Heresy within Christianity

[Yehren]

Even in America, YE creationism is dying. As evidence accumulates, it gets harder and harder to sell "creation science."

As I said before, it doesn't matter how much logic and evidence I produce, you will still argue against it, because you are dogmatically holding your view and will defend it to the max. That's understandable.

I notice that I'm showing evidence, and you're offering dogma, so there is that.

Darwin did not know about the animals in Australia or New Zealand or in any other areas of the world not accessible to Europeans, such as China and Japan.

No,that's wrong. His good friend Wallace (of Wallace's Line in SE Asia archipelagos) was co-discoverer of natural selection and was doing research in that part of the world, communicating with Darwin. His findings are cited in Darwin's book.

It is also not certain whether he did any studies in North America, although we do know he did much study in the Galapagos Islands.

Darwin never visited North America, but he received much evidence from his friend Asa Gray, a prominent American biologist, and both Lyell and Huxley did visit America and communicated evidence to him.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Even in America, YE creationism is dying. As evidence accumulates, it gets harder and harder to sell "creation science."

I notice that I'm showing evidence, and you're offering dogma, so there is that.

No,that's wrong. His good friend Wallace (of Wallace's Line in SE Asia archipelagos) was co-discoverer of natural selection and was doing research in that part of the world, communicating with Darwin. His findings are cited in Darwin's book.

Darwin never visited North America, but he received much evidence from his friend Asa Gray, a prominent American biologist, and both Lyell and Huxley did visit America and communicated evidence to him.

There is no evidence supporting evolution. It is just a guess. The fact is the the prominent evolutionists have admitted that they don't really know how the universe originated. Without the Bible account, no one really knows for sure. They hope that evolution is the answer, but they can't really prove it enough through observation and experimentation to promote the theory to being a the Law of Evolution.

Evolution is merely a dogmatic religion, a substitute for Christianity, and adherents are so settled in their dogmatism, that God has given them a delusion so that they will continue believing the lie and ultimately perish.

 

[mjrhealth]

This is because the church has failed to teach the young people about why Genesis 1 is true, with creation scientists providing substantive evidence from geology and genetics to offset the influentual guesswork that these young people have been brainwashed with the science teaching in their elementary and high schools. I have heard of teachers and scientists being fired from their jobs because they have questioned evolution and held to creation science.

One must first understand, the bible doesnt tell us everything, it misses a lot of detail, like Adams son, goes off into a city, if there was only Adam and Eve where did the rest of the people come from to make a city, I guess one day we will find out than it wont matter.

Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

and who was there to slay him

Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

 

[Paul Christensen]

One must first understand, the bible doesnt tell us everything, it misses a lot of detail, like Adams son, goes off into a city, if there was only Adam and Eve where did the rest of the people come from to make a city, I guess one day we will find out than it wont matter.

Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

and who was there to slay him

Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

First, Adam lived 800 years and had sons and daughters. So in 800 years, he had many sons and daughters, they intermarried and had children of their own, and their children had children, so we are looking at least 10 generations of people by the time Adam died. That is a lot of people. So it is quite probable that new cities were formed over those many years.

New Zealand and Australia are only around 150 years old in terms of European occupation. The first indigenous people arrived in New Zealand 900 A.D. and by the time Abel Tasman arrived in the 1700s, Maori populated the whole of the country. In the 150 years of European settlement, there are four sizeable cities, and many smaller towns around the country. So, where Adam was, after 800 years there would have been a number of sizeable cities in different locations.

One of those locations would have been the land of Nod. How far away, we don't know, because the whole geography of the earth radically changed as the result of the Flood.

So, Cain got married. He lived a very long time, so at one stage he would have married either one of his sisters, or a niece, or even a great niece. The genetics were still pure enough for people to marry close relatives in those days, and people would be very fertile.

So, thinking logically, not being so heavenly minded that we are no earthly use, there is no difficulty about the offspring of Adam forming sizeable cities around the region, and Cain getting married in one of the regions, called the land of Nod.

 

[mjrhealth]

First, Adam lived 800 years and had sons and daughters. So in 800 years, he had many sons and daughters, they intermarried and had children of their own, and their children had children, so we are looking at least 10 generations of people by the time Adam died. That is a lot of people. So it is quite probable that new cities were formed over those many years.

