Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

[Todd]

God's own creation records for us His creative means. They include an old universe, an old earth and common descent. Therefore it is imposible for your interpretation to be correct.

UT, the problem with all your presuppositions about creation that you can't escape is that you are placing your own observations about the natural order (what you are incorrectly calling general revelation) on the same level as exegesis of God's propositional, special revelation as revealed in the Bible. To say that your own observations of the natural order successfully refute the plain exegesis of Scripture is a pretty arrogant statement, and one that is not submitted to the authority of God's Word. Either claim your own observations of the natural order as your authority, or claim the exegesis of God's Word, but you can't do both. I have proven that on several occasions, and you have yet to disprove any of my exegesis (as well you can't).

I cannot verify thermodynamics through the Bible, either, but that does not stop me from doing my job.

Once again, you dodge the issue. I wouldn't expect you to prove thermodynamics through biblical exegesis, because the Scripture is silent on the issue. Yet, God's Word is quite clear about how this world was created. Thus, you can't just duck the issue of verifying the Bible's account of how this world was created by saying that the Bible doesn't speak to the issue - clearly it does, and I have proven that.

The creation is unambiguous about its ancient age and the means God used to create.

This is nothing more than your opinion, based on your own observations (and the observations of others). You can't say that your opinions are "unambiguous" because you would probably be hard-pressed to find a majority of the people in the scientific community who would agree with all your observations. And once again, you can't say that your observations of creation are unambiguous when they are thrown against the exegesis of God's Word. Macroevolution simply will not comply with the honest exegesis of God's Word.

The only honest explanation is that your instistance on a literal interpretation of creation is flawed.

I would concede this point, that is if your observations of the natural order carried greater authority than the Word of God. But the simply fact is that your observations don't carry any authroity - they are your opinions. Are you asking me to place more trust in you than in the Word of God? I'm sorry, but that's not going to happen.

But today we all know that geocentrism is false. Those passages that MUST have been interpreted literally are no longer interpreted literally. You look upon them figuratively without ever thinking about it.

This is apples and oranges. Honest exegesis doesn't require that the "four corners of the Earth" (flat earth) and "sun stand still in the sky" (geocentrism) be interpreted for what they once were. I will certainly agree with you - it was wrong for clergymen to jump to those conclusions. Because of their own a priori commitments, they felt they needed to defend a flat earth and geocentrism. Yet, the faithful hermeneutics certainly doesn't require that those passages be interpreted that way.

Gen. 1-3 is different though. I've provided you with several reasons already why the creation and Fall of Man narratives must be interpreted literally, and you have yet to turn any of my arguments back. I'll concede my whole argument if you could satisfactorily do so.

In the mean time ww will contiue to spend time wrestling over something not critical to salvation. We wil continue to have those that insist we have the "Truth" even while denying an obvious truth from God's own creation. We will continuie to lose Christians when they learn the truth and wonder what else they may have been lied to about. We will continue to not reach lost who have come across the dishonest means necessary to prop up YE beliefs and use that as an ecuse not to consider anyhting else we have to say.

Excuse me if I don't view the allegorizing of Genesis and many other biblical passage as nothing more than child's play. If those passages are not literal, then our faith has nothing to stand on because those early passages are the very foundation upon which our faith is built.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Craig says "I believe it - I KNOW it is true" and then adds in essence -- "but I don't know that any of those details are true and if they are not it really doesn't change my view of the text"!!

This is a good example of the dishonesty that I spoke of. I did NOT write anything of the sort nor do I believe anything like that.

This is the confused befuddled stated of the evolutionist's mind as he approaches scripture and this is why so many on this thread have said they would not let such a person teach a Bible class!

Bob is the one who is confused here . He interprets the Book of Genesis as though it was written by a grammar school drop-out in the 16th century and then says over and over again that God wrote it . I’m not quite sure why, but for some reason or another it is just a bit difficult for me to believe that God never got past the fourth grade.

God is NOT a grammar-school drop-out! He is the one and only infinite God who created this vast universe in which the earth is but a speck that has been a part of the universe for only about 4 billion years. And God has been around infinitely longer than our universe, creating only He knows how many universes over a span of centillions of centillions of years!

Some Christians think that in order to believe in God and the Bible it is necessary to believe that up till 6,000 years ago God was playing Tiddley-Winks, but I personally believe that God was more creative than that.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I wouldn't expect you to prove thermodynamics through biblical exegesis, because the Scripture is silent on the issue."

And, as in my full statement, I believe that the Bible is silent on the method that God used to create the universe as well.

You keep insisting that a literal creation account is central to all of faith. I disagree and say that it is our own depravity that is the lesson. So, how much did the greatest of our teachers spend on this, our Savior himself? Very little of His own words as recorded in the Gospels refer back to the creation and I would assert that none of them do so in a manner that is inconsistent with a non-literal view of the creation account.

