Leaving creationism = leaving Christianity?

[River Jordan]

So then, who or what is your Adam?

The first human to have sufficient consciousness to be accountable to God.

Are you suggesting ruin reconstruction theory?

Nope.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

There's a fundamental misunderstanding going on here. I'm not trying to convince anyone to switch to being an "evolutionist" or to try and change how they read scripture. The reason I describe my way of reading scripture is because I'm asked.

No, my overall point here is to make the case that saying things that just aren't true in the name of Christianity does a great deal of harm to our Great Commission. Remember, as Christians we are to be truthful in everything we do, especially when it comes to sharing the Gospel with the lost.

When Christians spread falsehoods about reality (no new species, no transitional fossils, evolutionists are all atheists, scientists are out to get you) while sharing the Gospel, we discredit our entire belief system, make ourselves look foolish, and drive people away. It's distressing because there's no reason to say those things in the first place. They're in no way essential to salvation.

We need to stop tying our faith to lies.

I do not think you are trying to "convert me" to evolution. I think you have treated everyone respectfully (for the most part [I do not count "giving back" what you are getting]). You may notice I "bolded" some of your statements because I think this is where the fundamental disagreement is. (at least in my pathetic mind)

The overall idea\question of what we are discussing in all of these threads is "What is truth?"

Now it is interesting to note this is also the original question in recorded history...or at least the question behind the question. In Genesis 3:1, the serpent asked the woman "yea, hath God said...?" or "Did God really say...?" the question behind the question and in the events that follow after is "Did God tell you the truth?" or "What is truth?". We find again in John 18:38 Pilate asking Jesus (God himself) "What is truth?". God does not answer Pilate here but the good news is God answered it for us a chapter earlier in John 17:17 when He told us "thy word is truth." or "thy word=truth."

The question that is really before us, in my opinion, is What is truth? The reason I will fight to my death for what I believe is because I believe God really did say...(fill in the blank). I believe the very same question is being posed to me and everyone who has come throughout history! Did God really say? I believe God's word is truth...all of it....without exception. The things I do not understand...I trust because Gods word=truth....the only truth I can know.

I do not know if any of this will make sense to anyone else, but the fight is much bigger to me than evolution, It is questioning "Did God really say?"

I am not trying to be disrespectful, just tell where I come from in my way of thinking.

 

[River Jordan]

SL,

No, you make perfect sense and present a very thoughtful post. I appreciate that.

Relating to the question of this thread, I understand that for Christians of a more fundamentalist stripe, "truth" is very strictly defined by a specific reading of scripture. That's fine...I'm not trying to convince anyone to abandon that.

But nowhere in scripture does it say "evolution never happens", "no species ever evolve", "no transitional fossils exist", and all the other things we see from our resident YEC's. Not only do they make those false arguments, they tie them directly to the entire faith. The situation they present is if you don't believe any of those things, you might as well be an atheist (what CJ suggested in another thread).

My point is, that's all totally unnecessary. Not only that, there's absolutely no reason to pretend that they're young-earth creationism has any basis in science. There's no reason to argue things like "the science supports creationism".

IMO, by doing so they're lying not only to everyone else, but to themselves. They're pretending that their young-earth creationism is based in science, when it's actually 100% based in a particular reading of scripture. IOW, they're not being honest about the very foundation of their arguments.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

You miss nuances and references, things I give you credit for being able to catch but perhaps I shouldn't.

It is evident that you fail to see the disingenuous aspects of your own worldview while pointing out the very same in others. Again, a condition also duly noted in scripture.

The book of Genesis could have easily been written from a Darwinian worldview. Moses, write it down that there are natural laws that I may or may not have anything to do with. These laws have brought about everything you see, and even you yourself. When "Adam" evolved consciousness I decided to intervene in this world.

Genesis 4......

Moses could have handled the truth. Yet another reference.

 

[River Jordan]

Scripture also could have described plate tectonics, volcanism, temperature gradients, the rotation of the earth, etc., but it doesn't. It just says God creates mountains and winds.

That's why your argument fails.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Scripture also could have described plate tectonics, volcanism, temperature gradients, the rotation of the earth, etc., but it doesn't. It just says God creates mountains and winds.

That's why your argument fails.

Actually, your argument fails since none of those things relate to origins, whereas the creation of life separated into a set of kinds rather than a common ancestor does.

 

[River Jordan]

Actually, your argument fails since none of those things relate to origins

:wacko: Yes they do. What is the origin of the rocky mountains? Is it creation by God or tectonics? What is the origin of the Santa Ana winds? Are they created by God, or due to temperature gradients?

Scripture very clearly states that God creates mountains and winds, yet science can account for both on purely natural terms. Thus, according to the exact same logic employed by fundamentalists regarding the origins of species, we must reject tectonics and temperature gradients as some sort of "damnable doctrine" promoted by "atheistic scientists" who are trying to "turn us away from God's Word".

 

[Mr.Bride]

:wacko: Yes they do. What is the origin of the rocky mountains? Is it creation by God or tectonics? What is the origin of the Santa Ana winds? Are they created by God, or due to temperature gradients?