New Zealand and Australia are only around 150 years old in terms of European occupation. The first indigenous people arrived in New Zealand 900 A.D. and by the time Abel Tasman arrived in the 1700s, Maori populated the whole of the country. In the 150 years of European settlement, there are four sizeable cities, and many smaller towns around the country. So, where Adam was, after 800 years there would have been a number of sizeable cities in different locations.

One of those locations would have been the land of Nod. How far away, we don't know, because the whole geography of the earth radically changed as the result of the Flood.

So, Cain got married. He lived a very long time, so at one stage he would have married either one of his sisters, or a niece, or even a great niece. The genetics were still pure enough for people to marry close relatives in those days, and people would be very fertile.

So, thinking logically, not being so heavenly minded that we are no earthly use, there is no difficulty about the offspring of Adam forming sizeable cities around the region, and Cain getting married in one of the regions, called the land of Nod.

But that is like so much. all assumption. And we know what happens when we assume. There is lots left out of the bible, one day we will know.

 

[Paul Christensen]

But that is like so much. all assumption. And we know what happens when we assume. There is lots left out of the bible, one day we will know.

Oh, come on! Use your brain! Do you think that Adam and Eve had only one son in all Adam's 800 years of life. The Scripture says he had many sons and daughters. You are the one who is leaving things out of the Biblical record.

Let's do the math:
1+1=2; 2+2=4; 4+4=8; 8+8=16, then 32, 64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096, 8192. There's 13 generations already. If a generation is say 25 years, we have gone 325 years. And that is just from Adam. But all those children had children too, so in 325 years the number would be 8192x8182 which is over 67,108,694. That could populate several sizeable cities. All Cain had to do was marry just one women out of all, say 33 million of them. Adam went 800 years having sons and daughters. after another 325 years, the population would have been easily 67 million x 67 million. That is a whole lot of people on the earth in 650 years of Adam's life after having Cain. And Cain outlived him so guess how many his descendants would have been!

 

[Huperetes]

There is plenty to comment on in this thread. I guess I will start with the first. I have always thought that "heresy" was taken from the Greek word "hairesis" It means a "sect" or division. I guess in this instance the OP makes a valid point. However, what is commonly ignored is that when one makes a stand against denominations,he has in effect,created another sect. I think all of the major denominations started out by saying one church was wrong and then splitting off from it. If we point out an error and do the same thing are we just not as guilty? When Paul rebuked those in Corinth for their divisions he mentioned "one says I am of Paul" another,I am of Apollos" and yet another "I am of Christ". Do we see the irony here? Even the sect that claimed to be of Christ was rebuked for causing a division.

I will get to "it has been proven that an original Adam and Eve are genetically impossible" later.

 

[Yehren]

I guess one day we will find out than it wont matter.

Exactly. God clearly knew that information wouldn't have anything to do with our salvation, so He didn't tell us everything. The fact that all of Adam's sons, protons, evolution, neurons, and such aren't in scripture doesn't mean that they aren't a real part of His creation.

 

[Yehren]

There is no evidence supporting evolution.

It's directly observed. No point in denial. You've confused evolution (descent with modification, change in allele frequency) with a consequence of evolution (common descent). As you know, even many YE creationists admit the fact of speciation and a limited amount of common descent. They could hardly do otherwise.

The fact is the the prominent evolutionists have admitted that they don't really know how the universe originated.

Evolutionary theory isn't about the way the universe originated. Thought you knew. Darwin just assumed God did it.

They hope that evolution is the answer,

No, they don't. Evolution is about the way living things change over time. It has nothing to do with cosmology. Sometimes, some creationist think "evolution" is a synonym for "stuff that scares me."

but they can't really prove it enough through observation and experimentation to promote the theory to being a the Law of Evolution.

You have it backwards. Laws are weaker than theories. Laws are what scientists predict will happen under certain circumstances. Theories predict things as well. But they also explain things. So we have Kepler's laws, that predict the motions of planets around the sun, without explaining why they do so. But we have Newton's theory of gravitation, which explains why they do so, and that explanation allows us to extend gravitation to moons, comets, and spacecraft navigating the solar system.