You are also left in the precarious position of tryin to explain just why God made the universe to appear as if He used inflation and common descent as central parts of His creative work. Just because you continue to deny the evidence does not make it go away. You would be hard pressed to convince a group of biologists that common descent fails to explain the diversity of life on earth. You would be hard pressed to convince the astronomers of the world that inflation did not happen. You would be hard pressed to convince the geologists that you can explain all we see in the world in 6000 years of action.

But this is your task. If the creation really is young, then it must reveal itself to be so. God is not the author of confusion. He would not create one way and then go out of His way to make everything fit so perfectly in to an alternate but false scheme. There is nothing revelaed to us about His nature that would support such.

Have you posted on the Grand Canyon thread yet your excerpts from the book you were touting that explain the issues being raised?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I am far less concerned about the belief in a theory than I am the limitations one might place on God's creative ability. I am not saying that there are not other possible interpretations of natural history and the Bible. I just see no compelling reason, scientific or otherwise, to accept the limitations placed on God by evolution.

What kind of nonsense is this? In what way has ANY evolutionary theory limited God?
</font>[/QUOTE] It isn't non-sense. God either can or cannot supernaturally speak things into existence precisely as He requires them to be. Either it is necessary or unnecessary to explain what we observe in a naturalistic way.

Evolution accepts as a premise that no supernatural act of creation has occurred. It has no prime cause of its own but rejects the notion of the God of Genesis 1 being a valid prime cause in a supernatural way.

God claims to be omnipotent in the scriptures meaning that creation could have occurred precisely the way it is recorded in Genesis. Evolution says that it could not have occurred in the manner recorded in Genesis.

Hyper-fundamentalism, on the other hand, puts God into handcuffs and chains and calls Him a liar.

How so Craig? Because fallible human interpretations of general revelation are rejected in exchange for literal interpretations of special revelation? Because things "appear" old?

You didn't address my hypothetical. Is it your habit to throw base elements together and wait for natural processes to build what you want?

Take something simple. Imagine you carve your name into a stone. Then imagine that some time later someone found it and for whatever reason operated on the (very unreasonable) assumption that only natural, not intelligent creative, forces operated to produce the carving.

Wouldn't they have to assume a very long period for production of a carving that might have take you 10 minutes?

God said six days. I don't doubt His ability nor His testimony.

The only Attendee of creation spent many hours talking personally to Moses. He had any number of ways to communicate long periods of time for creation that did not involve calling those periods a "day" "the morning and the evening". The only eyewitness account of creation was recorded by Moses in the book known as Genesis.

Scientists for all of their reasonable sounding speculation weren't there. They also operate on a set of premises the foundation of which is flawed biblically and factually. They operate on the premise that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." Peter specifically points to the Flood as proof that this isn't so.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"I wouldn't expect you to prove thermodynamics through biblical exegesis, because the Scripture is silent on the issue."

And, as in my full statement, I believe that the Bible is silent on the method that God used to create the universe as well.

Your problem is that it isn't silent on the time period.

I truly don't understand why you or Craig have difficulty believing that God could accomplish everything that you assume took billions of years in a few hours. Please tell me why that is.... given the biblical attributes assigned to God, why can't the creation account in Genesis be literally true? I am not looking for your interpretations of "appearances". Appearances do not always reflect the truth nor are our misperceptions an indictment of anyone.

For instance, I might surmise using very rational means of proof that someone is 32 when they are really 40... that doesn't mean that God is a liar because I have judged the appearances incorrectly.

Very little of His own words as recorded in the Gospels refer back to the creation

Balance that against no indication of evolution whatsoever.

You are also left in the precarious position of tryin to explain just why God made the universe to appear as if He used inflation and common descent as central parts of His creative work.

Your problem begins and ends with "to appear as if". This one statement allows you to bring a whole host of assumptions and unproven premises into your arguments.

Just because you continue to deny the evidence does not make it go away.

Just because you assume a uniformitarian model of natural history and assume that God could not have done exactly what Genesis says... doesn't make you right.

...You would be hard pressed to convince the geologists that you can explain all we see in the world in 6000 years of action.

So? If you could talk me into assuming that God is incapable of a supernatural act of creation then I would agree with these folks unless something more reasonable came along.

If the creation really is young, then it must reveal itself to be so.

No it mustn't. That is a false premise. Again, if I assumed that only natural forces resulted in my dinner table... I would have to assume a very long time and some highly improbable circumstances... just as evolution does.

God is not the author of confusion.

Indeed. So when He said "day" "morning and evening" rather than 'in eternity past' or 'in the days before man' or 'from the day of creation' or 'long ago', He did so for a reason.

The scripture uses other terms to indicate long periods- but not day as used in Genesis.

He would not create one way and then go out of His way to make everything fit so perfectly in to an alternate but false scheme.

It isn't a false scheme.

When we recently had a large foundation formed at work, it was so that it would be immediately useful- not so that someone operating under the false and irrational premise that it must have occurred naturally would be deceived.

