1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Gup20, Jun 25, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob

    I have an even bigger challenge to your hydraulic sorting assertion. There is a topic which is quite important to scientists but that does not get much mention in debates such as this. (Except that it is the source of an infamous bit of young earther quote mining.) Some consider biogeography to be an even more important indicator of evolution than the fossil record. Here is a challenge for you from biogeography.

    Explain how the hydraulic sorting of the flood would have led to what we see. I'll use Australia for an example. Because of its isolation, Australia has a very unique collection of fauna. It has many marsupials and very few placentals for an obvious one. Just how did all those fossil marsupials get buried in Australia just where the later creatures settled? It does not make any sense.
     
  2. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    In fact, death did enter the scene from the first day.

    Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;

    Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

    Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

    Then the first death of an animal is recorded -
    Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

    Here is another telling verse. Clearly, in the day that Adam sinned, death entered the world -

    Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
    Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

    Clearly, death entered world on this day, as is confirmed by scripture.

    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:

    Have you ever seen a scientific textbook? What revision was it on?? That is the point - scientific textbooks change almost yearly as science ebs and flows. The word of God (Bible) never changes. God doesn't change. He got it right the first time. My point is, that the Bible is ultimate truth. It is correct in it's entirety. No part of it is untrue - but especially Genesis. I have shown you how evolution is impossible and confirmed it with several scriptures. The ONLY recourse you have is to deny the Bible's truth.

    I could spend all day on this message board giving you scientific facts and evidence that supports the Bible, or I can spend an hour or two giving you the Bible - the truth that doesn't change. That is the difference between debating with Christians and debating with non-christians.

    I am not admitting defeat in the scientific arena, I am arguing in the realm which is far above the scientific arena. I am arguing higher facts that outrank science. The Bible is clearly more authoritative than any scientific textbook.

    In fact, this is ONLY true if your interpretive framework is to assume that the earth is millions of years old. Once you start believing the Bible's account, you will see - as we do - that in fact all the evidence that you 'thought' was overwhelming actually supports young creation. Often, the same exact evidence that is used to 'prove' evolution or millions of years, given time for re-interpretation goes to prove young creation.

    For example - the Grand Canyon. Geologists have always thought that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be carved away by the Colorado River. However, that idea has been now challenged by such events such as the Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington which was OBSERVED to be formed in 6 days! A 120 foot deep canyon in 6 days!AiG Article

    However, BY FAR, the most convincing evidence for young creation is the Bible. I have showed you how the Bible supports this irrefutably. Your only response to the scripture is that 'there are other interpretations of scripture, but lets look again at evolutionary science'.

    No... lets look at the Bible. Clearly from what I have shown you about death, evolution and natural selection could not have lead up to Adam. Everything was declared good, and death, which is the result of sin, had not entered the scene - therefore no death = no fossils = no survival of the fittest, no mutation, no evolution. Adam was discreetly created ... he didn't evolve from any other animal. The Bible declares that, and then confirms that. There is no other interpretation. If you take the whole scripture - it supports ONLY a young earth interpretation.

    Evolution is built upon 'millions of years of death and violence'. There was no death or violence before Man's fall. At man's fall, dominion of the earth passed from Man to Satan.

    Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    We were created to be 'in charge of this world'. However, we lost that to Satan at the Fall -

    2Cr 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

    Jhn 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
    Jhn 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.

    We can see that, after the fall and pre-flood Satan was busy at work in his new role as 'prince of the earth':

    Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
    Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
    Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

    Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

    So then, we can see that before the fall of Adam, God declares everything Good. There is no corruption of the creation... there is no violence in the creation... there is no death in the creation. Animals, for example didn't consume each other - only plants. Neither did man eat animals only plants.

    Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
    Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

    It wasn't until after the flood that man was told they could eat meat.

    Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

    It can be seen that after the flood, we saw 'corruption' and 'violence' in animals. God said this was 'not good'. Clearly, leading up to and including the creation of man, God called everything Good. This, again, confirms that there was no death, mutation, suffereing, violence, pain, etc. before the fall of man.