Evolution is merely a dogmatic religion,

You're a little confused. Evolution is merely a natural phenomenon, directly observed. YE creationism can be a religion. For some (but not for most) it is a substitute for Christianity, and adherents are so settled in their dogmatism, that God has given them a delusion so that they will continue believing the lie and ultimately perish. Most YE creationists are aware that one's opinion of evolution has no bearing on one's salvation. A few of them have made an idol of creationism, and substituted that God. They, and only they, have put their salvation at risk by being creationists.

 

[Yehren]

It seems to me, aspen, you need to examine yourself to see if you really are a Bible believer, because for evolution to be true, whether Theistic Evolution or Darwinian or any other category, then millions of years of mutations and death is required BEFORE the first man arrived on the scene, whose sin the Bible tells us, resulted in death entering into the world. Quite a conundrum for those who claim to be Bible believers whilst also accepting evolutionist theories.

The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. We know this for certain, because God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter. So if God tells the truth, it wasn't a physical death.

That being so, the existence of physical death before the fall has no significance whatever.

 

[charity]

The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. We know this for certain, because God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter. So if God tells the truth, it wasn't a physical death.

That being so, the existence of physical death before the fall has no significance whatever.

Hello @Yehren

With respect, this is the oldest lie in the book, for it is the one that Satan told when he told Eve that she would not surely die. Physical death was the outcome, for Adam did die, as did Eve.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Yehren]

The "death" God spoke of was not a physical death. We know this for certain, because God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats and lives on physically for many years thereafter. So if God tells the truth, it wasn't a physical death.

That being so, the existence of physical death before the fall has no significance whatever.

With respect, this is the oldest lie in the book, for it is the one that Satan told when he told Eve that she would not surely die.

Turns out, Satan was a Biblical literalist. They both died spiritually that day, but Satan told them that they'd continue to live and become like God. Which was true, if one assumes a physical death. Satan's specialty is using the truth to deceive. Remember, God said that they would die the day they ate from the tree. And so they did. But spiritually, not physically. They became like God, knowing good and evil, but could not be truly good. Hence the spiritual death from which Jesus came to save us.

It was never about a physical death. If it was, they both would have died physically that day.

Physical death was the outcome,

No. If it was, it would have happened that day, as God said.

for Adam did die, as did Eve.

Of course. They were never immortal. In fact, God expresses concern that they might become so, and takes steps to make sure they don't.

But of course, they died long after that day, so we know it wasn't a physical death God spoke of.

 

[aspen]

Were you there? Do you know for sure?
I know someone who was there, and He has given us a detailed account of Adam and Eve, who they were and what they did. He was also there when Noah and his wife and family stepped out of the ark.

I believe Him because He speaks the truth, rather than men who were not there and have no first-hand knowledge of the events.

DNA is record of what happened - you do not have to be there when it happened. We know that Lincoln was shot and killed by John Wilkes Booth in Ford theater because of the evidence. Eye witness accounts are the least reliable part of the evidence

 

[amadeus]

DNA is record of what happened - you do not have to be there when it happened. We know that Lincoln was shot and killed by John Wilkes Booth in Ford theater because of the evidence. Eye witness accounts are the least reliable part of the evidence

Indeed, we do not live for God according to knowledge even though we may have some little bit of it, but even on that little bit someone want to argue the point...

"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Rom 1:17

 

[Yehren]

It's so simple.

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. [38] This is the greatest and the first commandment. [39] And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

Just do this, and everything follows from it. So simple, and yet so hard for we faulty humans.

I'm grateful daily that God is merciful.

 

[Paul Christensen]

It's directly observed. No point in denial. You've confused evolution (descent with modification, change in allele frequency) with a consequence of evolution (common descent). As you know, even many YE creationists admit the fact of speciation and a limited amount of common descent. They could hardly do otherwise.



Evolutionary theory isn't about the way the universe originated. Thought you knew. Darwin just assumed God did it.



No, they don't. Evolution is about the way living things change over time. It has nothing to do with cosmology. Sometimes, some creationist think "evolution" is a synonym for "stuff that scares me."