Your argument that God must be lying if your interpretation of the age of the universe is wrong is totally without merit. Your interpretation CAN be wrong without God being dishonest.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I truly don't understand why you or Craig have difficulty believing that God could accomplish everything that you assume took billions of years in a few hours."

I am not placing any limits. He could have done so in any means He chooses. He is God!

However, the evidence from God's own creation is not of a young universe. Either the six days are not literal or God went way out of His way into deceiving us by making it look like inflation and common descent happened. God is not the author of confusion and would not have done any such thing.

There is no case to be made for a young earth. NONE! And there is no evidence that God would deceive us in such a way. YE makes God out to be a liar or a trickster. Not the God I believe in.

We can get nto that if you wish. There are a whole host of active topics if you wish to weigh in on any of them.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/forum/66.html?

You can tell us about forming the Grand Canyon in a young earth or about why whales show a fossil record of evolving from ungulates and DNA confirms it or about human evolution and how fossil show us related to the other apes and DNA confirms it or about Snowball Earth or about information theory or about horse evolution and how the fossil record shows them sharing an ancestor with the rhinos and DNA confirms it or about many other topics that are on going.

It is more than just "appear." The earth IS old. The universe IS old. The fossils ARE there. The DNA evidence is there. You carry around the same disabled gene for Vitamin C as all the other apes and primates. Coincidence?

"Just because you assume a uniformitarian model of natural history and assume that God could not have done exactly what Genesis says... doesn't make you right. "

Who is limiting God? You are the one saying what He could or could not do. Not I. I say He could have done anything he chose to do. The evidence is that He chose long periods.

You have any specific problems with uniformitarianism? You realize that it is a geologic concept and not related to biology or astronomy, right? You have any evidence that causes today have different effects than they would have had in the past?

"No it mustn't. That is a false premise. Again, if I assumed that only natural forces resulted in my dinner table."

I do not follow your logic.

"Indeed. So when He said "day" "morning and evening" rather than 'in eternity past' or 'in the days before man' or 'from the day of creation' or 'long ago', He did so for a reason.

The scripture uses other terms to indicate long periods- but not day as used in Genesis."

I am not saying the days mean long periods of time. I am saying they are not literal days.

"It isn't a false scheme."

Correct. Common descent really happened. We are making progress.

"When we recently had a large foundation formed at work, it was so that it would be immediately useful- not so that someone operating under the false and irrational premise that it must have occurred naturally would be deceived."

I do not follow your logic. The foundation would not ever show evidence of forming naturally. YOur anamogy is faulty.

"Your argument that God must be lying if your interpretation of the age of the universe is wrong is totally without merit. Your interpretation CAN be wrong without God being dishonest."

I am not making God out to be a liar. YEers are.

Your interpretation could also be wrong. The evidence points to the fact that it is.

 

[Todd]

However, after reading the trash on this message board written by fundamentalist Christian extremists arguing against evolution, I find myself wanting to distance myself from any form of creationism. After all, if creationism is the theology of grossly ignorant lunatics, I want no part of it.

Craig, if you are a genuine follower of Christ, then you have much to learn about Christian charity and kindness. To imply that I and others who argue against evolution are "grossly ignorant lunatics", well quite frankly it causes me to wonder about where you are at spiritually. All I and several others have done is to unfold Bible truths grounded in sound exegesis that clearly refute the claims of macroevolution. That you would brand me and others like me as "grossly ignorant lunatics" is quite sad, and a sure sign that something is wrong spiritually. I can't say I'm surprised that you've stooped this low though...you're posts have grown increasingly demeaning towards me and others who advocate a young Earth. I knew it was only a matter of time until you branded us as the "lunatics" that you think we are. Until you can learn some Christian charity (or make whatever spiritual decisions are necessary for you to at least be civil with other human beings), then there isn't much more reason to have these discussions with you.

 

[Todd]

Fundamentalist extremists have always been a challenge to my faith in the Bible

In my opinion, that's a good thing for you Craig. Could it be that God is using them to challenge some of your a priori commitments that can't be verified by honest, biblical exegesis? I hope you will allow the Spirit to use them to "lead you into all truth" (Jn. 16:13) on this issue.

 

[Charles Meadows]

" Take something simple. Imagine you carve your name into a stone. Then imagine that some time later someone found it and for whatever reason operated on the (very unreasonable) assumption that only natural, not intelligent creative, forces operated to produce the carving."

Scott, that's a nice example!

You say that you don't doubt that God could have done it in 6 days. I don't either. But what I (and I would assume Craig BTS as well) assert is that God ISN'T SAYING that He did it in a literal 6 DAYS, rather just that He did it. The literal 6 days is part of a theologically figurative account.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Todd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Fundamentalist extremists have always been a challenge to my faith in the Bible

In my opinion, that's a good thing for you Craig. Could it be that God is using them to challenge some of your a priori commitments that can't be verified by honest, biblical exegesis? I hope you will allow the Spirit to use them to "lead you into all truth" (Jn. 16:13) on this issue. </font>[/QUOTE]The problem is that Craig would need to pay attention to "the details" as well. The very fact that Craig would even bring up the scopes trial as a way to bash Creation-believing Christians not only speaks volumes about how little attention he pays to detail - it also speaks to his willingness to discount exegesis for "any old excuse" that comes along.

