• 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!

Man made at the beginning of creation-How old is the earth?

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
More from Evolutionists letting their hair down:

12 Quotes from Leading Evolutionists
This page may be freely copied: http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm
Evolution is science? It is admittedly unobservable, lacking fossil evidence, dependent upon scientific consensus, and essentially a belief system about past life on Earth. The following 12 quotes are from leading and well known scientists and researchers. A larger work with 130 similar quotes is available: "The Revised Quote Book", edited by Dr. A. Snelling, PhD, pub. by: Creation Science Foundation, Australia



"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

"Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to."

Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'.

"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'"

Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199

"We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution."

Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88

"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28
"And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe."

Dr. Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of Medicine; internationally known author), "In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can't even break even.". Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10

"Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.

"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."

Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125)

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."

J. E. O'Rourks, "Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy". American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution

The atheistic formula for Evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.
******************************************

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:

Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.
***************************

In the theistic evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1
*****************************

Danger NO. 1… Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that “God is love,” “light”, and “life” (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as “very good” (Genesis 1:31) and “perfect” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)
************************************

Danger NO. 2… God becomes a God of the Gaps

The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot “explain” with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a “god of the gaps” for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that “God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is evolution”.2
******************************************

Danger NO. 3… Denial of Central Biblical Teachings

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable “ramp” leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an Allegory, but as a historical report, because:

Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.

In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).

In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).

Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.
***********************************************

Danger NO. 4… Loss of the Way for Finding God

The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Savior who “came to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does - He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding “God” to the evolutionary scenario.
******************************************************

Danger NO. 5… The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is Undermined

The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), “Christ Jesus… was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7).

The idea of evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation. Evolutionist Hoimar von Ditfurth discusses the incompatibility of Jesus' incarnation and evolutionary thought: “Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review… of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the 'incarnation' of God… ”.3
**************************************

Danger NO. 6… The Biblical Basis of Jesus' Work of Redemption Is Mythologized

The Bible teaches that the first man's fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world: “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” (Romans 5:12).

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from “the dust of the ground” by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Savior Jesus are linked together in the Bible - Romans 5:16-18. Thus any view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus' work of redemption.
****************************************

Danger NO. 7… Loss of Biblical Chronology

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:

The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).

The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).

The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it can not be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.

Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world's history: “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.” This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.

The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favor of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:

Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.

Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.
***********************************************

Author: Werner Gitt, Creation Magazine, Sep-Nov 1995, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 49-51. Supplied by Creation Ministries International

PROFESSOR WERNER GITT received his doctorate summa cum laude, together with the prestigious Borchers Medal, from the Technical University of Aachen, Germany, in 1970. He is now Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt). He has written numerous scientific papers in the field of information science, numerical mathematics, and control engineering, as well as several popular books, some of which have been translated into Bulgarian, Czech, English, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish and Russian.

Copyright © 1996, Creation Ministries International, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

ChristianAnswers.Net
Christian Answers Network
PO Box 1167
Marysville WA 98270-1167
Continued in following post!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Continued from previous post!

Danger NO. 8… Loss of Creation Concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:

God created matter without using any available material.

God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of “cosmic evolution,” such as the “big bang” cosmology.

Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God's omnipotent acts of creation.
*******************************************

Danger NO. 9… Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative - whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, “Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants”.4

If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform with evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!
***********************************
Danger NO. 10… Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man as in the Bible. For example:

Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).

Man is the purpose of God's plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).

Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4:9).

We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).

Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. “Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus can not be regarded as teleonomical.”5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.
*********************************

CONCLUSION

The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. The theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines; however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.
*************************************

References

This article has been adapted from chapter 8, “The Consequences of Theistic Evolution”, from Dr. Werner Gitt's book, Did God use Evolution?, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V., Postfach 11 01 35 . 33661, Bielefeld, Germany.

E. Jantsch, Die Selbstorganisation des Universums, Munchen, 1979, p. 412.

Hoimar von Ditfurth, Wir sind nicht nur von dieser Welt, Munchen, 1984, pp. 21-22.

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, 1986, p. 316.

H. Penzlin, Das Teleologie-Problem in der Biologie, Biologische Rundschau, 25 (1987), S.7-26, p. 19.
*************************************

WHAT DOES THEISTIC EVOLUTION INVOLVE?*

* This section is adapted from Werner Gitt's, Did God Use Evolution?, pp. 13-16, 24.

