-
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!
The lie of evolution
- Thread starter just-want-peace
- Start date
P of E,
You sound unconvinced. Speculations of men are not on the same level as revelations from God--i.e. the Scripture. Surely your reference text is not John chapter one.
How about some thus saith The Lord instead of: Carl Sagan's Darwinian Delusions--Rev. 10?
Selah,
Bro. James
the less,formerly from Salem, Or.
You sound unconvinced. Speculations of men are not on the same level as revelations from God--i.e. the Scripture. Surely your reference text is not John chapter one.
How about some thus saith The Lord instead of: Carl Sagan's Darwinian Delusions--Rev. 10?
Selah,
Bro. James
the less,formerly from Salem, Or.
Free Gracer
New Member
Helen,
Your discussions on the Free Grace theology thread would be beneficial.
Blessings and grace,
Antonio
Your discussions on the Free Grace theology thread would be beneficial.
Blessings and grace,
Antonio
You have added to what Jesus said, as I pointed out before you would have to do. You have added the interpretation that the creation Jesus refers to is not the creation of Adam and Eve but rather the creation of the whole universe. Everybody knows, however, that literally, Adam and Eve were not the beginning of creation but its end, in the Genesis narrative.
You repeat the falsehood. They didn't arrive until day six of Genesis one. That is not the begnning.
Oh, Jesus was not telling a lie. He was speaking of the beginning of creation of MANKIND.[/b]
Not so. The Genesis model clearly states that God started and finished the creation in six days. That's what the Word says. So even though man was created on the last day, man was a part of the beginning creation. You are trying to duck the issue with speculation and double-talk.
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Ex. 20:11
How does that direct quote from God Himself fit into your evolution model?
Both Apes and Men are made from dust, a very basic simple process, by means of evolution, adding air and water of course.
I call on all who witness these threads to take note how the word "global" has been ADDED to what Jesus said.
Nope, no word "global" there. You lose that one.
No I don't. You have to explain why Jesus said that the flood took them ALL away. That's everyone on the planet. I want you to now explain to me how that could occur without a global flood.
????? and what is the relevance to our discussion? </font>[/QUOTE]Because this is another case of Christ taking what most liberal scholars such as yourself claim to be another example of an allegory from Genesis, just like you claim about Genesis 1.
[ October 12, 2005, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: JackRUS ]
Paul of Eugene
New Member
I thank you, JackRUS, for the intimation that I am a scholar. That is not anything I would claim for myself.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Here's a link to one who does a pretty good job of defending the idea of a local flood for Noah:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/noah.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/noah.html
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Your words remind me of the clerics who persecuted Gallileo. They told him to stop depending on theories of men and start believing Scripture which tells us the Sun goes around the earth and not that the earth rotates.
Today even you have turned from the literal interpretation of scripture regarding the stationary earth and the Sun going around it, and for no other reason other than the fact that you know its not literally true. The sciences have won the day on that issue.
Don't bother saying the scriptures are speaking only "phenomenologically" or "as it appeared" when talking about the sun moving across the sky. That's just a fancy way of saying "its not literally true". Don't bother saying we still use the expression "the sun rises" or "the sun sets". We all know that is merely due to the inherent conservatism of language from the time when those words were believed to be literally true.
Here is your "Thus Saith the Lord" verse for the occasion:
Luke 11:46
But He said, "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers.
NASU
It is written: "Ye do err not knowing the scripture and the power of God". This was written before Copernicus(geo) and Galileo(helio). Hey, we keep moving the apparent boundaries of the universe--who knows where the center is ?--who cares? We also change our science books a lot--the Word of God does not change.
This did not come from the "recant or die" crowd.
Selah,
Bro. James
This did not come from the "recant or die" crowd.
Selah,
Bro. James
Here is a link that defends the global flood without a possibility for refutation:
www.readyourbibleinsteadforachange.org
"And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of
the ungodly;" 2 Pet. 2:5
"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.
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." Gen. 6:5-7
"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
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. 6:12-13
Look at the present floods in the eastern states, and of New Orleans and imagine 40 days and 40 nights of those same rains. Not two, but 40.
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon
the earth, and every man:
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and
the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth:
and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. Gen. 7:19-23
As Jesus rightly said, the floods took them all away.
How then could a local flood take away all mankind on the earth except Noah and his family?
Paul, you wrote:
And as I pointed out before, on the topic of creation and the Flood, Jesus and Bro. James both make the same literal interpretation.
And if you read somewhere in Scripture of a 'sunrise', that is not scientic account, but rather a visual account. It's not the same as the in depth account of the literal creation of Genesis.
Science din't win the day over Scripture that day, but rather over the unsaved Catholic Church who didn't know better. 1 Cor. 2:14
And as I pointed out before, on the topic of creation and the Flood, Jesus and Bro. James both make the same literal interpretation.
And if you read somewhere in Scripture of a 'sunrise', that is not scientic account, but rather a visual account. It's not the same as the in depth account of the literal creation of Genesis.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
See, right there, you refuse to bear the burden you lay on others.
"its a visual account". Just another way of saying "not meant literally".
Just when YOU CHOOSE because YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE LITERAL.
Just because YOU HAVE BEEN CONVINCED BY THE SCIENCE.
But you forbid anybody else from ever being convinced by any other science.