How then can he be anything "but challenged" by the Bible believing Christians that he encounters?

No wonder his evolution-at-all-costs devotion to the atheist's one and only doctrine on origins -- is not a sought after quality in Bible teachers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

CM said

You say that you don't doubt that God could have done it in 6 days. I don't either.

God says "FOR IN six days the LORD MADE.."

But Charles says "pardon me... excuse me.. you need to make that FOR IN SIX DAYS THE LORD COULD HAVE MADE - but chose NOT TO MAKE the heavens and the earth and all that is in them".

And then of course Charles would have us believe his revisionist edit of the text is "fact" and God's Word is merely "misleading verbage"

No wonder such eisegetical methods are not sought after qualities in a Bible teacher!!

Now I realize that this is merely obvious at this point - but when dealing with evolutionists - you will be confined to "pointing out the obvious" as they imagine creative ways to deny it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

CraigBTS
I have made many posts on this message board regarding my beliefs on the subject of evolution, and just a month ago I was pretty much settled on my belief that Homo sapiens did not evolve but was directly created. However, after reading the trash on this message board written by fundamentalist Christian extremists arguing against evolution, I find myself wanting to distance myself from any form of creationism. After all, if creationism is the theology of grossly ignorant lunatics, I want no part of it.

You have to admit that an evolutionist bashing Christians for not swalling the koolaid that Darrow served up in the Scopes trial is the hight of ignorance about the facts.

How then can one who lives in such a factless void think of others as "ignorant lunatics"??

Wouldn't you actually have to KNOW something first? Would you be someone who BRINGS UP the Scopes trial "AS IF" Darrow had done anything by way of "light and truth" -- when in fact nothing could be further from the truth about the lie Darrow foisted on the public combined with the "dirty tricks" he practiced at the trial.

Recall that it was DARROW who instructed the jury to find the football coach (and math teacher) GUILTY of teaching evolutionism in biology class.

"Yeah! Right coach!".

It has been demonstrated over and over on this thread that evolutionists only survive in a factless void.

As Patterson pointed out those evolutionist "stories are easy enough to make up" but they are NOT science!!

Yet the truly "devoted" evolutionist "Believes in them anyway".

Craig is a good example of someone who married evolutionism to the Bible a long long time ago. But he held on to the hope that "in the middle of all that evolutionism - God created ONE thing -- people".

What a compromised position to START with!!

Is it any wonder that such a self-conflicted compromised position immediately slips down into "well ok - then EVERYTHING was created by evolutionism NOT just everything BUT humans"!!

No wonder such compromised thinking is not a well sought after attribute of Bible teachers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
, the more convinced I am that for a Christian to take even a moderately conservative view of the Bible is nonsensical.

No wonder Collin Patterson says that the evolutionist's "stories are easy enough to make up" but then adds that they obviously "are NOT SCIENCE".

And then to see how Craig has traded all that "NOT SCIENCE" (which I kindly call "junk-science" instead) and exchanges IT for even a "conservative" view of God's Word!!

How can this be "missed"!!.

Craig has chosen to abandon BOTH good science AND the Word of God -- and then "declare victory" over himself as "if" he had done something good!!

How amazing!

How instructive!

I believe Craig's example is the perfect example of where evolutionism eventually leads the confused person. Once you sip at the cup of evolutionism - mixing in the atheist's great hope for the doctrine on origins - with the Bible's foundation for the Gospel - the end result is confusion - a reed tossed about by every wind.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Craig, what bothers me the most about you is that you not only pride yourself in being rude (as your slam against Tennesseans proved),

Todd:

Dear brother,

Perhaps you are not carefully reading my posts. I certainly did not slam Tennessee! Chattanooga has a very special place in my heart

: </font>[/QUOTE]Craig's slam was meant for Bible-believing Christians that take a conservative approach to sound principles of exegesis when reading and studying God's Word. I think "the facts" and the people of Tennessee just "got in the way".

As it turns out the horrible example Craig sighted as the great "proof" for christians being stupid - was the scopes trial - where Darrow lied to the Jury - telling them to find his client GUILTY of teaching evolutionism.

I actually think Craig THOUGHT that Scope WAS the biology teacher and that Scopes DID teach evolutionism. (Both of what are false). The fact is - Craig seems to believe whatever the evolutionist propaganda machine dictates - and HIS choice in bringin up the Scopes trial is a perfect example of that fact.

I on the other hand - simply enjoy "consistently" contrasting the "antics" of evolutionists with "the actual facts" of history and science!