The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:

The basic principle, Evolution, is taken for granted.

It is believed that Evolution is a universal principle.

As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and its subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).

Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.

The driving forces of Evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.

The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.

The present is the key to the past.

There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.

Evolution will persist into the distant future.

In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:

God used evolution as a means of creating.

The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.

Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view.

Author: Werner Gitt, Creation Magazine, Sep-Nov 1995, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 49-51. Supplied by Creation Ministries International

PROFESSOR WERNER GITT received his doctorate summa cum laude, together with the prestigious Borchers Medal, from the Technical University of Aachen, Germany, in 1970. He is now Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt). He has written numerous scientific papers in the field of information science, numerical mathematics, and control engineering, as well as several popular books, some of which have been translated into Bulgarian, Czech, English, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish and Russian.

Copyright © 1996, Creation Ministries International, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

ChristianAnswers.Net
Christian Answers Network
PO Box 1167
Marysville WA 98270-1167

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html
 

Getting it Right

Member
Site Supporter
"It was over the words that passions raged, passions which continue to rumble on in the modern world, passions that one can read about with hilarious satisfaction in the columns of the weekly science magazine Nature and listen to in basso profundo pronouncements from learned scientific societies."

Whoopee.
 

blackbird

Active Member
It makes all the difference in the world. Yom -means 24 hr period in the context of Genesis given the qualifiers of morning and evening, and 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. This is meant to make clear the time frame of creation not obfuscate it.

You also totally destroy the significance of the Sabbath since on the "7th day God rested" which was a creation ordinance commanded to be obeyed by the Hebrews and extends to the New Covenant as well

Although the new Heaven and new Earth will be identified with eternity----time will also be kept--along with seasons and years--Days will be identified and distinquished one from another----I believe it will be on the order of a 24 hour day----just like from the beginning!!

It makes a difference!!!
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It makes all the difference in the world. Yom -means 24 hr period in the context of Genesis given the qualifiers of morning and evening, and 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. This is meant to make clear the time frame of creation not obfuscate it.

You also totally destroy the significance of the Sabbath since on the "7th day God rested" which was a creation ordinance commanded to be obeyed by the Hebrews and extends to the New Covenant as well

this post is the winner:thumbs:
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It makes all the difference in the world. Yom -means 24 hr period in the context of Genesis given the qualifiers of morning and evening, and 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. This is meant to make clear the time frame of creation not obfuscate it.

You also totally destroy the significance of the Sabbath since on the "7th day God rested" which was a creation ordinance commanded to be obeyed by the Hebrews and extends to the New Covenant as well

this post is the winner:thumbs:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Gen. 1:2-5

I agree that the period of evening and morning above was twenty four hours. However I do not believe it had a thing to do with time as kept by the sun.

The good light, God called day. God also called the darkness night.

Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him. John 11:9,10

As regulated by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun, where on earth at any given time are there exactly twelve hours of day and twelve hours of night?

Actually according to the time of the year, and where Jesus was on the earth when Jesus spoke this it could have been possible that on that given day it was twelve hours of day and twelve hours of night relative to the sun. I think. Some of the more educated can correct me concerning this.

In that passage in John 11 Jesus is speaking of walking in the good light, walking with God or walking in darkness, that is, being led by Satan.

The darkness was already on the face of the earth. God came as the good light and God divided himself light, Day with the light being good, from the already present darkness, Night as twelve hours each as spoken of in John 11.

Is that right or wrong? Was Jesus in John 11 speaking of a day as determined by the sun or was he speaking of as Day the light of the world, as divided from the darkness of this present world, Satan the devil?
Is that not what is divided in to twelve hours of each in John 11?
 

Marooncat79

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There is no evidence for an "old earth".

Given what we can determine scientifically now:

1. The Earth would have been rotating on its axis so fast that it would have slung people out into space.

2. The gravitational pull would have been so immense that not even a sprig of grass would be able to burst forth from the soil

3. The Earth would have been rotating around the sun so fast, that it would have made life impossible and the seasons would have been totally jacked up

4. The sun would have burned up the entire universe

5. The gravitational pull between the moon and Earth would have been so great that the moon would have come crashing into the Earth

And that is just for starters! We can use what we know about science now to extrapolate these claims

BTW, when I first became a believer, I believed what you do
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
The important thing to remember is the first thing God spoke into existence!