    Without these things there is nothing to cause, control, or perform evolution. In fact, we can see that with no death (probably includes entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics) and no 'corruption' there were probably not even genetic copying mistakes before the fall. And why would there be - with the presence of God there, there is no room for death, sin, corruption, mistakes. Everything is being supernaturaly maintained and upheld. Death is truely separation from God - God is eternal.

    Clearly the Bible describes a young earth perspective. Once you see this, your eyes will be opened to the overwhelming multitude of evidences in the physical realm that supports the Bible.

    As I have shown you, they did just that. Because the process of death doesn't happen instantaneously doesn't mean the process didn't begin. Clearly, by the evidence of pain, suffering, thorns, etc, we see that death and corruption entered the earth in that very day.

    There is no need for us to make this leap. God clearly connects the death that entered the world as described in Romans 5 with the physical earth in Genesis by describing actual physical, real world results of Adam's sin.

    Every expert has confirmed this was a full bird. Like I have said before... there was a continuum of creatures within each animal group to live in a continuum of created environments.

    Clearly by the Bible verses I have shown you, millions of years is not possible or plausible, and neither is evolution leading and culminating in man. The Bible doesn't change... and it has always said that millions of years didn't happen.

    So while your evolutionist textbooks will change, and eventually may find some truth... the bible is completely true and accurate. It holds and supports young creation above all other interpretations re-confirming this over and over.

    While it may not be less miraculous, it isn't how the Creator says he did it. I prefer to take the creator at his word.

    You have to also understand... God's word doesn't change. He knew when he inspired it's writers how far man would come technologically in our entire existance. His word doesn't change. This means that no matter how advanced we think we are, God's word still applies to us and is still relevant. A lot of people act like God's word was written for people in B.C. times to understand. In fact, it was writtin so that all mankind would find it true. Why? Because truth doesn't change. There is only one way it actually happened, and that will never change. How do I know this is true? Because there are still prophecies in the Bible tha have not happened yet. All the End Time information in the Bible tells me that the Bible was written with humans in mind that are in our future. If God knew what would happen in our future, he knew the people who would be reading his word in that future. Therefore, we can assume that everything in His word is still 100% relevant for us, and written not only for today and yesterday, but with people in our future who have come even farther technologically and knowlege wise as well as scientifically than we are today.

    Therefore, since it was written to and for and about our past present and future, it applies to our past present and future the same. God wrote things plainly and clearly. He used precise language to convey his message. Therefore, following the most logical and clearest interpretation of what is written - regardless of what age of time it is read - will give you the correct interpretation.
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    So it boils down to your interpreation is right and mine is wrong. To prove it, you will reassert your opinion and deny that you need to address the overwhelming evidence that refutes your position. I assert that this is clear evidence that you have "admitt[ed] defeat in the scientific arena."

    "Every expert has confirmed this was a full bird."

    Oh really! That is news to me. I think if you were to go and ask these experts they would all agree to what a fine example of a transitional creature archy really is. Do I need to dig up the scores of traits that archy has that are shared by NO OTHER living birds but which were clearly shared with the theropod dinosaurs?

    Let's see what one of the leading bird experts has to say about archy.

    Alan Feduccia
     
  4. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm curious what you think these verses are saying. Are you implying that God was also displeased with the violence among animals? Why, then, were the sharks and other fish spared in the flood? If all flesh was corrupt, why was some flesh (sea life) spared? Could it be that you're reading more into the text than you should?

    If you insist that this passage is an exhaustive list of the only permitted food sources before the flood, does that mean at this time fish weren't allowed to eat anything? Birds, land animals, creeping things and humans are all given food in Genesis 1, but fish are not. Why not?

    In that case, there was also no digestion before the fall, which makes one wonder why God said anything about what they could eat. Without entropy, there would be no need for sustenance, since each living being could be a perpetual motion machine. A plainer reading of the text would seem to indicate that digestion, along with the processes of entropy it implies, were part of what God declared "good" in his creation.

    If you connect Romans 5 with animal death, then you must also connect Jesus' sacrifice with animal's salvation. The message of the text is clearly that just as death came to all through Adam, grace and new life came to all through Jesus Christ. If the death applied to animals, so must the grace and new life. Are you willing to distort the gospel that far just to have more ammo against evolution?

