No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[wgeurts]

Proof that this isnt fake please? (Genesis)
Same for God?

 

[Timeline]

Would anyone else like to beat this dead horse? I think there's some left....maybe.

 

[wgeurts]

I am christian and anti-evolution but I saw there were little argueing for evolution. Also this argument is pointless as no one neither can prove ANYTHING.

 

[thecreationtutor]

As someone who got saved in a Secular Geology department, I didn't believe Genesis was literal historical

so did I not get saved until God gave me a satisfactory answer about the literal historical nature of Creation in Genesis?

Wouldn't that denote a work I had to do for salvation apart from Believing on the Lord?


Now do I think it's unbiblical to reject Creation - absolutely, do I believe that some Christians don't even care, or want to know about this, yes I do. Are there Christians who reject creation - yes, and they do this misinformed. and either an attempt to be liked by men, or their own pride.

 

[Tintin]

Proof that this isnt fake please? (Genesis)
Same for God?

Proof? You want proof? You sure you're not a troll? You claim to be a Christian, I don't see it but it's not for me to judge.
Okay, The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis by Bill Cooper is a brilliant book that offers bountiful proof for the truth and historicity of Genesis.

 

[JackH]

Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. Some may look for an exact date (i.e., month and day), but we are not given that sort of precision in Scripture.

That is so 17[SUP]th[/SUP] century.

The date for the flood of 2348 BC is that of Bishop James Ussher, who died in 1656. That date, 2348 BC, was printed in the margin of KJV Bibles next to the verses about the flood. Just as 4004 BC was printed next to the verses on creation.

Those dates were printed in the KJV for a couple hundred years.

Why have those dates been removed?

Could it be that those dates were removed due to lack of credibility?

 

[p_rehbein]

QUOTED: I am christian and anti-evolution but I saw there were little argueing for evolution. Also this argument is pointless as no one neither can prove ANYTHING. END OF QUOTATION.......

Playing Devil's Advocate? Is that a good idea for a Christian?

For me it isn't an "argument," rather a statement of Faith.......a profession of Faith............and I'm not sure Christians should be playing Devil's Advocate when the debate concerns the existence of God.......but, now, that may just be me..... so....

 

[Tintin]

That is so 17[SUP]th[/SUP] century.

The date for the flood of 2348 BC is that of Bishop James Ussher, who died in 1656. That date, 2348 BC, was printed in the margin of KJV Bibles next to the verses about the flood. Just as 4004 BC was printed next to the verses on creation.

Those dates were printed in the KJV for a couple hundred years.

Why have those dates been removed?

Could it be that those dates were removed due to lack of credibility?

Or could it be because of the evolutionary bias and that most biblical scholars and theologians pay tribute to the bull that is the framework hypothesis and don't believe Genesis is history, not even Abraham. Many aren't even Christians. It's fugged up!

 

[JackH]

Or could it be because of the evolutionary bias and that most biblical scholars and theologians pay tribute to the bull that is the framework hypothesis and don't believe Genesis is history, not even Abraham. Many aren't even Christians. It's fugged up!

You have your opinion of what's fugged up and I have mine.

In my opinion, what's fugged up is when someone makes a statement to the effect that the world was created around 6,000 years ago.

I believe Genesis is history. Genesis 1 is a very, very short history of how the world began as told to Moses by God. Genesis 1 is interpreted different ways, obviously.

Your way loses credibility instantly, in my opinion, when you state that the world is around 6,000 years old. The preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise.

 

[Fishbait]

You have your opinion of what's fugged up and I have mine.

In my opinion, what's fugged up is when someone makes a statement to the effect that the world was created around 6,000 years ago.

I believe Genesis is history. Genesis 1 is a very, very short history of how the world began as told to Moses by God. Genesis 1 is interpreted different ways, obviously.

Your way loses credibility instantly, in my opinion, when you state that the world is around 6,000 years old. The preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise.

Many Christians believe in millions of years and are truly born again. Their belief in millions of years doesn’t affect their salvation. But what does it do? It affects how other people, such as their children or others they teach, view Scripture.

Christians who compromise on the idea of millions of years can encourage others toward unbelief.​

Their example can be a stumbling block to others. For instance, telling young people they can reinterpret Genesis to fit in millions of years sets a deadly example: they can start outside Scripture and add ideas into Scripture.

I suggest that such people can, over time, get the idea that the Bible is not God’s infallible Word. This creates doubt in God’s Word—and doubt often leads to unbelief. Eventually they can reject Scripture altogether. Since the gospel comes from a book they don’t trust or believe is true, they can easily reject the gospel itself.