Genesis 1:1-3
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Evolutionists admit that there are no real evidence of change from one defined species unto another, as there is no reason they can show to support just how the Dna would be changing by purely "natural means"

Alsom the biggest knock against Theistic evolution is that Jesus did not hold to that view, and he was there "in the beginning"
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The important thing to remember is the first thing God spoke into existence!

Genesis 1:1-3
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


At that moment what would be the ultimate purpose? Would it not be in order that God could be expressed through Son who would be image of one created in the image of God? See.

because it is God who said, Out of darkness light is to shine, who did shine in our hearts, for the enlightening of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6 YLT

What was the darkness, on the earth, from which, the good light would shine forth?

Had the following already taken place?

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Isa 14:12-15

What was Lucifer doing in the garden, God planted eastward in Eden, where he had put the man he had created in his image? Why was he and how long had he been of the earth? When and how was, the God, going to deal with Lucifer?

And yes I do wonder about the word I underlined, "nations".

What nations might have been extinct, for I believe the earth had become dead after Gen 1:1 and before God shown out of the darkness as light? Whatever nations they might have been, I do not believe they were in the image of God.
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
Evolutionists admit that there are no real evidence of change from one defined species unto another, as there is no reason they can show to support just how the Dna would be changing by purely "natural means"

Alsom the biggest knock against Theistic evolution is that Jesus did not hold to that view, and he was there "in the beginning"

1. Read some scholarly articles and you will know there is much evidence for evolutionary processes
2. I agree with you concerning what I think you mean by "natural means". I am assuming you are meaning absolute naturalism and randomness with no teleology.
3. I don't think Jesus ever fielded any questions concerning evolution, if so, I will stand corrected.
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
Although the new Heaven and new Earth will be identified with eternity----time will also be kept--along with seasons and years--Days will be identified and distinquished one from another----I believe it will be on the order of a 24 hour day----just like from the beginning!!

It makes a difference!!!

But you don't KNOW this....do you? It may make a difference, but I doubt it is the difference that you think it is.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
At that moment what would be the ultimate purpose? Would it not be in order that God could be expressed through Son who would be image of one created in the image of God? See.

because it is God who said, Out of darkness light is to shine, who did shine in our hearts, for the enlightening of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6 YLT

What was the darkness, on the earth, from which, the good light would shine forth?

Had the following already taken place?

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Isa 14:12-15

What was Lucifer doing in the garden, God planted eastward in Eden, where he had put the man he had created in his image? Why was he and how long had he been of the earth? When and how was, the God, going to deal with Lucifer?

And yes I do wonder about the word I underlined, "nations".

What nations might have been extinct, for I believe the earth had become dead after Gen 1:1 and before God shown out of the darkness as light? Whatever nations they might have been, I do not believe they were in the image of God.

Light is energy. Energy could become matter! And the creation process continues!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
1. Read some scholarly articles and you will know there is much evidence for evolutionary processes
2. I agree with you concerning what I think you mean by "natural means". I am assuming you are meaning absolute naturalism and randomness with no teleology.
3. I don't think Jesus ever fielded any questions concerning evolution, if so, I will stand corrected.

Macro evolution has never been scientifically demonstrated.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1. Read some scholarly articles and you will know there is much evidence for evolutionary processes
2. I agree with you concerning what I think you mean by "natural means". I am assuming you are meaning absolute naturalism and randomness with no teleology.
3. I don't think Jesus ever fielded any questions concerning evolution, if so, I will stand corrected.

Change within species though, and NEVER changes from one kind to another....

And jesus spoke of the creation and of Adam and Eve as being real people, direct creation of God, and not due to an evolutionary process, was he wrong then?

Do you hold to a theistic evolutionary view then?
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
Change within species though, and NEVER changes from one kind to another....

And jesus spoke of the creation and of Adam and Eve as being real people, direct creation of God, and not due to an evolutionary process, was he wrong then?

Do you hold to a theistic evolutionary view then?

I am most comfortable, if a label is required, with evolutionary creationism. But I have much kinship with Intelligent Design as well.
 
Top