Typical.
"its a visual account". Just another way of saying "not meant literally".
Just when YOU CHOOSE because YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE LITERAL.
Just because YOU HAVE BEEN CONVINCED BY THE SCIENCE.
But you forbid anybody else from ever being convinced by any other science.
Typical.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
An fyi that both Copernicus and Galileo promoted the heliocentric model of the solar system.
Copernicus did not publish his theory until after his death, because of fear of the reaction of the scientific and religious establishment of his time.
Galileo confirmed Copernicus' theory and bore the brunt of the reaction from the establishment, mostly from the Church but also from scientists/philosophers, that Copernicus feared.
Thanks for the errata. I should have reviewed my 1945 ed. of astronomy book before posting.
The who said what when during the "enlightenment" is an interesting study of the powers that be in religion and politics.(The same could be said for the Dark Ages)
The who said what when during the "enlightenment" is an interesting study of the powers that be in religion and politics.(The same could be said for the Dark Ages)
I disagree.
And as I pointed out before, on the topic of creation and the Flood, Jesus and Bro. James both make the same literal interpretation.
And if you read somewhere in Scripture of a 'sunrise', that is not scientic account, but rather a visual account. It's not the same as the in depth account of the literal creation of Genesis. </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree.
Science din't win the day over Scripture that day, but rather over the unsaved Catholic Church who didn't know better. 1 Cor. 2:14
And as I pointed out before, on the topic of creation and the Flood, Jesus and Bro. James both make the same literal interpretation.
And if you read somewhere in Scripture of a 'sunrise', that is not scientic account, but rather a visual account. It's not the same as the in depth account of the literal creation of Genesis. </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree.
Why do we allow a misquided minority that DOES NOT BELIEVE SCRIPTURE to force us to constantly defend what is simple and clear?
Evolution is still wrong. It will be wrong for all of eternity.
I would rather go into eternity with God's view of Creation, than to go into eternity with man's view of Creation...
However, it is still better to go to Heaven wrong, than to go to HELL right.
Evolution is still wrong. It will be wrong for all of eternity.
I would rather go into eternity with God's view of Creation, than to go into eternity with man's view of Creation...
However, it is still better to go to Heaven wrong, than to go to HELL right.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
Right!
Paul of Eugene
New Member
And you would all be unable to persuade the protestant reformers such as Martin Luther or the Catholic Church of that era from making exactly the same mistake regarding the rotation of the earth and you would fail for exactly the same reason. They were unwilling to accept evidence instead of their interpretation of scripture just as you are unwilling to accept evidence instead of your interpretation of scripture.
Paul of Eugene
Actually, there is some scientific evidence that the Earth (or very close to it) is the Center of the Universe and everything is revolving around us.
Now I know that sounds unbelieveable to you, and probably everyone else here. But it is true.
It is called Quantized Redshifts.
I have showed this before, but for those that haven't seen this, here is a good article. Now granted this particular article was written by a Creationist. But Quantized Redshifts were discovered by the astronomer William Tifft at the Steward Observatory back in the 70's. Years later a group of astronomers made more detailed observations for the purpose of proving Tifft wrong. At first they believed they had proved that. But after making corrections for the travel of the Earth through it's orbit, they found Tifft to be correct. And even more proof has come from recent observations with the Hubble Telescope.
Here is the article in PDF format. So you need Adobe.
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf#search='tifft%20quantized%20redshifts'e_sand
Now, this is still controversial. Quantized Redshifts have been verified, that is not the controversy. But as to what they mean, there are still debates. But they do show the Earth to be at the Center of the Universe.
So, it is possible they were correct in the Middle Ages.
Very interesting article regardless.
Actually, there is some scientific evidence that the Earth (or very close to it) is the Center of the Universe and everything is revolving around us.
Now I know that sounds unbelieveable to you, and probably everyone else here. But it is true.
It is called Quantized Redshifts.
I have showed this before, but for those that haven't seen this, here is a good article. Now granted this particular article was written by a Creationist. But Quantized Redshifts were discovered by the astronomer William Tifft at the Steward Observatory back in the 70's. Years later a group of astronomers made more detailed observations for the purpose of proving Tifft wrong. At first they believed they had proved that. But after making corrections for the travel of the Earth through it's orbit, they found Tifft to be correct. And even more proof has come from recent observations with the Hubble Telescope.
Here is the article in PDF format. So you need Adobe.
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf#search='tifft%20quantized%20redshifts'e_sand
Now, this is still controversial. Quantized Redshifts have been verified, that is not the controversy. But as to what they mean, there are still debates. But they do show the Earth to be at the Center of the Universe.
So, it is possible they were correct in the Middle Ages.
Very interesting article regardless.
JWI, what Humphreys is neglecting in his discussion on quantized redshifts is that no matter where you are in the universe, it will look like you are at the center, for wherever you are, the redshifts will be 0 and ago outward from there. He is presenting a false argument.
We do not have any evidence at all of where the center of the universe might be, if it has a center. Since we see equally in all directions, of course it will look like we are the center, however.
What would be strange is to be on the edge and only be able to see inward....grin
We do not have any evidence at all of where the center of the universe might be, if it has a center. Since we see equally in all directions, of course it will look like we are the center, however.
What would be strange is to be on the edge and only be able to see inward....grin