Scripture very clearly states that God creates mountains and winds, yet science can account for both on purely natural terms. Thus, according to the exact same logic employed by fundamentalists regarding the origins of species, we must reject tectonics and temperature gradients as some sort of "damnable doctrine" promoted by "atheistic scientists" who are trying to "turn us away from God's Word".

I'm gonna keep it simple like I am. If I were you I'd try to get closer to Jesus instead of trying to figure God out. He'll then reveal all things to you River Jordan. Blessings

 

[UppsalaDragby]

:wacko: Yes they do. What is the origin of the rocky mountains? Is it creation by God or tectonics? What is the origin of the Santa Ana winds? Are they created by God, or due to temperature gradients?

Scripture very clearly states that God creates mountains and winds, yet science can account for both on purely natural terms. Thus, according to the exact same logic employed by fundamentalists regarding the origins of species, we must reject tectonics and temperature gradients as some sort of "damnable doctrine" promoted by "atheistic scientists" who are trying to "turn us away from God's Word".

That is strawman logic, not "the exact same logic employed by fundamentalists", so again, your argument fails.

Everything was created by God, so by the same token you could claim that kitching sinks relate to origins. My point is that scripture says absolutelly nothing about whether or not God initially created mountain using plate tectonics, volcanism, or any other process that can be observed today. We can make assumptions, which may or may not be true, but that is all we can do.

The origin of life on the other hand is given in much more detail. We know for example that life was created during the timespan of a week and, just as I pointed out, separated into a set of kinds rather than originating from a common ancestor.

 

[River Jordan]

That is strawman logic, not "the exact same logic employed by fundamentalists", so again, your argument fails.

No, it is the same logic in both cases.

My point is that scripture says absolutelly nothing about whether or not God initially created mountain using plate tectonics, volcanism, or any other process that can be observed today. We can make assumptions, which may or may not be true, but that is all we can do.

And what does scripture say about how God created species? Not time span, but the method used.

The origin of life on the other hand is given in much more detail.

It is, isn't it? So what does scripture say about how God created life on earth and in the seas?

We know for example that life was created during the timespan of a week and, just as I pointed out, separated into a set of kinds rather than originating from a common ancestor.

First, you're talking about a time span, not a method. Second, if I start trying to talk to you about how you reconcile a "plain reading of Genesis" with some basic facts, are you going to actually respond in good faith and with an open mind, or are you going to do as you did before? Finally, if scripture doesn't say much of anything about the method God used to create life on earth, then "according to their kinds" is not incompatible with common ancestry. Evolution via common ancestry could be the means by which God separated the "kinds".

But scripture doesn't say, just as scripture doesn't say how God creates mountains or winds.

 

[KingJ]

The testimonies fall into a general pattern....

--Raised in a conservative, fundamentalist environment, including being taught young-earth creationism

--Told things like "if evolution/millions of years is true, then the whole Bible falls apart"

--Accepts these things and goes out into the world with a firm belief in YEC

--Encounters (often for the first time) contrary points of view, evidence, and beliefs...usually at college or online

--Starts own investigation of YEC and science

--Discovers YEC arguments are oftentimes wrong, and sometimes deliberately deceptive

--Eventually abandons Christianity under the "if evolution/millions or years is true, then the whole Bible falls apart" framework

But there's one common thread among all the testimonies that really stood out to me...the fact that all these ex-creationists had a deep, maybe innate, desire to figure out the truth of the matter. They saw that YEC was saying one thing and science was saying another, knew they both couldn't be true, and set out on their own to figure which one was right.

Not only that, but they were entirely open to the possibility that YEC just might be wrong, and if so, they wanted to know it.

To me, that's the key to this whole thing...a genuine, strong desire to get to the truth of things coupled with an ability to objectively consider what is found. Not everyone has that combination of traits. If a person has the mindset that YEC is what the Bible definitively teaches, and no amount of physical evidence can ever supersede it, then it's very unlikely that such a person will ever go down the path described above. It's just not in their makeup.

And let's be clear...I'm fine with that. If your way of figuring out the truth of this issue is "whatever a literal reading of the Bible says is true, nothing else matters", great. All I ask is that people with that mindset say so up front and from then on be consistent. If the physical evidence doesn't really matter to you, then don't ask people like me to find it, post it, and/or explain it to you. Don't try and argue that the physical evidence supports YEC (especially if you've never actually studied it). Pretending that the physical data is important to you when it really isn't is disingenuous.

I so wish you would study scripture before biology.

1. Evolution undermines the character of God and scripture. We get our faith from scripture Rom 10:17. Humans and Angels are evil, not God. Unless we can trace natural selection to fallen angels / human sin...it leaves us to assume God is evil. God is not evil. Unless you are fine with worshipping satan. You see natural selection as good?