    Indeed. That means that it would not use modern science, since it must also be understood by its original audience. It used the "science" and ideas of the world that were common in the time it was written, and used that to convey God's message which is eternal.

    I believe God chose not to reveal the historical details of creation because (a) they'd be so shockingly different from what people believed at the time that they'd overwhelm the actual message God was conveying, and (b) part of humanity's purpose is to subdue the earth, and that includes learning about it. If God revealed the historical details of creation, he'd spoil a lot of the joy and awe of discovery that has come from great advances through the ages. Nobody likes a wiseguy who spoils all the best parts of a movie, so why should God ruin all the surprises he had (and still has) in store for us in creation? [​IMG]

    God did not write the Bible to the extent of dictating the precise language. God inspired holy men of old to write the Bible. What they wrote is exactly what God wants us to have, but it comes from a partnership between human authors and God, not from God's dictation.
     
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mercury

    [​IMG]

    Good post.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Bob said - "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."

    Indeed the evidence is in - it "only works one way" and that is left handed. We ahve "no evidence at all" that a random distribution of chiral orientations works - AT All -- Period.

    And yet the random distribution "result" in experiment after experiment is ALL that we get.

    The evidence is "in", the "science is in" the guesswork is "out", especially "guesswork" saying "well maybe, hopefully, possibly it DOES work some other way".

    Your clining to pure hope and myth - is duely noted.

    Then calling your hope speculation "evidence" is beyond fascinating as a study in human nature and what happens when one has run out of science altogether.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again

    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 do chiral compounds prevent from happening in evolution and how do they do so? (See, you did not answer this question, although you sort of addressed it. You did not tell me what chiral compounds prevent from happening in evolution nor did you tell me how you know that all life has always used left handed compounds only. I assert that today life uses only lefthanded amino acids because the enzyme that is used to make the amino acids is left handed. I also assert the proteins can be made from any mixture of left and right handed proteins. The only reason that life today cannot use this compounds is because of that enzyme that is so useful in making the amino acids is left handed so all the chiral chemistry becomes left handed.)

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

    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?

    How is that biogeophaphy works? Why do we find living species in places where their ancestors in the fossil record lived? I am speaking especially of the unique fauna that result from geographic isolation. The Australian marsupials for example.
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Dig in the earth and "See with your eyes" the violent land animals that were around pre-flood that are not around post-flood.

    This seems "obvious". God made mankind "From the beginning" as we see in Mark 10 and then as we see in Gen 6 God himself destroys mankind and even the violent land animals at the flood.

    But certainly your question has no bearing on Christ's clear and obvious statement in Mark 10.

    You know - the subject of this thread.

    Well said - see Isaiah 65 for another clear example of this ecosystem and how it works.

    True - very true - it's details are trustworthy and correct.

    Smoke - but no light.

    Do you "actually have a point"?

    Or are you claiming that if "fish ate we don't need to trust those things that the Bible actually says"??

    Which is it?


    Digestion does not require "genetic error". In fact effective metabolism is by design, intelligence - the work of the creator alone.

    Hello! Anybody home?


    True again. Romans 5 makes the point well. As does Romans 8 speaking of all creaetion suffering, death and decay.

    Not if you actually read the Bible. Romans 5 speaks of death both in the UNQUALIFIED and in the qualified sense "to all mankind".

    Gup20 is correct.

    And Romans 8 makes it clear that the application extends all the way to nature - AND The the ultimate fix - extends all the way to nature.

    Christ is coming to make an earth "The NEW EARTH" that works as Isaiah 65 states it will - with the wolf and the lamb in harmony and the lion eating straw.

    The Word of God is trustworthy.

    We can believe it after all.

    Mark 10 is true as well - showing that God MADE man and woman FROM the biginning.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Indeed the evidence is in - it "only works one way" and that is left handed. We ahve "no evidence at all" that a random distribution of chiral orientations works - AT All -- Period.

