Yeah, that's pretty much the creationist status quo. You care terribly that scientists don't respond to your points, and then you ignore or dismiss the response because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions and inflexible beliefs. And this is why I usually don't waste my time with you. Goodbye.
How is it that the evolutionists . . .
- Thread starter Cross Reference
- Start date
Yeah, that's pretty much the creationist status quo. You care terribly that scientists don't respond to your points, and then you ignore or dismiss the response because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions and inflexible beliefs. And this is why I usually don't waste my time with you. Goodbye.
Nope. This is just you perpetuating the myth that disagreement among people is evidence against an idea.
We prefer a rational discussion.
6days
New member
Yes... You can tell the meaning of 'YOM' by the context. Its a normal day as it is Genesis.
No...of course not.
Yom has the same variety of meaning that 'day' does in English. Its easy to determine the meaning by the context.
For ex... 'In my fathers day, it took 3 days of fishing during the day to fill the boat.'
The word is used 3 times with 3 different meanings in one sentence....yet, its easy to understand the meanings because of context. In fact, God even defined the word to make it easy for you.
Gen. 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day
6days
New member
No...your list is of those who try to explain the Bible does not mean what it says.
Trust God's Word... Not your compromising evolutionists.
For in six days, the Lord created the heavens and earth...
6days
New member
Nope... You try to compromise on what God tells us. "For in six days, the Lord created the heavens and the earth.
A Theologian Answers
Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"
An Atheist Answers
From atheists.org/atheism
"if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it.
Jesus’ major purpose was to save mankind from Original Sin.Original Sin makes believers unworthy of salvation, but you get it anyway, so you should be grateful for being saved (from that which does not exist)Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot.
All we are asking is that you take what*you know*into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you’ve been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it.
A Hebrew Scholar Answers (who does not believe Genesis)
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".
A Christian Apologist Answers
Joe Boot, President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity
“Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we play games with Genesis.
“The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience, one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.
“I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim the Gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.”
A Prof / PhD Biblical Studies Answers
Dr. Tom Wang says "Often, people will use the old argument that we should concentrate on preaching the Gospel, rather than get distracted by ‘side-issues’ such as Creation. But if we cannot believe the record of Creation, then why believe the record of the New Creation (‘if anyone is in Christ, he is a New Creation; the old is gone, the new has come’—2 Corinthians 5:17)?”
An Historian Answers (Prof with 2 PhD's)
Dr Benno Zuiddam“God created this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd*century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th*century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve.”
A Biologist Answers
Dr Georgia Purdom says "many Christians have compromised on the historical and theological importance of Genesis. If Adam and Eve aren’t real people who sinned in the Garden of Eden, and as a result we are all not sinners, then Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was useless. ...the*literal truth of Genesis is so important to the authority and truthfulness of Scripture. It is the very foundation of the Gospel."
Our Creator Answers
JESUS speaking*"Haven't you read the Scriptures?They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"
CherubRam
New member
To a Christian poster, not only does a person have to deal with negative Christians, they also have to deal with negative Atheist. I have never seen an Atheist interested in becoming a Christian on the Internet. They believe what they want to believe because Evolution is what appeals to them. After all these years Evolution is still a theory.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You're not listening 6days. There has been no denial of creation, which explains why man is what man is in the realm of God's creation.
Instead the issues are: tohu wa-bohu already existed. Where are your theologs quotes on that, hmmm?
And 2, The "morning and evening" means something different before our sun/star is there. There was light before our sun. You have to have realistic explanations for that. The best thing to do is just say "morning and evening" are not 24 hour markers but they are 'yom' markers and let that run as long as needed.
Man (Adam and Eve) still stand at the beginning of human history, needing a savior after sin.
I've addressed the death of other things before. It is only the death of mankind that matters--in theology. Jesus did not atone for animals sins. He did not die to justify animals from their sins.
Instead the issues are: tohu wa-bohu already existed. Where are your theologs quotes on that, hmmm?
And 2, The "morning and evening" means something different before our sun/star is there. There was light before our sun. You have to have realistic explanations for that. The best thing to do is just say "morning and evening" are not 24 hour markers but they are 'yom' markers and let that run as long as needed.
Man (Adam and Eve) still stand at the beginning of human history, needing a savior after sin.
I've addressed the death of other things before. It is only the death of mankind that matters--in theology. Jesus did not atone for animals sins. He did not die to justify animals from their sins.
alwight
New member
Perhaps it's your lack of any competent willingness to understanding here which is the real problem?
How many times do creationists need to be told that scientific theories exist to explain natural facts not to ever become fact themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Evolution is simply the best explanation for natural facts we have, it isn't an objective in itself.
You deny the plain teaching of scripture. The Bible says "six days." If you have good reason why we should not accept that it means what it plainly says, now is the time to share.
