Evolution... Do we believe?

[6days]

What conclusion there is illogical? I'm not trying to keep the believer interested. I'm trying to keep the unbeliever interested and to realize that all information sketches one history; for there is only one.

Your compromised version of scripture is not attractive to believers or unbelievers.

Your compromise destroys the basis of the gospel... If death was part of God's "very good" creation then Christ did not have to go to Calvary to defeat defeat the "final enemy". Unwittingly, you destroy the foundations to the gospel and all Christian doctrine

 

[6days]

You are not God, and God does not deny the fact of common descent. That is just your revision of His word.

Gen. 2
And the*Lord*God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul...

And the rib, which the*Lord*God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

[Interplanner]

Your compromised version of scripture is not attractive to believers or unbelievers.

Your compromise destroys the basis of the gospel... If death was part of God's "very good" creation then Christ did not have to go to Calvary to defeat defeat the "final enemy". Unwittingly, you destroy the foundations to the gospel and all Christian doctrine

Nonsense, the death that matters to the Gospel is that of mankind after creation. Rom 5B. Those "in Adam."

One thing at a time. First, explore the option for what 'tohu wa-bohu' means at that time. Something was wrong with what was there (as a surface) and God got rid of it.

For ex., on options. There was an unfilled unformed (surface) planet earth. It was not part of anything, drifting, a fragment of the bang. God created the solar system (at least) and perhaps the galaxy that we now have (at most) to provide it a place to be. The other galaxies were already there, as most dating puts it at several B years. At least this way 'tohu wa-bohu' is there before the 6 days of creation; the unfilled unformed (surface) earth is there before them; the text is intact.

 

[Interplanner]

Your compromised version of scripture is not attractive to believers or unbelievers.

Your compromise destroys the basis of the gospel... If death was part of God's "very good" creation then Christ did not have to go to Calvary to defeat defeat the "final enemy". Unwittingly, you destroy the foundations to the gospel and all Christian doctrine

I wrote the above but I missed your first point, that is, how it did not answer mine. What was illogical conclusion? I don't care and am not trying to make something attractive. I am trying to keep all these parts of the text intact:

the section title is not action
tohu wa-bohu (unformed and unfilled) was already there
the fact that the 6 days form and fill the human sphere of things

As you can see none of these has to do with the purpose of Christs death, so try to hold it OK? until we get down the timeline a ways.

 

[Cruciform]

Answered in post 353

And yet, your comments in Post #353 had already been addressed in Post #351. Here, I'll post it again:

"Also, your suggestion that evolution is somehow 'unbiblical' merely begs the question in favor of your preferred interpretations of the Bible. In your statement, then, the term 'unbiblical' simply refers to 'anything that fails to agree with 6days' favored interpretations of Scripture.'"​

Nothing you say in #353 in any way nullifies or disproves my statements in Post #351. However, the content of Post #351 certainly does nullify your opinions in #353.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

My statement was not vapid. The definition of kind has been stated clearly numerous times, yet evolutionists continue to ignore it, preferring to make things up.

I couldn't care less why you posted such a vapid assertion, but merely that you did, in fact, post it. I'm simply taking its surface meaning at face value, as you do the opening chapters of Genesis. You made an unqualified general statement that "Evolutionists hate to read." My response was made in kind (pun intended). You have no basis for complaint.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Stripe]

[FONT="Georgia"]I couldn't care less [I][U]why[/U][/I] you posted such a vapid assertion, but merely [I][U]that[/U][/I] you did, in fact, post it. [I]I'm simply taking its surface meaning at face value, as you do the opening chapters of Genesis[/I]. You made an unqualified general statement that "Evolutionists hate to read." My response was made in kind (pun intended). You have no basis for complaint. [I]Gaudium de veritate[/I],Cruciform+T+[/FONT]

Nope. Evolutionists say stuff that has nothing to do with what has been said. They hate reading and responding rationally. Instead, they will say anything to avoid a rational discussion of the ideas.

Your nonsense being a paramount example.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe has learned that specific claims about science will get him in trouble. So he does generic whining about the nature of people who don't accept his new revision of Genesis.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Alwight,

Everything you listed was through pure Faith. The last has other meanings to that are pertinent to understanding our salvation.

Think indeed.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Jonahdog,

Saying that God doesn't exist because fallable men wrote the reference is ludacris. Thanks.