    Are you asserting the proteins can not be made if they contain right handed proteins? Are you asserting that proteins using right handed compounds could not have been used by life even if there was a time in the past where they were not limited to left handed only amino acids?

    "Then calling your hope speculation "evidence" is beyond fascinating as a study in human nature and what happens when one has run out of science altogether."

    Can we attempt to keep this civil, please? I did not comment on the second use of "evilution" above but I find that unnecessary.
     
  10. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Dig in the earth and "See with your eyes" the violent land animals that were around pre-flood that are not around post-flood."

    Maybe you'll answer this. Which layers are preflood and which are post flood? Also, do you maintain that all animals were vegetarian before the flood as Gup20 does?
     
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Digestion does not require "genetic error". In fact effective metabolism is by design, intelligence - the work of the creator alone."

    But entropy is involved and Gup20 claimed that entropy may not have applied at that point.
     
  12. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where do you get this idea that it was the violent land animals that were destroyed rather than all land animals? Also, why do you think they were totally wiped out, rather than being preserved on the ark as Genesis says? It seems as though you are using what you "see with your eyes" to argue against a clear reading of Genesis. You also didn't address my question, which is why the violent sea animals were not similarly punished.

    That's the same logic that leads to people thinking the days of Genesis 1 are not intended to be normal days. Context defines terms, and the context of Romans 5 repeatedly stresses that human death is being referred to. Nowhere are animals referenced, and while you can claim that death may mean something more than human death, that is an idea you bring from outside the text, not an idea you get from the text itself.

    Verse 12 opens the passage in question and clarifies that the death is human death. Verse 15 shows that just as many died by the trespass of the one man, so God's grace and the gift of Jesus overflowed to the many. Obviously, the "many" are human beings, unless you're arguing that Jesus died for animals too. Verse 17 drives this point home again. Verse 18 reiterates it again. Verse 19 repeats it once more. Where exactly do you think Paul makes a detour to talking about animal death?
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Where do you get this idea that it was the violent land animals that were destroyed rather than all land animals? Also, why do you think they were totally wiped out, rather than being preserved on the ark as Genesis says?"

    I seem to have overlooked that. Good point.

    "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "For example - the Grand Canyon. Geologists have always thought that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be carved away by the Colorado River. However, that idea has been now challenged by such events such as the Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington which was OBSERVED to be formed in 6 days! A 120 foot deep canyon in 6 days!AiG Article"

    Impressive. Let's quote from AIG. "The eroded strata consisted of rather soft sand and clay saturated by the recent rains. The dewatering of the saturated sediments into the now-open ditch enhanced the erosion. The rapidly moving water could both dislodge the particles and carry them down stream, leaving underlying sediments vulnerable to erosion. In total, these six days of runaway ditch erosion removed nearly five million cubic feet of silt, sand, and rock." So, wet sands and clays that were already saturated with water were eroded into a small canyon in a few days. Could you please tell me what the relevence is to the Grand Canyon?

    First, you are talking a difference in the volume of about ninety million! So, at these great rates of erosion, it would have taken ... about 1.5 millions years to erode the Grand Canyon. Hmmm.

    Second, the Grand Canyon is eroded in rock, including shales, limestones, and sandstones, not soft, wet clay.

    Third, let me quote AIG again. "In recent years, scientists have disproved that idea, leaning now on a great volume of water rushing through the area at a high velocity not very long ago which carved the canyon." I think this is a deliberate mistatement. I would like to know who these scientists are and read their papers. Can you direct me to the abstracts or the full, published papers? AIG did not bother to cite any references for that claim. I wonder why?
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Details are never the friend of evolutionists. The claim about animals not killing - was NOT a claim about events up to the point of the Flood but rather a reference to the pre-fall pre-sin earth. Hence the entire point of Romans 5 and Romans 8.

    Remember?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Simple: I observe their extinction and destruction as part of the flood event.

    I did not say "all land animals were not destroyed".

    Details.

    Certain land animals were specific to the violence God describes in Genesis 6. They did not make it on the ark. No T-Rex with Noah.

    God's Word is correct when it says that all flesh had been corrupted and specifically directed judgment against land animals.

    As "odd" as that may seem to most evolutionists today.

