Heresy within Christianity

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,382
6,294
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Do yourself a favor and do not mention Darwin again. Darwin is not your issue, the science of evolution and its various branches of science are what you have to deal with.
Christians don't need to deal with evolution at all. The Bible doesn't, why should we? And what criteria do you use to distinguish between what you understand as truth, and what you think Moses wrote as fiction?
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Christians don't need to deal with evolution at all. The Bible doesn't, why should we? And what criteria do you use to distinguish between what you understand as truth, and what you think Moses wrote as fiction?
You are missing the point. Go back and read through the thread.
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The accepted definition of the evolution of the species according to Darwin, which evolutionist have never denied, is that one animal changes into a total different type of animal by chance over a very long period of time,

Show us that one. Checkable source. Darwin's definition was "descent with modification." And his great discovery was that it wasn't by chance. Where did you get that story? Link, please?

and that all life started with a one-celled organism in the primeval soup.

He really didn't know how life started. He just assumed that God made the first living things:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872


You've been lied to. A lot.

But they don't really know where the one-celled organism came from originally.

We don't yet know exactly how it formed, scientifically. But more and more evidence is confirming God's word that it was brought forth from the earth.

So, if you are saying that a particular type of bird developing a larger beak without changing into a completely different type of bird

That's evolution, if it was by genetic change. As Darwin said, "descent with modficiation."

then you are departing from Darwin's theory of the origin of the species

Nope. You were really misled about that. Darwin even discusses similar cases of evolution in his book.

Noting differences in the feeding habits of the finches, Darwin wrote that cactus finches “may often be seen climbing about the flowers of the great cactus trees.” Seeing the diversity of beaks and other structures in the closely related finches, he wrote in his notebook, “one might really fancy that one species had been taken and modified for different ends.”

Darwin elaborated on this idea when he published his intellectual bombshell, the “Origin of Species,” some 25 years later in 1859. He speculated that birds, resembling starlings, came to the Galapagos Islands by wind. Evolution took over and different groups developed different diets. When, he wrote, “an immigrant first settled on one of the islands, … it would undoubtedly be exposed to different conditions in the different islands (where) it would have to compete with a different set of organisms. … Then, natural selection would probably favor different varieties in the different islands.”
How Darwin’s finches got their beaks

to an adaptation of your own to try and explain away the fact that a bird that develops a larger beak without changing its type is not Darwinian evolution.

See above. You'd be a lot more effective in fighting evolution, if you learned what it actually is. There is the danger that if you understood it, you wouldn't hate it any more. But isn't that an important thing to know, too?
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Christians don't need to deal with evolution at all. The Bible doesn't, why should we?

You don't need it for salvation. God doesn't care if you understand evolution.

And what criteria do you use to distinguish between what you understand as truth, and what you think Moses wrote as fiction?

That's the real danger of creationism. From the start, YE creationists revised large sections of scripture to fit their new ideas. And that can lead to unnecessary barriers to other becoming Christians.
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The heat and light are caused by supernova, and all I see in the first photo is an already formed star surrounded by gaseous clouds, that is what I see in the evidence.

But astrophysicsts understand what the process is, and realize these young stars and protostars are forming from collapsing clouds of gas.

But then I'm biased toward Biblical creation

You're biased toward a modern revision of the Bible.

I know that your foundation won't change from the atheist view of evolution

I don't know what the "atheist view of evolution" is. Darwin's theory is the theistic view of evolution. Scientists who are also Christian have no reason to doubt the fact of evolution. You might be surprised to see how many orthodox Christians there are among scientists. Your salvation might be better served by learning about it. Here's some Christian sources:

BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.
Mission and Beliefs

Read what committed Christians think of creation and evolution. God is truth, and a Christian should never fear the truth.

I am merely telling you to provide evidence that I have when we all come up to judgment one day, in case you try to tell God that you weren't clearly told that evolution...

That subject won't even come up. How will He judge your eternal home?

Mattew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.


[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.


[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

And I suppose some of the goats will be crying "But Jesus, I denied evolution! I'm a creationist! You have to save me!"


And some of the sheep will be saying "Why are all these evolutionists being saved?"

Be sure you read this carefully, and make sure you're with the sheep. Your opinion of evolution won't matter even a little bit.

is an atheistic lie which causes a person to deny the God of the Bible, who is the only one. I don't know who your god is but it ain't the God of the Bible.

My God is the God who spoke in Mattew 25. How about yours?
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's the real danger of creationism.

To believe in creation is dangerous?

Yep. St. Augustine, over a millenium ago, made it clear:

"Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.


The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.


Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)"
Saint Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram


Have you ever read the 4th commandment?

If you have some way to prove that Moses, repeating a figurative passage, somehow converts it to a literal passage, I'd be willing to look at your evidence. What do you have.

The barrier here is the one being erected by those who don't believe scripture.