You have it backwards. Laws are weaker than theories. Laws are what scientists predict will happen under certain circumstances. Theories predict things as well. But they also explain things. So we have Kepler's laws, that predict the motions of planets around the sun, without explaining why they do so. But we have Newton's theory of gravitation, which explains why they do so, and that explanation allows us to extend gravitation to moons, comets, and spacecraft navigating the solar system.



You're a little confused. Evolution is merely a natural phenomenon, directly observed. YE creationism can be a religion. For some (but not for most) it is a substitute for Christianity, and adherents are so settled in their dogmatism, that God has given them a delusion so that they will continue believing the lie and ultimately perish. Most YE creationists are aware that one's opinion of evolution has no bearing on one's salvation. A few of them have made an idol of creationism, and substituted that God. They, and only they, have put their salvation at risk by being creationists.

How come evolution can be directly observed? No one has been there to see it happen. What! Someone sat there for 10 million years to observe evolution in progress?
I make the same point again. If you don't believe Genesis 1 as it is written, that God created the heavens and earth in 6 24 hour days, then how can you believe the rest of the Bible? It is the same Holy Spirit who told Moses how God created the heavens and the earth, who said, "Repent therefore, that your sins be blotted out" - or did He? If the literal Genesis 1 "ain't necessarily so", then the instructions to repent, believe the gospel, receive Christ as Saviour, so that you will receive eternal life, "ain't necessarily so" as well. Either the whole literal text of the Bible is inspired of God and therefore absolutely true and accurate, or none of it is.

So, using your own logic concerning Genesis 1: Are you really saved? Do you really have eternal life? How do you know? Do you have conclusive evidence of it? All you might have is just religion with no evidence of a true conversion to Christ. On what do you base your assurance that you can honestly call yourself a Christian?

You could say, "The Bible tells me so". But you are demonstrating that you don't believe the Bible, but are accepting an atheistic view of the formation of the cosmos and the world. Therefore I can say that you don't believe the salvation Scriptures if you don't believe Genesis 1. You can't have it both ways. You either believe the whole Bible as it is literally written, or you believe none of it. That is called being consistent.

By the way, I am not saying you are not saved, but without a total trust in God's Word you can't have the assurance of it. Furthermore, you can't have the full assurance that there is even a God, Holy Spirit, or a historical Jesus, or that a historical Jesus rose from the dead on a date in history.

 

[Paul Christensen]

It's directly observed. No point in denial. You've confused evolution (descent with modification, change in allele frequency) with a consequence of evolution (common descent). As you know, even many YE creationists admit the fact of speciation and a limited amount of common descent. They could hardly do otherwise.



Evolutionary theory isn't about the way the universe originated. Thought you knew. Darwin just assumed God did it.



No, they don't. Evolution is about the way living things change over time. It has nothing to do with cosmology. Sometimes, some creationist think "evolution" is a synonym for "stuff that scares me."



You have it backwards. Laws are weaker than theories. Laws are what scientists predict will happen under certain circumstances. Theories predict things as well. But they also explain things. So we have Kepler's laws, that predict the motions of planets around the sun, without explaining why they do so. But we have Newton's theory of gravitation, which explains why they do so, and that explanation allows us to extend gravitation to moons, comets, and spacecraft navigating the solar system.



You're a little confused. Evolution is merely a natural phenomenon, directly observed. YE creationism can be a religion. For some (but not for most) it is a substitute for Christianity, and adherents are so settled in their dogmatism, that God has given them a delusion so that they will continue believing the lie and ultimately perish. Most YE creationists are aware that one's opinion of evolution has no bearing on one's salvation. A few of them have made an idol of creationism, and substituted that God. They, and only they, have put their salvation at risk by being creationists.

The change in animals, for example, types of dogs, comes through genetics, not evolution.

As far as dogs evolving from simpler organisms, there is no evidence of it in the form of intermediate life forms, such as a half fish half dog. Even the fossil record disproves it, because the fossils are millions of years old, they show the same animals, fish, marine life, exactly as they are now, showing that over millions of years that they have changed one bit into anything else but the same fish, animals, and marine life. This means if that was anything like evolution, it stopped 12 million years ago with absolutely no changes since that time.

