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

[Elin]

The only idea you compromise is the idea that death is the result of sin since death occurred before man existed.

Major contradiction of the NT.

Case closed.

 

[Elin]

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?

The Reformed Canon, of which evidence overwhelmingly convinced me of its truth.

2. Which account of Genesis did the God-man affirm?

The Greek translation (Septuagint) of the Hebrew (Mosiac) account.

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?

By affirming Scripture as the Word of God, and
by quoting the Genesis account as the Word of God.

 

[Elin]

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?

Oops! . .typo.

Jesus did not take Genesis allegorically.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Elin]

The bible clearly does NOT teach a literal six-day creation.

Oh, but it does.

It couldn't be any clearer, and that is what God affirmed ~1600 years later (Ex 20:11, 31:17),
and what the NT understands (Heb 4:3-4).

Creation by God is presented throughout the Bible
(Ex 20:11, 31:17; Isa 46:25-26, 66:2; Ac 17:24; Heb: 4:3-4).

For years and years, bible students knew the earth was flat, it clearly talked of the four corners. People had the same reaction as you have to the very strange idea that it was round. Now, knowing it is round adds to our knowledge of what scripture says.

Had they consulted Isa 40:22, perhaps they would have know otherwise.

 

[Elin]

Proof that this isnt fake please? (Genesis).

The Bible cannot be proven to be true nor untrue.

Both beliefs are a matter of faith.

My faith, based on overwhelmingly convincing evidence, is that it is true.
Others' faith is that is it not.

Same for God?

My faith is that the Bible is true, and that Bible tells me that
mankind is without excuse for believing there is no God,
for his existence, even his invisible qualities of eternal power and his divine nature,
have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made.

Others' belief about the Bible and the God it reveals; i.e., that it is not true,
is likewise a matter of faith, since the bible cannot be proven to be untrue,
as well as proven to be true.

 

[Elin]

Bulldust! We have the same observable, physical evidence but we have very different worldviews. You're not a good listener, are you? I don't deny the observable evidence. I deny the origins side of the 'discoveries'. The presuppositions, the conclusions, but not the actual physical evidence.

wgeurts = Esanta = dk10000 = . . .?

 

[Fishbait]

The bible clearly does NOT teach a literal six-day creation. Was there nothing there to add to on the first day of creation? Read in Genesis about it, and check the Hebrew that verse was translated from. When you say to listen to Fishbait's interpretation to decide on God, that only Fishbait knows, then it only says the you are not humble before the Lord.

If you listen to science as having superior knowledge than that of the Creator, you don't come out with truth. But, science can help understand scripture in some cases.

For years and years, bible students knew the earth was flat, it clearly talked of the four corners. People had the same reaction as you have to the very strange idea that it was round. Now, knowing it is round adds to our knowledge of what scripture says.

"The bible clearly does NOT teach a literal six-day creation."

I don't know what Bible you read but mine is very clear.

"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11

 

[jdbear]

There are several stages of the evolution of the inner ear. There is a part called a spiracle in certain types of fish. This spiracle developed into a stapes in certain species - that's the transition. The first fish I know of to develop a stapes were acanthostega.

We call the gill slits them pharyngeal arches, and the mandibular arch is the one that leads to the inner ear development. In fish, the arches form gills.

We have found fossils of species descended from the Denosivans, a human-like ancestor, and were able to sequence its DNA. So that's a transitional fossil that's been used to figure out evolutionary lineages. It shares DNA with Denosivans and with us.

Lastly, we're all intermediary life-forms. Evolution hasn't just stopped.

Hi Esanta. Had a nice 4th of July weekend. Hope you are doing well.

Have you ever considered that you believe pharyngeal arches are simply part of how God designed the development of a human ear and has nothing to do with a myth about how fish gills + eons of time = human auditory organs?

The acanthostega appears to have been amphibian. It's no revelation that some amphibians spend their lives in the water.

Would it make any sense to you that living things have similar DNA because they were created out of the same substances?

Have you ever thought that you believe in evolution simply because you were told it was true?

 

[Tintin]

Okay, let me say this. You can hold to evolutionary beliefs and still have a saving faith in Christ. That said, it's a mighty slippery slope. Once you factor in millions and billions of years, ape men, an allegorical fall and a local flood etc. you're walking into nightmare ground. They just don't square with the Scriptures. Once people agree on an evolutionary understanding, they don't believe Genesis 1-11 are literal history, many start to doubt Joseph and Abraham, for example, that were real people, and even Moses. Before you know it, they don't believe most of the OT. Some even begin to believe that there were unknown authors who wrote the OT and that most of it was written around the time of exile in Babylon (in the 6th Century BC and that the book of Genesis was one of the last OT books to be written to counter pagan Mesopotamian creation/flood myths -bull). They start to question the validity of the gospels and from there, it doesn't take much to bring down one's entire faith and question the divinity etc. of Christ. I've heard of many Christians who held to evolutionary beliefs and now no longer believe. Many of them. Once you start to question the Bible for the wrong reasons and don't hold to God's Word as God's Word, the whole pack of cards comes tumbling down ala the Tower of Babel. Genesis is foundational to God's Word. Both in its ancient truth and literal historicity.