So, the age of the earth and universe is not a salvation issue per se—somebody can be saved even without believing what the Bible says on this issue. But it is a salvation issue indirectly. Christians who compromise on millions of years can encourage others toward unbelief concerning God’s Word and the gospel. (Ken Ham)

 

[JackH]

Many Christians believe in millions of years and are truly born again. Their belief in millions of years doesn’t affect their salvation. But what does it do? It affects how other people, such as their children or others they teach, view Scripture.

Christians who compromise on the idea of millions of years can encourage others toward unbelief.​

Their example can be a stumbling block to others. For instance, telling young people they can reinterpret Genesis to fit in millions of years sets a deadly example: they can start outside Scripture and add ideas into Scripture.

I suggest that such people can, over time, get the idea that the Bible is not God’s infallible Word. This creates doubt in God’s Word—and doubt often leads to unbelief. Eventually they can reject Scripture altogether. Since the gospel comes from a book they don’t trust or believe is true, they can easily reject the gospel itself.

So, the age of the earth and universe is not a salvation issue per se—somebody can be saved even without believing what the Bible says on this issue. But it is a salvation issue indirectly. Christians who compromise on millions of years can encourage others toward unbelief concerning God’s Word and the gospel. (Ken Ham)

And you quote Ken Ham as your infallible source. Snicker. Sorry.

I'll turn the tables on you here. In my opinion, Christians who say that the world is 6,000 years old are the ones who encourage unbelief concerning God's Word and the Gospel.

Exactly what Bible do you believe is God's infallible Word?

 

[Elin]

Just want to point out I am NOT an Atheist.
However this is not quite getting to the point of anti-creationism or evolution, and I have 2 comments to it.

1. So yeah we have a tiny chance that it could happen, but still a chance exsists. Argue all you like it is there, fact period.

It has to happen many times. . .no such chance.

2. Evolution doesnt give a damn where the cell came from or what organism was first, Evolution is about how it developed NOT how it got here on Earth. Hereby your argument against Evolution is Invalid and so is your "fact period" that it is impossible that creationism to be false. Fact period

sorry someones gotta think like an Atheist here.

But believers don't.

(3rd point, Lets say evolution and alls false then
what proof do you have that god not allah made us?)

Okay, first cracker outa' the box.

The Bible is the proof, but the Bible can be proven neither to be true nor untrue.
Both beliefs are a matter of faith.

My faith is that it is true.
Others' faith is that it is not.

My faith is based on overwhelmingly convincing evidence of its truth.
It absolutely overwhelmed my rational unbelief.

 

[Elin]

As for Theistic Evolution it could be possible, just I dont believe it because of lack of hard evidence (Mind you there is evidence for evoltion).
Ita just another way of viewing Genesis, 2 views: Creationism and Theistic Evolution.

God knows all so yeah, if he he wants to create all beings he can and will do that as he can do all. But
he could also have placed an organism or cell knowing that it would evolve into what his end goal was; us and all creatures. He knows all so he could do this,

The problem with your speculation is many-folded.

1) The God-man affirmed that Scripture is the Word of God.
2) The God-man affirmed the creation account of Genesis.
3) God himself affirmed the creation account of Genesis ~1600 years after creation
(Ex 20:1,11, 31:1, 17).
4) The Bible understands itself to mean six successive rotations of the earth on its axis (Heb 4:4),
nor more and no less.

I am content to understand creation as the Word of God presents it.
Why do I need another understanding?

why? Because it would add a beautiful mechanic to the world which meant that more wonderul types of animals would appear.
This wouldnt make as animals, God says we are special and are made in his image so we are end off evolution or not.

There is no God vs Evolution, God doea what he wants even if thats Evolution and
we cannot say he didnt do it by evolution or that he cant or its wrong,

God says he did not do it by evolution, but in six successive rotations of the earth on its axis.
Yes, we can truthfully say that God "didn't do it by evolution."

who are we to say whats wrong or what he can do as he is Lord.

Agreed. . .we have no authority to limit what God can do as LORD.

However, God has all authority to reveal what he did do as LORD.
And Jesus of Nazareth confirmed the Biblical account of creation.

 

[JackH]

1) The God-man affirmed that Scripture is the Word of God.
2) The God-man affirmed the creation account of Genesis.

1. What Scripture, exactly, do you consider to be the Word of God? What Bible, or other Scripture, do you consider to be the inerrant Word of God?

2. Which account of Genesis did the God-man affirm? Christians here on this thread appear to have differing interpretations of the creation account of Genesis. How exactly did the God-man affirm the creation account of Genesis?

 

[Elin]

Why shouldn't the concept of theistic evolution apply as a way to reconcile well-founded science with religious material? I don't know of any explicit scriptural prohibitions concerning evolution if Genesis is taken allegorically as opposed to literally. Inconsistencies in terms of the appropriate interpretation of a given biblical event can be resolved simply by citing discernment.

Hi, Liza,

Jesus did take Genesis allegorically.

