Why do we need salvation?

HI Durant. ....about 80 miles north of you.

Your answer is Adam's sin. Sin came through "one man". Read the verse a couple of posts above your question.

Nice to have you on the board.

We Okies have to stick together, we have several and they are the smartest on the board.

 

Did you really read everything that you could get your hands on regarding evolution, or did you read only what you wanted to read? The University where I was a research biologist has many thousands of bound volumes on evolution in its library, and tens of thousands of journal articles on evolution. Many more thousands of volumes are available through inter-library loan programs. And this university library, and most other university libraries, can be accessed by the public.
</font>[/QUOTE]Craig, we know what YOU read. You once said you are an "evolutionary biologist", right? Then obviously we know what was pounded into your brain while in school.

 

I earned my degrees from top notch colleges and universities, none of which indoctrinate their students. These colleges and universities equip their students with the tools to seek out the truth for themselves rather than take another man's word for anything. Therefore nothing was pounded into my head.

 

Everyone knows this is not true (that is, everyone except for one man).

 

Oh, I have no doubt that they were top notch colleges and universities. My only point is, the subject of your major was "evolutionary biology".

My only point is. In order to have that particular major, your professors obviously taught that man came from "evolution" and also obviously, they taught that to you as if it were "FACT" and not a theory.

I am sure your education was good, but just like my studies in geology, the professors taught us that even geological formations are based on "theory", not fact. You keep saying everything is factual.

Only a few centuries ago, it was FACTUAL that the sun revolved around the Earth. Obviously, there is no chance that something you have observed just might be based on a faulty observation.

 

No, none of my Biology professors taught that man evolved at all. They may have believed that (and I suppose that most of them did), but they did not teach it. My physical anthropology professor, however, did teach that. And he showed a lot of films documenting the evidence, and every time he was ready to show a film, he would say to one of the students in the classroom, “Close the lights.” As many times as I heard him say those words, I have never said to anyone, “Close the lights” when I am ready to show a film. You see, I am not brainwashed, just brain cleansed by the blood of Jesus. Glory be to God! Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!

That’s right—like I said, I was not brainwashed and I do not talk like my teachers did. But some things are facts—the earth is not flat and the story of Noah’s Ark is not a literal account of an historic event. These two things—and a few others—I know absolutely for certain—and to pretend otherwise would be dishonest. And like I wrote above, I am not brainwashed, just brain cleansed by the blood of Jesus.

No, it was NOT FACTUAL—it was a misperception.

No, of course not . Just because I haven’t fallen off the earth does not make me believe that it is flat .

 

Maybe you haven't walked far enough.

Seriously, why do you state that it is a "fact" that Noah's flood did not happen? I take it there is no chance this could be a theory? So, what are you basis for "fact"?

 

Phillip wrote,

There is not even one chance in a centillions that the story of Noah’s Ark is a literal account of an historic event because it portrays the happening of things that are absolutely impossible. I have already posted them in this thread, but I shall post them again for your convenience:

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float. (There are alive today more than 2,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals that would have perished in the flood if at least one pair of them had not been aboard the ark, and there were many more genetically discrete populations of animals that were alive at some point during the past 4,000 years that are not alive today).

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast mount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• After the flood, the animals could not all be released at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

• Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed more than a few insurmountable difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Any objective man or woman can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. INDESCRIBABLY HUGE miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

 

Mike G. wrote,

This is not true. I have stated objective facts that can not, and have not, been denied. And some of these facts are, as I have stated in other posts, that the academic and professional qualifications of those who teach evolutionary biology in the universities around the world are almost always (indeed, I am not aware of even one single exception) vastly superior to those who teach creationism. And, to the best of my knowledge, there is not even one biologist who holds a professorship in any of the biological sciences in any secular university anywhere in the entire world who has professed a belief in creationism over evolution. This is not bragging; it is simply stating highly relevant and entirely objective facts.

As for the liberal theologians I said nothing at all. What I have said is that scholars specializing in the Book of Genesis are nearly unanimous in their belief that Genesis 1 – 11 is not a literal account of historical events. And again, this is not bragging; it is simply stating highly relevant and entirely objective facts.

This is not true. I did not denounce your qualifications as worthless, but simply told the truth about what I thought of them. And that opinion was based exclusively upon solid facts. I could post in great detail these facts and prove my case beyond any doubt whatsoever, but the moderators do not want for me to “question” the education of other members on this board. And since they use the word “question” in a VERY broad sense, I shall say no more about your education or your qualifications (or lack thereof) to refute biological facts. And please bear in mind that I did not bring up this issue today, but you did, and I am only responding to it out of politeness to you as a fellow board member.

I have never made a single post about quilt-making techniques in 17th century Virginia because I am not qualified to do, and therefore, for me to do so would be, in my opinion, unethical. I post only on those subjects where I am academically qualified to express opinions in an authoritative manner. To some people this makes me appear to be arrogant, but if they will consider that I post only on a very limited number of subjects, they will see that I am not claiming to be knowledgeable about very many things.

 

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Gen. 1:1.

The verity of that statement will change your paradigms about everything.

Memorize the Book of Romans, Ch. 1. You will be tested.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Why do we need salvation?

"Father, forgive them, they know not what they do", Jesus, The Christ, Golgotha, circa 33 A.D.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

This seems to me to be a very twisted sort of logic.

You are saying that we should NOT trust his opinion on the matter precisely because he has actually studied the materials in question, would be considered an expert in the subject, and likely knows more about the topic than the rest of us put together.

How do you figure that again?

According to this logic we should not accept what doctors have to say about our medical treatment but that we should let our dentist work on or transmission if it has a problem.

 

Of course anything exposed to the elements erodes. Your own home does too. But if you take a look at what happened at Mt. St. Helens you see that the valleys and creeks formed in a matter of three days unlike what other “scientists” would have us believe about other valleys happening over millions and millions of years due to erosion.

Don’t be so sure about dinosaurs dying before Adam. There is current research and actual findings at Glen Rose, Texas showing a dinosaur print and inside of that a human footprint

 

I think he has stated plenty of reasons why the flood could not have happened the way you tell us it must have.

In addition to the difficulties of the process, there is the pesky little problem that if the entire world really was flooded recently, God seems to have gone through an awful lot of trouble to make sure all traces of the flood have been removed from the geology of the earth.

Well, except for the Middle East. But that only shows evidence for a very great but very local flood. Of course to the people living there, that would have been the whole world. We even have a precedent for this in the Gospels. When Jesus is tempted, he is taken up on a high mountain so that He can see the whole world. Now even the highest mountain of the region would let Him have seen an area smaller than the area affected by the known great flood in the Middle East. And this was called the whole world.

 

That's like asking you, "Do you believe all of Proverbs to be promises?" If you do then how do you compare with what happened to Judas who was with Jesus.

Compare that to Prov. 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it."

Why is it that some godly parents have godless children and some godless parents have godly children?

Was God's Word of no effect?