 

[jdbear]

Esanta,
I couldn't edit my post above. I do understand that you don't believe in God as He is described in the Bible.This is how it should read.

Have you ever considered pharyngeal arches are simply part of how God designed the development of a human ear and has nothing to do with a myth about how fish gills + eons of time = human auditory organs?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

First of all, even if creationism wasn't supported by science, it would still NOT (like evolution) be a religion. Why? Because science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment which can be applied to various hypothesis that may or may not comport to a religion(s).

Secondly, evolution is a theory that people apply science to just like creationism is a theory that people apply science to. You are right that neither is a religion.

Creationism is an observation of reality. Intrinsically, because a Creator is involved, the Creator's morality is the normative moral standard for the creation. This posits an ultimately meaningful morality in which normative morality is blessed and ultimately rewarded by the Creator and immorality results in a loss of blessing, loss of reward, and in the case of people who die in an unregenerate state rejecting the Creator and His normative morality there is punishment.

God, not Percepi ultimately decide who's "good" and who's "not good." And Percepi's perspective here that evolution is equitable to atheism is false. Many religious people do believe in and accept general evolutionary theory. Some Christians, for example, hold to theistic evolution such as the scientists, researchers, and educators at Biologos ,BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony

So the apologetical attack on atheistic morality, while a completely valid argument, needs to be restricted to atheism and not bleed over to evolution unless an atheist asserts evolutionary theory as a reason to reject Creator God's normative morality. Then the atheist's false assertion can, of course, be rebutted.

Read: Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior or Poor Ethics - Or Does It?

First of all, even if evolution wasn't science, it would still NOT be a religion.

Second, evolution is science per every single aspect of religion you deny. Again, you deny the evidence despite all the research that's been done. You only observe creationist apologists who don't even attack evolution but a strawman version of evolution.

Evolution is an observation of reality. It does not encourage or discourage any form of morality. If someone wishes to use evolution as a reason behind their moral choices, then it's the individuals ethics that must be addressed. For example, we observe animals that eat their own species. Does accepting this reality mean cannibalism is justified? No!

Evolution doesn't remove the accountability of man. If you believe this, you're far too removed from reality. Most people who accept the theory of evolution are good people. Evil people who believe in evolution almost never use evolution as an excuse for their actions. If there are people stupid enough to use evolution as an excuse to commit crimes, then they don't even understand the theory of evolution since evolution describes the process in which species evolve, it doesn't dictate morality.

That's why your statement is asinine.

If you're going to reject everything that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible, then you're establishing that it's literally impossible to come up with ANY evidence to change your mind. If that's the case, then all your arguments lose all meaning. For example: If you say there must be a missing link, but you won't change your mind ever, then it means you'll reject all missing links that are presented your way.

Essentially, I'd be better off talking to a wall. I'd probably be better off bashing my head against it since it would cause much less of a headache.

 

[JackH]

Many religious people do believe in and accept general evolutionary theory. Some Christians, for example, hold to theistic evolution such as the scientists, researchers, and educators at Biologos ,BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony

And there are also religious leaders who influence the faith of hundreds of thousands of believers who accept general evolutionary theory.

 

[Tintin]

And there are also religious leaders who influence the faith of hundreds of thousands of believers who accept general evolutionary theory.

Yes, it's pretty damn disturbing. Many pastors and other religious workers have worked and are working long and hard to destroy the foundations and integrity of their very faith by believing such naturalistic nonsense.

 

[JackH]

Yes, it's pretty damn disturbing. Many pastors and other religious workers have worked and are working long and hard to destroy the foundations and integrity of their very faith by believing such naturalistic nonsense.

It's damn disturbing to me when Christians say that the world is around 6,000 years old.

Among other things, such statements are easy pickings for atheists who are hell bent on making Christians look foolish.

 

[superdave5221]

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

Actually I used this term in a very broad sense, meaning changes in inherited characteristics, therefore, this is what is being taught as evolution. But it is not evolution in the narrower sense, a mechanism by which all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor.

God created his kinds (Heb. "min") with a large amount of variability. As variability occurs within the kinds through the natural gene pool distribution (offspring), then adaptation will occur as some of the offspring will be able to adapt to different environments better than others. There is a limit to the variability however which is at the family level of the taxonomic classification in most cases. This corresponds to the Genesis word "kind". To evolve to a different kind of animal, there must be additional DNA information which was not available to that kind in the original creation.