Neither does God (Ex 20:1, 11, 31:1, 17), or the Bible itself (Heb 4:4).

 

[Elin]

It is perfectly ridiculous to tie the time schedule and method God used to create us and the bible to actually believing whether God created it or not. Scripture doesn't really tell us because God Himself didn't think it was necessary we know, and we probably couldn't understand it if God used scripture like man does a manual on something man makes.

The first verse of the bible states that God did the creating. That is something we need to know. The second verse moves way ahead to describing what was there on the first day God tells us about, and by this time it was a void of darkness. The Hebrew word for that darkness includes the idea of a world without God's spirit in it and the light God added was, in the Hebrew language all of what was of God's spirit.

For thousands of years it was no big deal that God didn't give a time schedule and exactly how God did it with the telling,

We don't know for sure that God didn't tell Adam, who told it to his descendants.

We don't know for sure that much of God's truth was not known before the flood.

Hebrews were only interested in that God did it and how they fitting into that fact. All this not believing without absolute physical proof complete with
a time schedule was a way of thinking that wasn't done until men like Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle brought their ideas of the proper way to think in, and it shocked the Hebrews. It is ridiculous when people tie believing in a strict time schedule for the Lord with their belief in God's word.

Are you forgetting the time schedule of six days given by God long before Plato, Socrates or Aristotle?

The time schedule originated with God, not with Plato, Socrates or Aristotle.

 

[Elin]

Makes sense to me.

Not only that, but what is in the first few chapters of Genesis is how God explained it to Moses and how Moses had to explain it to his fellow Hebrews traveling in the wilderness. Does anybody really think these people would have understood evolution and astronomy and archeology and the like?

For how many centuries did people believe the earth was flat?

If they knew Scripture (Isa 40:22), perhaps they would not have.

 

[Elin]

I like the way you said that I have said nothing about evolution, YET. The old age earth and evolution usually go hand in hand, though not necessarily. This is because Neo Darwinian theories require a great amount of time to increase their probabilistic resources.

I think it better to define evolution. Are you speaking of natural selection, which is currently being taught as Neo Darwinism? In this case, the argument is that we breed hundreds of dogs that never existed before. Evolution? Yes. Evolution within a family, not between families. You start out with a dog, and you end up with a dog.

But what is natural selection, and is it a proper vehicle for evolution of species to higher animals? Natural selection occurs within a species, or family, as a natural variability within that gene pool. God designed his creatures to be able to live under highly variable environmental conditions, and so the need for variability within the gene pool. But, as evolutionist have found out, their is limitations to this variability. There is no DNA present to allow for variability outside the family. In order for Neo Darwinism to occur, additional DNA material must be created. This has NEVER happened. EVER. There have never been any transitional fossils found in the fossil record, even though scientists have diligently searched for them for over 150 years. And they have never been able to make it work in the lab.

Lets take another example. The overuse of antibiotics has resulted in many bacteria becoming resistant to current drugs. Some people see this as evolution. Right again, but only within the species. Because of mutations within the bacteria, some bacteria become resistant to certain drugs. But they give up something or pay a price in doing so, because they have decreased the variability of their gene pool. In the absence of the drug, they are actually at a disadvantage. Mutations ALWAYS result in a loss of information, not additional information. This is a serious problem for Darwinist's. You are going the wrong way!! Just like the evolutionary physicists who flaunt the second law of thermodynamics.

One final example. You have probably heard of Francis Crick? He is the one that discovered the language that is found in DNA. A brilliant man, but an atheist and evolutionist. As adamantly as he wanted to coddle his evolutionary theory, Crick finally realized that it is impossible for a language to develop in a random fashion. Anyone with half a brain knows that if you find language, you find an intelligence. So what does he do, abandon his evolutionary ideas and say, you know what, God did it. No, of course not. Instead he comes up with a totally speculative idea with absolutely zero evidence. Directed Panspermia. In other words, aliens dropped off life here. And this is objective science at work. But you know what. The universe is 15.5 billion years old and the earth is only 5.5 billion years, according to evolutionists. There is always hope for evolutionists that if only there is enough time, anything is possible. But according to probability experts, there is not enough time for even a relatively small protein (a basic building block of life) of perhaps 100 amino acids to form spontaneously, even if the earth were a trillion years old.

Are you referring to adaptation within a species when you speak of evolution within a species?

 

[Elin]

Where is the compelling evidence that evolution from one species to another ever happened?
Where does the measurement of the age of universe or a rock come from?

"Radiometric dating is based on presuppositions that are extremely biased
against supernatural causes" (superdave 5221, #71).

 

[JackH]

Hi, Liza,

Jesus did take Genesis allegorically.

Neither does God (Ex 20:1, 11, 31:1, 17), or the Bible itself (Heb 4:4).

Jesus took Genesis allegorically and God did not?

Are you speaking in tongues with no interpreter?