    This is simply admitting to the fact of the text. Observing "the details".

    Hardly.

    Rather it is the same logic that leads Bible believing Christians to accept the ONE day really is composed of ONE evening and ONE morning.

    It is the same logic that leads them to believe that the 7 days of Gen 1-2:3 are really seven days.

    It is the same logic that leads Bible believing Christians to see perfect harmony in the summary of the Gen 1-2:3 event that God provides in Exodus 20:8-11 wiht language "details" used in Gen 1-2:3.

    Romans 8 "ALL creation suffers and groans" due to that "EVENT" identified in Romans 5.

    Paul shows how BOTH fallen mankind and ALL creation on this earth suffer due to the fall and how BOTH benefit in the Gospel plan where the saints are rescued.

    Too late to hope that Romans does not address it.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I am simply observing - confessing - admittint that emperical science SHOWS that when we LOOK at creation we SEE that random chiral distributions DO NOT WORK for proteins used in all living cells. I am saying that "good science" SHOWS what chiral orientation works.

    I am simply abserving that evolution consitently and forevery - opposes good science. It pits vagery and speculative obscurity against good emperical science - time after time after time - and the chiral orientation of amino acids in living cells is a perfect example.

    So far your arguments only serve to make the point.

    And your proclivity to using your own guesswork as a kind of "verified historic fact" in leu of actual science and "discovery" is ... instructive for anyone wantint to understand the mind set of evolutionists.

    No such easter bunny UTEOTW - you simply dream it in hopes that clining to evolutionisms mythologies will not prove too embarassing.


    ====================================
    Bob said
    "Then calling your hope speculation "evidence" is beyond fascinating as a study in human nature and what happens when one has run out of science altogether."


    This is just a fact about the factless nature of your "I hope in the too distant past some data favorable to evolution might have been observable" - style of non-science argument.

    Sorry - I mean evolutionism.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was it only certain kinds of land animals that God became angry with?

    Genesis 6:12-13: "God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.' " Verse 17 continues: "Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish."

    Did some land animals not make it onto the ark?

    Genesis 6:19-20: "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."

    Maybe Gup20 can answer my earlier questions from a biblical perspective. That is, after all, what I was looking for.
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The obvious and clear point is to ask you to RESPOND to your OWN claims about scripture since they are contradictory and conflicted to this point.

    Though in defense you "want" to ignore that weakness in your statements so far and ONLY respond with your OWN views of God - NOT with your OWN views of what you claim SCRIPTURE says about God. (which is in fact the point)

    Will you "continue" to dodge the point?

    No. You have dodged the question repeatedly as I just explained. You seem to prefer NOT to address what YOU have said that SCRIPTURE says.

    You prefer NOT to address your "too ignorant for the truth" argument about WHY God used CREATIONIST models to describe ORIGINS.

    You prefer NOT to address your OWN "Scripture ONLY says God created in some way" statements because IF that is ALL God said in scripture THEN the "too ignorant" argument was either pointless - OR it is a statement that EVEN saying God is Creator is not actually true but JUST a falshood given to the ignorant.

    So far - you have not been able to resolve this - so you continue to dodge by NOT answering what you claimed to find in scripture and how that applied to ignorant peoples of the past.

    Notice how you "do it again"?

    Notice - not a SINGLE reference to scripture or to "Scripture ONLY says..." or to "SCRIPTURE says this ... because they were too ignorant"??

    You ignore the entire subject

    Again - we "See" that you simply state what YOU believe about God - you do not "Clarify" what YOU admitted that SCRIPTURE says about God and why it says it. Rather you seek to dodge the point.


    So 6 evenings and mornings - six days - with God REALLY creating the VERY things listed on EACH of those days?

    Plants before the Sun and moon? (One whole day before)?

    Are you "sure" you are ready to "go along with scripture"?

    I can't believe I am seeing this now "third position" of yours as it relates to WHAT scripture says!!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    For evolutionists this is where they claim "We believe in the doctrines of evolutionism IN SPITE of what you have pointed out from scripture."

    It is instructive to anyone wanting to understand the perspective of evolutionism.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...