 

[alwight]

So Jesus didn't actually:

walk on water,
feed a large crowd with a few loaves and fishes,
heal the sick,
turn water into wine,
rise from the dead? :think:​

Alwight,

Everything you listed was through pure Faith. The last has other meanings to that are pertinent to understanding our salvation.

Think indeed.

Quantum physics seems paradoxical because apparently something can be true or false at the same time depending on it being observed or not.
Perhaps Christianity is like quantum physics, true and false at the same time depending on whether it is believed or not? :liberals:

 

[6days]

I don't know what tohu wa-bohu consisted of, but it was already there. The death that matters is death after creation is called good.

So... death existed in the world before sin?*

1 Cor. 15:21So you see, just as death came into the world through a man...

Evolutionists continually need to explain that God meant something different than what He said.

 

[6days]

Alwight,

Everything you listed was through pure Faith. The last has other meanings to that are pertinent to understanding our salvation.

Alwight is correct in pointing out your Inconsistent beliefs where you pick and choose what to believe.

 

[6days]

*1. you can't make the death of trilobites of equal value to the death of humans after Adam.

Trilobites are not**nepesh chayyah*'living creatures'.*

*I don't know what 'tohu wa-bohu' had for life. But something was wrong and I think all its processes were abruptly stopped before God created.

Life? God created life on earth on the 4th day. You are inventing and adding to scripture to imagine that Genesis 1 is a re-creation, and that life previously existed. There is nothing here suggesting something is wrong.*

Gen. 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void. .."

What shape do you think "formless" is? We don't know... is it possible that God created space, time and the elements here at "the beginning"?

none of this affects Adam and Eve. I wouldn't even consider any change to that.

But.... you would consider changes to other Scripture?

Would you change the words of Jesus?

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female" Mark 10:6

 

[popsthebuilder]

Alwight is correct in pointing out your Inconsistent beliefs where you pick and choose what to believe.

I don't know who you're speaking of but its not me. I do not pick and choose from Scripture Old Testament Koran Book of Enoch Sumerian text Exeter book or any other ancient texts related. Thank you.

 

[popsthebuilder]

But the evidence provided by the natural world makes it clear that the earth is more than 6000 years old, that there was no world wide flood just a few thousand years ago. Is it not your position that Genesis is literal---6000 year ago creation in a week, Adam and Eve created and then sinned, Noah's Flood---and that acceptance of those as historical is fundamental to your faith in Jesus? If I am incorrect in your position please clarify. If I am incorrect then I am dumbfounded by what has been your consistent defense of the historical accuracy of Genesis.

All you have to know is that the passing of time was different closer to the beginning of time. 6 days could have been 60 ons. The flood of Noah could have very well been the end of an ice . That's like the argument that someone's been making that leprosy was the specific bacteria in the writing of the Old Testament. There was no scientific method there was no definite passing of time at the same pace that it does now all these things are variables. If you allow for the possibility that without the scientific method and proper recording techniques many of the things in the Bible may seem to be false however in reality they're just interpreted or logged differently than how we do things now. That no way makes them false it just makes them slightly difficult to interpret for people who are very set in a scientific age. Thank you.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Evolutionists love their strawman arguments.
Creationism and evolutionism are both beliefs about our origins.

And they are both correct believe it or not. Thank you.

 

[popsthebuilder]

If you interpret the first six days of creation in Genesis as the first six eons then it easily places the age of existence as we know it at roughly six billion years. Thank you.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Nope. I accept that the Bible says "six days" (Exodus 20:11). I also accept that according to the best scientific dating estimates, the earth appears to be 4.543 billion years old and the universe appears to be 13.772 billion years old.

Evidence against a recent creation

Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism

Again I'm Stein proved that time is not static and can stretch and bend and change with that being said six days could have been 6 eons. On a similar note most evolutionists conclude that all existence is from something similar to dust this completely coincides with man being able to be made from dust. Thank you.

 

[popsthebuilder]

All you have to know is that the passing of time was different closer to the beginning of time. 6 days could have been 60 ons. The flood of Noah could have very well been the end of an ice . That's like the argument that someone's been making that leprosy was the specific bacteria in the writing of the Old Testament. There was no scientific method there was no definite passing of time at the same pace that it does now all these things are variables. If you allow for the possibility that without the scientific method and proper recording techniques many of the things in the Bible may seem to be false however in reality they're just interpreted or logged differently than how we do things now. That no way makes them false it just makes them slightly difficult to interpret for people who are very set in a scientific age. Thank you.

6 aeons.