I don't think YE creationists actually disbelieve scripture. They've just revised it to make it more acceptable to them.
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Do yourself a favor and do not mention Darwin again. Darwin is not your issue, the science of evolution and its various branches of science are what you have to deal with.
I have proved that evolution is a lie, because I have asked for proof, using the scientific method of observation and repeatability, which is essential for something to be regarded as a science, and no one has been able to show by actual observation that any kind of animal has changed into any other type of animal. All that has been shown to me is either adaptation of the animal without any change of kind, or a bacteria living inside of an amoeba but no change in either the bacteria or the amoeba.

Therefore evolution is not a science at all, but a religion based on a system of belief that cannot be proved by anything that can be observed or repeated.

Do you honestly believe that everything that exists was created out of absolutely nothing? How can that be a science, when it cannot be verified by the only way a scientific theory can be proved - the scientific method of actual observation and repeatability.
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have proved that evolution is a lie, because I have asked for proof, using the scientific method of observation and repeatability, which is essential for something to be regarded as a science, and no one has been able to show by actual observation that any kind of animal has changed into any other type of animal.

As you learned, that's not what "evolution" means in biology. It's "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Or as Darwin put it, "descent with modification." And that is directly observed.

You're confusing evolution with a consequence of evolution.

As I said, you'd be more effective fighting evolution, if you knew what it is.

Do you honestly believe that everything that exists was created out of absolutely nothing?

As I said, if you actually knew what evolution is, and what evolutionary theory says, you'd be much more effective here than you are now.
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Show us that one. Checkable source. Darwin's definition was "descent with modification." And his great discovery was that it wasn't by chance. Where did you get that story? Link, please?



He really didn't know how life started. He just assumed that God made the first living things:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872


You've been lied to. A lot.



We don't yet know exactly how it formed, scientifically. But more and more evidence is confirming God's word that it was brought forth from the earth.



That's evolution, if it was by genetic change. As Darwin said, "descent with modficiation."



Nope. You were really misled about that. Darwin even discusses similar cases of evolution in his book.

Noting differences in the feeding habits of the finches, Darwin wrote that cactus finches “may often be seen climbing about the flowers of the great cactus trees.” Seeing the diversity of beaks and other structures in the closely related finches, he wrote in his notebook, “one might really fancy that one species had been taken and modified for different ends.”

Darwin elaborated on this idea when he published his intellectual bombshell, the “Origin of Species,” some 25 years later in 1859. He speculated that birds, resembling starlings, came to the Galapagos Islands by wind. Evolution took over and different groups developed different diets. When, he wrote, “an immigrant first settled on one of the islands, … it would undoubtedly be exposed to different conditions in the different islands (where) it would have to compete with a different set of organisms. … Then, natural selection would probably favor different varieties in the different islands.”
How Darwin’s finches got their beaks



See above. You'd be a lot more effective in fighting evolution, if you learned what it actually is. There is the danger that if you understood it, you wouldn't hate it any more. But isn't that an important thing to know, too?
All I do is work from the foundation that the literal text of the Bible is the truth. That is my foundation and I am dogmatic about it. You work from a different foundation and you are dogmatic about that.

Therefore I don't evaluate the Bible by man's theories, but I evaluate man's theories by the literal text of the Bible. For me, God said it, and so it is true. He was the One who was actually there. No one else was there and so they cannot conclusively say how it happened, and if God says it happened but doesn't tell us how, then none of us can know how it happened. So any theory of man about how things happened at the origin of the world has to be absolute guesswork, and to tell others how it all happened, when God hasn't said anything about it is arrogance on the part of man. God's answer would be the same as He gave to Job and his friends when they tried to second-guess God about how and why He allowed what happened to Job: "Were you there when I put the stars in place?"

So if none of us were there when the world was first formed, we have absolutely no idea of how it happened, so it all depends on which religion -evolution or creationism we decide to believe in.
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
But astrophysicsts understand what the process is, and realize these young stars and protostars are forming from collapsing clouds of gas.



You're biased toward a modern revision of the Bible.



I don't know what the "atheist view of evolution" is. Darwin's theory is the theistic view of evolution. Scientists who are also Christian have no reason to doubt the fact of evolution. You might be surprised to see how many orthodox Christians there are among scientists. Your salvation might be better served by learning about it. Here's some Christian sources:

BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.
Mission and Beliefs

Read what committed Christians think of creation and evolution. God is truth, and a Christian should never fear the truth.



That subject won't even come up. How will He judge your eternal home?

Mattew 25:31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.


[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.


[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

And I suppose some of the goats will be crying "But Jesus, I denied evolution! I'm a creationist! You have to save me!"


And some of the sheep will be saying "Why are all these evolutionists being saved?"

Be sure you read this carefully, and make sure you're with the sheep. Your opinion of evolution won't matter even a little bit.



