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!

Time sequence of fossil appearance

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Peter101, May 6, 2003.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. john6:63

    john6:63 New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    I’m glad we can agree that there was a flood. I take the Bible literally; I guess that’s the fundamentalist in me. I don’t and never will believe parts of the Bible and let science contradict other parts and take those scientists word over what the Word of God says. There are those on here who will take a scientists theory that’s been modified numerous times to new theories, which contradicts the very Book we study and believe to be, or at least I believe to be, verbally inspired, without error, and infallible in all its affirmations.

    The genealogy accounts in Genesis clearly and literally implies that the earth isn’t that old. I’m a firm believer that one can’t mix a little of any part of evolution and creation together. IMO there is no middle ground. It’s all explained in the Bible if one chooses to believe it. Which I do, without a doubt.

    If you took offense, I sincerely apologize. I feel I’m having to defend the very Book that we place our faith in.
     
    #21 john6:63, May 7, 2003
  2. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must agree with UTEOTW's last post, especially regarding the flood.

    And john6:63, you clearly meant no offense. Please understand that a non-literal approach to some biblical passages is by no means an attack on the Bible.
     
    #22 Johnv, May 7, 2003
  3. Peter101

    Peter101 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>>>>>>To Peter101 – The biblical kinds are the original populations of created animals and plants. One way of trying to identify kinds today is via hybridization. Since zebras and horses can mate and have viable offspring, then yes, they are part of one kind.<<<<<<<

    You have not pointed out where the bible defines a kind, and your own definition provided above is not very precise. Would apes and humans be part of the same kind? I assume your answer is going to be in the negative, but biologically, how can you defend your answer? Remember that I am asking for a biological defense and not a theological answer. If I remember correctly, Zebras and horses have a different number of chromosomes as do apes and humans. What would be your criteria, on a biological basis, for determining whether or not apes and humans are in the same kind?
     
    #23 Peter101, May 7, 2003
  4. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you. Aceepted.

    I also do not believe that the Bible and the what we can learn from nature contradict one another. Nature is a great revelation to us from God. I think that it is very important to learn all that we can about the world and the universe we are given.
     
    #24 UTEOTW, May 8, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...