Because you say so? On day 1, there was a light source, and God called a day on the basis of an evening and morning. If we assume a rotating Earth, the day would have been little different from something we experience today.
The assertion that days before the sun existed is evidence for a gap -- presumably so you can squeeze in your evolutionism -- is solely reliant on you demanding to be taken seriously.
We do have an explanation. However, sharing our idea would be to ignore your fallacy of begging the question. You have made the extraordinary assertion. You bring the evidence. We are not required to show anything.
Only if you ignore physics.
Making up things for the Bible to say is not a good look.
I'm a staunch, born again believer as well as an evolutionist. Jesus knew the creation stories were pseudo biographical, but he wasn't a reformer rather a Living revelation. The rule of thumb on evolutionary worlds is that "human wisdom must evolve."
What step in the evolution of plants from primitive eukaryotes to modern plants, do you think is missing. There is abundant fossil record of plants, and even many of the transitionals still living. Tell us what you think is missiing.
Prediction: Another ignorant creationist here, and he doesn't even know enough about the subject to know what the steps would have to be. So he won't be offering any such "missing transitionals."
No. Like most creationists, you make up stories and insist other people have to believe them.
That's one hypothesis. I lean toward "intentionally ignorant."
Stipe mutters:
There's rich irony in that. At the very beginning of the Christian era, St. Augustine tried repeatedly to find a way to take Genesis as a history of literal days. His work was "The Literal Meaning of Genesis." And he finally admitted that there was no rational way to make the days of Genesis into literal ones. The title of his work in Latin means "what it actually means."
And as Christians have always known, it doesn't mean literal 24-hour days. Now there have always been those who refuse to take it as it is, and say that miracles by God could cover up all the inconsistencies, like magical light with no source, to cover for mornings with no Sun to have them.
But once you start calling in nonscriptural miracles to cover your logical inconsistencies, every interpretation is equally valid.
If you don't understand why it's impossible to rework Genesis into a literal 24 hour day, six day creation week, find out what Augustine knew that you don't.
It's still available in an English translation for you. Read and learn why you can't just change Genesis the way you want to.
There's rich irony in that. At the very beginning of the Christian era, St. Augustine tried repeatedly to find a way to take Genesis as a history of literal days. His work was "The Literal Meaning of Genesis." And he finally admitted that there was no rational way to make the days of Genesis into literal ones. The title of his work in Latin means "what it actually means."
And as Christians have always known, it doesn't mean literal 24-hour days. Now there have always been those who refuse to take it as it is, and say that miracles by God could cover up all the inconsistencies, like magical light with no source, to cover for mornings with no Sun to have them.
But once you start calling in nonscriptural miracles to cover your logical inconsistencies, every interpretation is equally valid.
If you don't understand why it's impossible to rework Genesis into a literal 24 hour day, six day creation week, find out what Augustine knew that you don't.
It's still available in an English translation for you. Read and learn why you can't just change Genesis the way you want to.
The first known motile heterotrophs (organisms capable of moving around, which must eat to live) fed on cyanobacteria, which are photosynthetic, but not plants. What's hard about that?
So plants aren't necessary for animals, if they live on prokaryotes.
And there were forests with huge plants millions of years before that. Do you have a point?
Genesis is, or was literal, it's just wrong. But Biblical idolatry allows no room for "wrong". So square pegs must be pounded into round holes so we can maintain the basis of authority and social club membership.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Could you just say what you think instead of being cagey? Are there mornings and evenings as we know them without our sun as we know it? No. So now you are saying that God made a "practice" light like the sun for 3 days. You say "don't make up things for the Bible to say." So don't. I don't know what you mean.
Why not just say what the text does: there was light, yes, but not our sun. Our solar system seems to have been out of the 'tohu wa-bohu' which you have never mentioned even though you "don't make up things for the Bible to say."
I'm not trying to allow for any evolution during the 6 days, but before that--during what made things 'tohu wa-bohu.' Which you have yet to mention. Which is in the Bible, 1:2. I'm not at all convinced that evolution could have resulted in the world as we now know it; I have never trusted evolution for that reason.
:dizzy:
God made light on day 1. He reported an evening and a morning making the first day. Thus it is reasonable to claim that the first four days happened with something other than the sun.
So what are you creating room for? Or are you just saying there could have been time for the fun of it? :AMR:
CherubRam
New member
I say that God evolved into a living being, then proceeded to create. The creation days account is parabolic of epochs of time. Does that sound logical to you?
Interplanner
Well-known member
I'm saying that what people today call evolution could have been going on before the 6 days of our earth's creation and resulted in 'tohu wa-bohu.' And we don't know how long, which is why the OE is an explanation. Tw-b is an indication that something was amiss and was destroyed with displeasure. But the features of our earth we now have are 'domesticated'--for lack of better word--and would not have resulted from evolution or survival of fittest, etc. They are 'orderly.'