But to keep doing this -- I sorta "need" evolutionists to remain in their factless void and to keep exposing blunder after blunder as in the case above with the Scopes trial.

Thanks guys.

And no wonder your methods are not desired qualities for Bible teachers. Why not abandon the factless void and try some "real science" instead of "Stories that are easy enough to make up" as Patterson calls them?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Todd]

And, as in my full statement, I believe that the Bible is silent on the method that God used to create the universe as well.

UT, you can believe that if you want, but what in the world are we to do with Gen. 1-2? How can you possibly say that "the Bible is silent on the method that God used to create the universe" when Gen. 1-2 plainly tells us how God created all that is? I don't think that you actually believe the Bible is silent on the issue of creation. Rather, I think you just don't like the logical consequences that become clear when you do honest exegesis of those passages. Because you don't like what those exegetical consequences, you choose to say that the Bible is "silent on the method God used to create," but cleary that is a completely erroneous statement. That would be like me saying that the Bible is silent on the means to which God chose to raise Jesus from the dead! The NT tells us plainly how God accomplished Christ's resurrection - and the Bible is just as plain about God's methods of creation. The key difference between the two is that you like what God's Word has to say about the resurrection, but you don't like what it has to say about creation because of your a priori commitments to macroevolution. That's what I've been trying to show you guys about yourselves and your convictions from the very beginning.

You keep insisting that a literal creation account is central to all of faith. I disagree and say that it is our own depravity that is the lesson.

This statement is completely self-contradictory. You say that depravity is the "lesson" (I love that) of the creation account, but have you even stopped to consider that there would be no such thing as human depravity were it not for the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden? YOU CAN'T SAY THAT DEPRAVITY IS A REALITY UNLESS YOU ARE ALSO WILLING TO SAY THAT ADAM AND EVE WERE REAL PEOPLE WHOSE SIN REALLY DID CAUSE HUMAN DEPRAVITY!! My goodness, the entire Book of Romans is grounded upon the literal falling into sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden! If they never fell into sin, there is no such thing as human depravity!

And by the way, if there were no literal Adam and Eve whose sin caused literal human depravity, is there any need for a literal cross and a literal resurrection? This is where your commitments to macroevolution cause your whole argument to fall apart, yet you are so committed to macroevolution that you can't even (or just don't want to) admit it!

So, how much did the greatest of our teachers spend on this, our Savior himself? Very little of His own words as recorded in the Gospels refer back to the creation and I would assert that none of them do so in a manner that is inconsistent with a non-literal view of the creation account.

I could provide you with multiple examples where Christ referred to a literal Adam and Eve and their importance to a correct understanding of the Christian life and doctrine. I'll use just one of the many available examples:

"And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Mt. 19:4-5)

I'm sure you're familiar with the passage. It is the passage where Christ defines the structure and the essence of marriage. But notice that he looks back to Gen. 2 in order to define what marriage is. According to your view that Adam and Eve were not two literal people and that Gen. 1-2 is nothing more than allegory, Christ was looking back to a mythical story about two imaginary characters in order to define what marriage is and what it ought to be. Are you sure that's the horse you want to ride?

Further, consider Pauline theology. The Apostle Paul clearly stated that women were to be submissive to the authority of men within the local church (1 Tim. 2:11-12). But have you ever considered the theological reason that Paul gives for such submission? "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the women being deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Paul clearly looks back to a literal, historical event grounded in the lives of Adam and Eve in order to explain Christian theology to young Timothy. Would you dare say that Paul was looking back to two imaginary people when he gave these instructions to young Timothy? God help you if you do.

You are also left in the precarious position of tryin to explain just why God made the universe to appear as if He used inflation and common descent as central parts of His creative work. Just because you continue to deny the evidence does not make it go away. You would be hard pressed to convince a group of biologists that common descent fails to explain the diversity of life on earth. You would be hard pressed to convince the astronomers of the world that inflation did not happen. You would be hard pressed to convince the geologists that you can explain all we see in the world in 6000 years of action.

If a person will not believe the Word of God, I can't do a thing about their confusion. Is it God's fault that they won't listen to the Word of God? You see, many people (like yourself I'm afraid) have not problem accepting the "reasonable" parts of Scripture. But like Craig said earlier, when you see something that is a "physical impossibilty," you allow your flawed human reasoning to trump the authroity of God's Word. The Bible is not to be accepted by reason alone, just as someone can't make Christ their Savior by some mere mental assent. To become a Christian you must place your FAITH in God, and so it is with the Word of God. It may not all make sense to us, but God says that we must allow our faith in His Word to trump our faith in our "own understanding" (Prov. 3:5). And like I said, who's to say that God didn't create a world that appears to be billions of years old to the eyes of the atheistic scientist. Why is it so hard for evolutionists to accept that a young Earth could certainly appear to be billions of years old to the scientific eye, yet in reality be a young Earth. You say this would make God a deceiver, but He would only be a deceiver if He had not told us how He formed the world and universe in which we live! That some people choose to place more faith in their own reason than they do the Word of God is their own fault!