Mutations, which are extolled as being able to produce more information into the gene pool, always result in information being lost, not gained. There is a possibility that the mutation may result in genetic favorability in certain environments, and thus an increase in the offspring of animals with that temporary advantage. But in no case is there additional genetic information which would result in an evolving to a different kind of animal.

Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists would have us believe that life started with no information, and new information came about from nothing, and then more and more information was somehow created through mutations and natural selection and this somehow developed into the language of DNA. What we actually observe (THROUGH SCIENCE) is the exact opposite. We begin with lots of information in the DNA, and through mutations information is lost, resulting in most cases in imperfections in the offspring, which can be compensated to some degree by mating within large gene pools where good genes can mask bad genes resulting from mutations. This is why we cannot marry close relatives, whereas, in Adam and Eve's day, close marriage was not only necessary, but was possible, because the gene pool was relatively unscarred by thousands of years of mutations.

 

[Elin]

Actually I used this term in a very broad sense, meaning changes in inherited characteristics, therefore, this is what is being taught as evolution. But it is not evolution in the narrower sense, a mechanism by which all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor.

God created his kinds (Heb. "min") with a large amount of variability. As variability occurs within the kinds through the natural gene pool distribution (offspring), then adaptation will occur as some of the offspring will be able to adapt to different environments better than others. There is a limit to the variability however which is at the family level of the taxonomic classification in most cases. This corresponds to the Genesis word "kind". To evolve to a different kind of animal, there must be additional DNA information which was not available to that kind in the original creation.

Mutations, which are extolled as being able to produce more information into the gene pool, always result in information being lost, not gained. There is a possibility that the mutation may result in genetic favorability in certain environments, and thus an increase in the offspring of animals with that temporary advantage. But in no case is there additional genetic information which would result in an evolving to a different kind of animal.

Atheists and Theistic Evolutionists would have us believe that life started with no information, and new information came about from nothing, and then more and more information was somehow created through mutations and natural selection and this somehow developed into the language of DNA. What we actually observe (THROUGH SCIENCE) is the exact opposite. We begin with lots of information in the DNA, and through mutations information is lost, resulting in most cases in imperfections in the offspring, which can be compensated to some degree by mating within large gene pools where good genes can mask bad genes resulting from mutations. This is why we cannot marry close relatives, whereas, in Adam and Eve's day, close marriage was not only necessary, but was possible, because the gene pool was relatively unscarred by thousands of years of mutations.

Thanks so much.

What about the statement that entropy sometimes decreases in closed systems?

What are the facts relating to that?

 

[Elin]

Bulldust! We have the same observable, physical evidence but we have very different worldviews. You're not a good listener, are you? I don't deny the observable evidence. I deny the origins side of the 'discoveries'. The presuppositions, the conclusions, but not the actual physical evidence.

wgeurts = Esanta = dk1000 = . . .?

Mistaken. . .

wgeurts =/= Esanta = dk1000.

 

[superdave5221]

Thanks so much.

What about the statement that entropy sometimes decreases in closed systems?

What are the facts relating to that?

Hello Elin,

I am not familiar with this statement and so I would have to research it before answering.

I think it safe to say that in the beginning there was perfect order, and it is man's sin that has introduced disorder into the universe, as God has chosen not to perfectly maintain an universe stained by sin.

Most scientists today have abandoned the idea that naturalism is a "closed system". Certainly a decrease in entropy does not imply a cessation. Most scientific atheists maintain that the universe will eventually experience "heat death". What a happy story ending!! Sure makes me want to be an atheist!!!

 

[Elin]

Hello Elin,

I am not familiar with this statement and so I would have to research it before answering.

I think it safe to say that in the beginning there was perfect order, and it is man's sin that has introduced disorder into the universe, as God has chosen not to perfectly maintain an universe stained by sin.

Most scientists today have abandoned the idea that naturalism is a "closed system". Certainly a decrease in entropy does not imply a cessation. Most scientific atheists maintain that the universe will eventually experience "heat death". What a happy story ending!! Sure makes me want to be an atheist!!!

The statement was made here for the second time by him:

I've asked you several questions and you just dodge them. For instance, can you tell me why some facets within a closed system decreasing in entropy is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

 

[Tintin]

It's damn disturbing to me when Christians say that the world is around 6,000 years old.

Among other things, such statements are easy pickings for atheists who are hell bent on making Christians look foolish.

The sooner you realise it's better to look foolish in the eyes of the world, rather than to compromise His Word, the better off we'll all be. God didn't call us to be accepted by the world, but instead, we are called to offer a message of grace and hope to a world that rejected Christ and rejects His followers.