I think that evolution is nothing but a fairy story that has developed into a dogmatic "religion" for many, and it doesn't matter what evidence is produced to the contrary, their dogmatism will blind them to it.

 

[Paul Christensen]

DNA is record of what happened - you do not have to be there when it happened. We know that Lincoln was shot and killed by John Wilkes Booth in Ford theater because of the evidence. Eye witness accounts are the least reliable part of the evidence

You are right, and the DNA record shows that we all came from the same parents, are of one race, the human race, are all related, and that differences in people are genetic and not racial. There is no black or white, but we are all a shade of brown, and the amount of melanin in the skin is the genetic adaptation according to the particular environment people lived in.

In actual fact, evolution is totally responsible for racism, because it divides humanity into 'superior' and "inferior' races, according to stages of human evolution. Having humanity come from two original parents destroys racism because we are all the same race, created in the image of God.

 

[Yehren]

How come evolution can be directly observed?

Because changes in allele frequencies in populations happens all the time. That's the scientific definition of evolution. I think you've confused the phenomenon of evolution with a consequence of evolution.

No one has been there to see it happen.

I think you've confused the phenomenon of evolution with a consequence of evolution.

What!

Yep. Most people who are "against evolution" don't even know what it is.

I make the same point again.

If you don't believe Genesis 1 as it is written,

Christians have always believed it as it is written. YE creationism is a revision of Genesis, no older than the 20th century. When St. Augustine showed that the "days" of creation were figurative, not literal, no one at the time thought to disagree with him. If you won't accept Genesis, then how can you believe the rest of the Bible?

So, using your own logic concerning Genesis 1: Are you really saved? Do you really have eternal life?

Fortunately, God doesn't care if you approve of evolution or not. That's not how He will judge you. Eternal life will be determined for you as Jesus says in Matthew 25. Check it out, and act accordingly. Your soul depends on it.

How do you know?

Jesus said so. I believe it. You should, too.

Do you accept His word on this? If not, all you might have is just religion with no evidence of a true conversion to Christ. On what do you base your assurance that you can honestly call yourself a Christian?

You could say, "The Bible tells me so". But since you are demonstrating that you don't believe the Bible as it is, but are accepting a modern YE view of the formation of the cosmos and the world you can't be sure. It's possible for you to still believe the salvation Scriptures even if you believe the YE revision of Genesis 1. But if you make an idol of your new beliefs, and insist that one must agree with your revisions to be saved, you may have replaced Jesus with you man-made doctrines.

Instead of depending on man's version of Genesis, you should consider just accepting it as it is.

You can still be saved if you don't, so long as you don't think your new beliefs are required for all Christians.

 

[Yehren]

The change in animals, for example, types of dogs, comes through genetics, not evolution.

That's what evolution is. "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time." Do you understand what that means?

As far as dogs evolving from simpler organisms,

What makes you think that they evolved from simpler organisms? The species from which dogs and wolves evolved doesn't seem to have been "simpler." What is your measurable way of showing how simple or complex a species is? We can then test it and see if it has any meaning in biology.

there is no evidence of it in the form of intermediate life forms, such as a half fish half dog.

Evolutionary theory would be in big trouble if there was. Dogs evolved from other mammals, not fish.

Even the fossil record disproves it, because the fossils are millions of years old, they show the same animals, fish, marine life, exactly as they are now,

That's a testable belief. Show me one organism that is exactly the same in the fossil record as it is today. What do you have.

showing that over millions of years that they have changed one bit into anything else but the same fish, animals, and marine life. This means if that was anything like evolution, it stopped 12 million years ago with absolutely no changes since that time.

Nope. For example, H. sapiens is rather different today than it was just a few hundred thousand years ago. So that's not a viable hypothesis.

I think that evolution is nothing but a fairy story that has developed into a dogmatic "religion" for many,

It's pretty clear that you don't even know what it is. As Everett Dirkson remarked, "People are usually down on things they aren't up on."

But YE creationists are not very open to evidence, and it doesn't matter what evidence is produced, their dogmatism will blind them to it.