But this is your task. If the creation really is young, then it must reveal itself to be so. God is not the author of confusion. He would not create one way and then go out of His way to make everything fit so perfectly in to an alternate but false scheme. There is nothing revelaed to us about His nature that would support such.

Who says that the creation must reveal itself to be young to the scientific eye - you? other scientists? IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT! (read my previous statements) You're exactly right - God is not the author of confusion. If people are confused, it is because they are allowing their own presuppositions about the formation of the natural order to overrule the authority of God's Word in their hearts and minds. Again I will say that is not God's fault for He has plainly told us how He created everything. You want to confine God and His creative work to your own little characture of what you think it must be. I'm sorry, but God is not bound by your, or anyone else's characatures of what you think He has to be.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Bob Ryan wrote,

I actually think Craig THOUGHT that Scope WAS the biology teacher and that Scopes DID teach evolutionism. (Both of what are false). The fact is - Craig seems to believe whatever the evolutionist propaganda machine dictates - and HIS choice in bringin up the Scopes trial is a perfect example of that fact.

Dear reader,

Who in these posts is telling you the truth? And who is lying to you? Here is an excerpt from the official transcripts of the trial in question:

Direct examination by General Stewart:
Q--Your name is Howard Morgan?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--You are Mr. Luke Morgan's son?
A--Yes, Sir....
Q--Your Father is in the bank here, Dayton Bank and Trust company?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--How old are you?
A--14 years.
Q--Did you attend school here at Dayton last year?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--What school?
A--High School.
Q--Central High School
A--Yes, sir.
Q--Did you study anything under Prof. Scopes?
A--Yes sir.
Q--Did you study this book, General Science?
A--Yes, sir....
Q--Were you studying that book in April of this year, Howard?
A-Yes, sir.
Q--Did Prof. Scopes teach it to you?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--When did you complete the book?
A--Latter part of April
Q-When was school out?
A--First or second of May.
Q--You studied it then up to a week or so before school was out?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--Now, you say you were studying this book in April; how did Prof. Scopes teach that book to you? I mean by that did he ask you questions and you answered them or did he give you lectures, or both? Just explain to the jury here now, these gentleman here in front of you, how he taught the books to you.
A--Well, sometimes he would ask us questions and then he would lecture to us on different subjects in the book.
Q--Sometimes he asked you questions and sometimes lectured to you on different subjects in the book?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--Did he ever undertake to teach you anything about evolution?
A--Yes, sir....
Q--Just state in your own words, Howard, what he taught you and when it was.
A--It was along about the 2d of April.
Q--Of this year?
A--Yes, sir; of this year. He said that the earth was once a hot molten mass too hot for plant or animal life to exist upon it; in the sea the earth cooled off; there was a little germ of one cell organism formed, and this organism kept evolving until it got to be a pretty good-sized animal, and then came on to be a land animal and it kept on evolving, and from this was man.
Q--Let me repeat that; perhaps a little stronger than you. If I don't get it right, you correct me.
Hays--Go to the head of the class....
Stewart--I ask you further, Howard, how did he classify man with reference to other animals; what did he say about them?
A--Well, the book and he both classified man along with cats and dogs, cows, horses, monkeys, lions, horses and all that.
Q--What did he say they were?
A--Mammals.
Q--Classified them along with dogs, cats, horses, monkeys and cows?
A--Yes, sir.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Some of you may enjoy reading the official transcripts of the examination of William Jennings Bryan by Clarence Darrow on the 7th day of the trial:

Examination of W.J. Bryan by Clarence Darrow, of counsel for the defense:
Q--You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?
A--Yes, sir, I have tried to.
Q--Then you have made a general study of it?
A--Yes, I have; I have studied the Bible for about fifty years, or sometime more than that, but, of course, I have studied it more as I have become older than when I was but a boy.
Q--You claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?
A--I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there: some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: "Ye are the salt of the earth." I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people.
Q--But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale--or that the whale swallowed Jonah-- excuse me please--how do you literally interpret that?
A--When I read that a big fish swallowed Jonah--it does not say whale....That is my recollection of it. A big fish, and I believe it, and I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make both what He pleases.
Q--Now, you say, the big fish swallowed Jonah, and he there remained how long--three days-- and then he spewed him upon the land. You believe that the big fish was made to swallow Jonah?
A--I am not prepared to say that; the Bible merely says it was done.
Q--You don't know whether it was the ordinary run of fish, or made for that purpose?
A--You may guess; you evolutionists guess.....
Q--You are not prepared to say whether that fish was made especially to swallow a man or not?
A--The Bible doesn't say, so I am not prepared to say.
Q--But do you believe He made them--that He made such a fish and that it was big enough to swallow Jonah?
A--Yes, sir. Let me add: One miracle is just as easy to believe as another
Q--Just as hard?
A--It is hard to believe for you, but easy for me. A miracle is a thing performed beyond what man can perform. When you get within the realm of miracles; and it is just as easy to believe the miracle of Jonah as any other miracle in the Bible.
Q--Perfectly easy to believe that Jonah swallowed the whale?
A--If the Bible said so; the Bible doesn't make as extreme statements as evolutionists do....
Q--The Bible says Joshua commanded the sun to stand still for the purpose of lengthening the day, doesn't it, and you believe it?
A--I do.
Q--Do you believe at that time the entire sun went around the earth?
A--No, I believe that the earth goes around the sun.
Q--Do you believe that the men who wrote it thought that the day could be lengthened or that the sun could be stopped?
A--I don't know what they thought.
Q--You don't know?
A--I think they wrote the fact without expressing their own thoughts.
Q--Have you an opinion as to whether or not the men who wrote that thought
Gen. Stewart--I want to object, your honor; it has gone beyond the pale of any issue that could possibly be injected into this lawsuit, expect by imagination. I do not think the defendant has a right to conduct the examination any further and I ask your honor to exclude it.
The Witness--It seems to me it would be too exacting to confine the defense to the facts; if they are not allowed to get away from the facts, what have they to deal with?
The Court--Mr. Bryan is willing to be examined. Go ahead.
Mr. Darrow--I read that years ago. Can you answer my question directly? If the day was lengthened by stopping either the earth or the sun, it must have been the earth?
A--Well, I should say so.
Q-- Now, Mr. Bryan, have you ever pondered what would have happened to the earth if it had stood still?
A--No.
Q--You have not?
A-- No; the God I believe in could have taken care of that, Mr. Darrow.
Q-- I see. Have you ever pondered what would naturally happen to the earth if it stood still suddenly?
A-- No.
Q--Don't you know it would have been converted into molten mass of matter?
A--You testify to that when you get on the stand, I will give you a chance.
Q--Don't you believe it?
A--I would want to hear expert testimony on that.
Q--You have never investigated that subject?
A--I don't think I have ever had the question asked.
Q--Or ever thought of it?
A--I have been too busy on thinks that I thought were of more importance than that.

--&gt;

[ December 07, 2004, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]

 

[Craigbythesea]

Q--You believe the story of the flood to be a literal interpretation?
A--Yes, sir.
Q--When was that Flood?
A--I would not attempt to fix the date. The date is fixed, as suggested this morning.
Q--About 4004 B.C.?
A--That has been the estimate of a man that is accepted today. I would not say it is accurate.
Q--That estimate is printed in the Bible?
A--Everybody knows, at least, I think most of the people know, that was the estimate given.
Q--But what do you think that the Bible, itself says? Don't you know how it was arrived at?
A--I never made a calculation.
Q--A calculation from what?
A--I could not say.
Q--From the generations of man?
A--I would not want to say that.
Q--What do you think?
A--I do not think about things I don't think about.
Q--Do you think about things you do think about?
A--Well, sometimes.
(Laughter in the courtyard.)
Policeman--Let us have order....
Stewart--Your honor, he is perfectly able to take care of this, but we are attaining no evidence. This is not competent evidence.
Witness--These gentlemen have not had much chance--they did not come here to try this case. They came here to try revealed religion. I am here to defend it and they can ask me any question they please.
The Court--All right.
(Applause from the court yard.)
Darrow--Great applause from the bleachers.
Witness--From those whom you call "Yokels."
Darrow--I have never called them yokels.
Witness--That is the ignorance of Tennessee, the bigotry.
Darrow--You mean who are applauding you? (Applause.)
Witness--Those are the people whom you insult.
Darrow--You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion.
The Court--I will not stand for that.
Darrow--For what he is doing?
The Court--I am talking to both of you....
Q--Wait until you get to me. Do you know anything about how many people there were in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or how many people there were in China 5,000 years ago?
A--No.
Q--Have you ever tried to find out?
A--No, sir. You are the first man I ever heard of who has been in interested in it. (Laughter.)
Q--Mr. Bryan, am I the first man you ever heard of who has been interested in the age of human societies and primitive man?
A--You are the first man I ever heard speak of the number of people at those different periods.
Q--Where have you lived all your life?
A--Not near you. (Laughter and applause.)
Q--Nor near anybody of learning?
A--Oh, don't assume you know it all.
Q--Do you know there are thousands of books in our libraries on all those subjects I have been asking you about?
A--I couldn't say, but I will take your word for it....

