"Are you saying that SCRIPTURE just limits itself to saying "God created things in a way where He did not actually create anything. So we CAN trust it for that is ALL that it says."

OR are you saying that SCRIPTURE says that
"God created EVERTYHING by direct action of His own HAND using CREATIONIST terms -- but He does this in scripture because the people were too ignorant to know exactly how to create a planet and life. So we CAN NOT trust its details"?

Please respond to what you claim SCRIPTURE is saying.
"

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob

Do you think that God never uses natural means, under His control, to accomplish His will? If you think He does, then what is your problem with my reasoning?

What specifically and how do chiral compounds prevent from happening in evolution?

What specifically and how does entropy prevent from happening in evolution?

Where did those LTRs come from and why do we share them with the other apes?

How exactly does this sorting work where the same thing is sorted to many different layers and things with the same shape and density are sorted completely differently?

 

"Are you saying that SCRIPTURE just limits itself to saying "God created things in a way where He did not actually create anything. So we CAN trust it for that is ALL that it says."

OR are you saying that SCRIPTURE says that
"God created EVERTYHING by direct action of His own HAND using CREATIONIST terms -- but He does this in scripture because the people were too ignorant to know exactly how to create a planet and life. So we CAN NOT trust its details"?

I believe you are committing another informal fallacy here. This time it is the false dilemma. You are presenting two choices as the only two choices when there are others. I believe I have adequately answered your question, but I will attempt to do so again.

God created. He did so actively. He caused the universe to come into being where there was no time or space or matter before at all. He then used natural processes under His control to give us the wonderful universe and world that we have today. He actually created...everything. The Genesis account can be trusted as true in the proper context. The details are that God created all that is listed there and more. But also that it was not done is six days recently.

 

"Notice the impressionable teen - listening as random musing becomes "Fact" in the mind of the listener - replacing the truth of God's Word... And so the model for each one of the evolutionary tales today."

I am not sure what you are implying here. I think you would have actually liked this guy. Very conservative and he was a young earther. Not sure if you are condeming him or not.

Anyway, I found a reference for you. Not too hard, it was the first Google listing.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/josh02.html

 

My bible says...in the beginning etc,etc.

That happened aproximately 6000 yrs ago.

Jesus was there, and no where in the bible does it say anything about evolution. So it is a false thing that satan cooked up to confuse many.

working for Jesus,

Tam