My God is the God who spoke in Matthew 25. How about yours?
The bottom line is that my foundation of faith and my religion is the literal text of the Bible, nothing more, nothing less. If God said it, then it is true. If God didn't say it, then there is no way anyone can prove it.

I have repeatedly asked the question - show me one piece of observable evidence that one animal changed into another by an evolutionary process. No one has been able to answer the question. All that can be shown is either adaptation of the specific animal to its environment through genetics, or a symbiotic combination of two organisms with any substantive changes in either organism.

The truth is that no one can show any proof that one kind of animal changed into another through evolution, and so evolution is a religion rather than a science.

So you can cobble a set of Scriptures together to avoid my direct questions but that would never convince me to change my foundation that the literal text of the Bible is true and is consistent across all principal scholarly versions.
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have repeatedly asked the question - show me one piece of observable evidence that one animal changed into another by an evolutionary process.

You wanted examples of evolution, which is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. You were given examples. So you redefined "evolution" to mean "one animal changed into another." But animals don't evolve; populations of animals do.

The truth is that no one can show any proof that one kind of animal changed into another through evolution,

Your fellow YE creationists freely admit that the huge number of transitional forms are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory":

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

and so evolution is a religion rather than a science.

See above. YE creationists who actually know the evidence, say otherwise, even if they prefer their interpretation of Genesis to the evidence. They are honest creationists.
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So if none of us were there when the world was first formed, we have absolutely no idea of how it happened,

Sorry, the story that we can't know anything we weren't here to see happen is so obviously faulty as to be laughable.
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
You wanted examples of evolution, which is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. You were given examples. So you redefined "evolution" to mean "one animal changed into another." But animals don't evolve; populations of animals do.



Your fellow YE creationists freely admit that the huge number of transitional forms are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory":

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.

YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution



See above. YE creationists who actually know the evidence, say otherwise, even if they prefer their interpretation of Genesis to the evidence. They are honest creationists.
Evolution remains a religion no matter how different people adapt the different theories of it to fit their foundation of belief. It is not my religion, so I don't believe in it.
 

Paul Christensen

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2020
3,068
1,619
113
76
Christchurch
www.personal-communication.org.nz
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Sorry, the story that we can't know anything we weren't here to see happen is so obviously faulty as to be laughable.
What I am saying is that if no one was there when the world was first formed, no one can know exactly how it was formed. I didn't say that we can't know anything. We can know what is knowable - such as how the universe works and ruins, bones, rocks, and fossils that we can observe in the present. We can study their characteristics and come to certain conclusions. We can repeat scientific laws in the laboratory, for example, gravity. We know that gravity is true, because we can repeat the apple falling on Newton's head by dropping an apple on someone else's head. We know that the dinosaur bones discovered are actually what they are because we can piece them back together to form complete dinosaur skeletons.

But we can't know exactly what a dinosaur looked like because there are no photographs of them. We get some clues through ancient cave drawings that were made alongside drawings of domestic animals, which show us that the particular type of dinosaur existed at the same time as early man who saw them and drew one on the cave wall alongside the cow he milked that morning. Archaelogical science shows us that. But it can't show us exactly when those cave drawings were made. They can only be observed as they appear now in the present. But we can know through the evidence of the cave drawing that dinosaurs did not exist millions of years ago, but at the same time as human beings, and the fact that a similar type of domestic cow is also there, shows that either the domestic cow stopped evolving millions of year ago, or that the drawing was made in the more recent past. Also, the drawings showed artistic talent and intelligence which showed that the man who drew them had the same artistic talent as artists today and just as much intelligence to know to preserve a pictorial record of his world and the environment he lived in. Therefore we can conclude that man either stopped evolving millions of years ago, or that normal humans existed in the more recent past and did not evolve from inferior life forms.

So, interpretation of the present available evidence is dependent on our religious foundation. The only way a person can move to a literal Biblical foundation is through a work of the Holy Spirit in the person.
 

Waiting on him

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2018
11,674
6,096
113
56
North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sorry, the story that we can't know anything we weren't here to see happen is so obviously faulty as to be laughable.
I hate to cut in, and don't wish to get off topic, but you may be able to answer a question I've had for some time..
Hi did Jacob change the color of his heard?
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I hate to cut in, and don't wish to get off topic, but you may be able to answer a question I've had for some time..
Hi did Jacob change the color of his heard?

It's a really odd passage, and the meaning is controversial. It appears that as Laban kept changing the terms of their agreement, God kept changing the herd to favor Jacob. There's some suggestion therein that some kind of magic was being attempted but that isn't clear, either.
 

Waiting on him

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2018
11,674
6,096
113
56
North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's a really odd passage, and the meaning is controversial. It appears that as Laban kept changing the terms of their agreement, God kept changing the herd to favor Jacob. There's some suggestion therein that some kind of magic was being attempted but that isn't clear, either.
It just seems weird, scripture kinda suggested that by placing branches in front of them they became speckled.