--&gt;

 

[Craigbythesea]

Q--Have you any idea how old the earth is?
A--No.
Q--The Book you have introduced in evidence tells you, doesn't it?
A--I don't think it does, Mr. Darrow.
Q--Let's see whether it does; is this the one?
A--That is the one, I think.
Q--It says B.C. 4004?
A--That is Bishop Usher's calculation.
Q--That is printed in the Bible you introduced?
A--Yes, sir....
Q--Would you say that the earth was only 4,000 years old?
A--Oh, no; I think it is much older than that.
Q--How much?
A--I couldn't say.
Q--Do you say whether the Bible itself says it is older than that?
A--I don't think it is older or not.
Q--Do you think the earth was made in six days?
A--Not six days of twenty-four hours.
Q--Doesn't it say so?
A--No, sir....
The Court--Are you about through, Mr. Darrow?
Darrow--I want to ask a few more questions about the creation.
The Court--I know. We are going to adjourn when Mr. Bryan comes off the stand for the day. Be very brief, Mr. Darrow. Of course, I believe I will make myself clearer. Of course, it is incompetent testimony before the
jury. The only reason I am allowing this to go in at all is that they may have it in the appellate court as showing what the affidavit would be.
Bryan--The reason I am answering is not for the benefit of the superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was afraid to meet them and let them question me, and I want the Christian world to know that any atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, can question me anytime as to my belief in God, and I will answer him.
Darrow--I want to take an exception to this conduct of this witness. He may be very popular down here in the hills....
Bryan--Your honor, they have not asked a question legally and the only reason they have asked any question is for the purpose, as the question about Jonah was asked, for a chance to give this agnostic an opportunity to criticize a believer in the world of God; and I answered the question in order to shut his mouth so that he cannot go out and tell his atheistic friends that I would not answer his questions. That is the only reason, no more reason in the world.
Malone--Your honor on this very subject, I would like to say that I would have asked Mr. Bryan--and I consider myself as good a Christian as he is--every question that Mr. Darrow has asked him for the purpose of bring out whether or not there is to be taken in this court a literal interpretation of the Bible, or whether, obviously, as these questions indicate, if a general and literal construction cannot be put upon the parts of the Bible which have been covered by Mr. Darrow's questions. I hope for the last time no further attempt will be made by counsel on the other side of the case, or Mr. Bryan, to say the defense is concerned at all with Mr. Darrow's particular religious views or lack of religious views. We are here as lawyers with the same right to our views. I have the same right to mine as a Christian as Mr. Bryan has to his, and we do not intend to have this case charged by Mr. Darrow's agnosticism or Mr. Bryan's brand of Christianity. (A great applause.)
Mr. Darrow:
Q--Mr. Bryan, do you believe that the first woman was Eve?
A--Yes.
Q--Do you believe she was literally made out of Adams's rib?
A--I do.
Q--Did you ever discover where Cain got his wife?
A--No, sir; I leave the agnostics to hunt for her.
Q--You have never found out?
A--I have never tried to find
Q--You have never tried to find?
A--No.
Q--The Bible says he got one, doesn't it? Were there other people on the earth at that time?
A--I cannot say.
Q--You cannot say. Did that ever enter your consideration?
A--Never bothered me.
Q--There were no others recorded, but Cain got a wife.
A--That is what the Bible says.

--&gt;

 

[Craigbythesea]

Q--Where she came from you do not know. All right. Does the statement, "The morning and the evening were the first day," and "The morning and the evening were the second day," mean anything to you?
A-- I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.
Q--You do not?
A--No.
Q--What do you consider it to be?
A--I have not attempted to explain it. If you will take the second chapter--let me have the book. (Examining Bible.) The fourth verse of the second chapter says: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens," the word "day" there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is any necessity for construing the words, "the evening and the morning," as meaning necessarily a twenty-four-hour day, "in the day when the Lord made the heaven and the earth."
Q--Then, when the Bible said, for instance, "and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day," that does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours?
A--I do not think it necessarily does.
Q--Do you think it does or does not?
A--I know a great many think so.
Q--What do you think?
A--I do not think it does.
Q--You think those were not literal days?
A--I do not think they were twenty-four-hour days.
Q--What do you think about it?
A--That is my opinion--I do not know that my opinion is better on that subject than those who think it does.
Q--You do not think that ?
A--No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 6,000,000 years or in 600,000,000 years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.
Q--Do you think those were literal days?
A--My impression is they were periods, but I would not attempt to argue as against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days.
Q--I will read it to you from the Bible: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Do you think that is why the serpent is compelled to crawl upon its belly?
A--I believe that.
Q--Have you any idea how the snake went before that time?
A--No, sir.
Q--Do you know whether he walked on his tail or not?
A--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).
Q--Now, you refer to the cloud that was put in heaven after the flood, the rainbow. Do you believe in that?
A--Read it.
Q--All right, Mr. Bryan, I will read it for you.
Bryan--Your Honor, I think I can shorten this testimony. The only purpose Mr. Darrow has is to slur at the Bible, but I will answer his question. I will answer it all at once, and I have no objection in the world, I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in a God, is trying to use a court in Tennesseee--
Darrow--I object to that.
Bryan--(Continuing) to slur at it, and while it will require time, I am willing to take it.
Darrow--I object to your statement. I am exempting you on your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes.
The Court--Court is adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.