2. Evolutionary thought has existed since 610 bc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought. Since then Jesus came changed the world and never touched on it. The Jews all believed scripture at the time. Jesus never said what they believe was wrong or should be interpreted differently. He never discredited scripture in the slightest. In fact He confirmed it by saying it is one with Him and points to Him. Jesus also rebuked the devil with OT scripture...literally. He did not say 'it is suggested by writers giving their own opinion that we must not tempt God'. Likewise Paul, surely encountered even more evolutionists / creation sceptics but yet never gave instruction for an other then literal reading of all scripture. In fact he only gave us harsh warnings on disregarding scripture and ensured respected elders were in place at every church to calm crazy youngsters and retain the integrity of scripture.

3. Thumbs up to searching for the truth!!! We should all judge ourselves honestly on that! Now, your evidence presented has been found wanting...requiring a lot of faith. So the question has to arise as to why you choose to place your faith in human assumptions instead of scripture...as a Christian who knows John 1:1...?

Lets keep the evidence side to the other thread. But please River, I beg of you to just be honest with us all and admit that it takes a lot of faith on your part to believe in evolution. We here are not as dumb and ignorant as you want to believe or make out. In fact by pressing that you are revealing your own naivity / youth / hopefully not an agenda.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

No, it is the same logic in both cases.

No, it is not the exact same logic for the reasons I gave. You aren't supporting your claim, simply reapeating it.

And what does scripture say about how God created species? Not time span, but the method used.

Why should we ignore the time span? It was given for a purpose.

It is, isn't it? So what does scripture say about how God created life on earth and in the seas?

Scripture doesn't say HOW. The fact that God said "let the earth produce", "let the water teem", "let the birds fly above the earth" says nothing about how the land produced, or the water, or the air. It simply shows us that God designated different environments for different creatures.

You also seem to have missed the fact that your "letting things just happen by themselves"-argument falls flat on it's face when it comes to man.

What the Genesis account says is:

"Let US make man in our image".

It wasn't the earth that made us, just as it wasn't the sky that made the birds. GOD created us. He made us male and female, on the sixth day.

So although scripture doesn't divulge exactly how God created everything, what it DOES say on the other hand is that different kinds were created separately on different days.

Unlike you, I try to base my beliefs on what scripture DOES say, rather than on what it DOESN'T.

 

[KingJ]

It wasn't the earth that made us, just as it wasn't the sky that made the birds. GOD created us. He made us male and female, on the sixth day.

So although scripture doesn't divulge exactly how God created everything, what it DOES say on the other hand is that different kinds were created separately on different days.

Unlike you, I try to base my beliefs on what scripture DOES say, rather than on what it DOESN'T.

That is the bottom line. Scripture is not an encyclopedia of all there is to know, but what it does say is the word of God. We cannot reject it. It is clear about how man was made.

 

[Mr.Bride]

"The amazing excellence in the creative work of God is forfeited to a very large degree if we abandon the days of creation in favor of an ages-long evolutionary process"~John MacArthur

"Parts and parcels of truth are the most envisioned shafts which fly from the bow of Satan"~William Howells

 

[River Jordan]

1. Evolution undermines the character of God and scripture.

That's what you believe. A lot of Christians believe otherwise.

2. Evolutionary thought has existed since 610 bc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought. Since then Jesus came changed the world and never touched on it. The Jews all believed scripture at the time. Jesus never said what they believe was wrong or should be interpreted differently. He never discredited scripture in the slightest. In fact He confirmed it by saying it is one with Him and points to Him. Jesus also rebuked the devil with OT scripture...literally. He did not say 'it is suggested by writers giving their own opinion that we must not tempt God'. Likewise Paul, surely encountered even more evolutionists / creation sceptics but yet never gave instruction for an other then literal reading of all scripture. In fact he only gave us harsh warnings on disregarding scripture and ensured respected elders were in place at every church to calm crazy youngsters and retain the integrity of scripture.

And Christ never said anything about the shape of the earth, the microbial or genetic causes of the diseases he cured, etc.

3. Thumbs up to searching for the truth!!! We should all judge ourselves honestly on that! Now, your evidence presented has been found wanting...requiring a lot of faith. So the question has to arise as to why you choose to place your faith in human assumptions instead of scripture...as a Christian who knows John 1:1...?

That's a pretty significant claim. If you've truly found fundamental flaws in the scientific material I've posted here, please write something up detailing how. I'm truly interested in what you've discovered.

Lets keep the evidence side to the other thread. But please River, I beg of you to just be honest with us all and admit that it takes a lot of faith on your part to believe in evolution. We here are not as dumb and ignorant as you want to believe or make out. In fact by pressing that you are revealing your own naivity / youth / hopefully not an agenda.

I don't understand how it "takes faith to believe in" something I've seen with my own eyes. Does it take faith to believe in erosion?

And yes, your posts very clearly show that you are highly ignorant about evolution, biology, and science. So what? I never once expected you or anyone else here to be otherwise. Unless you've spent years in study, the field, and the lab, expecting you to be an expert would be unreasonable.

Yet despite your perfectly understandable ignorance of science, you say things like "Evolution does not exist at all in our day. Evolution does not exist millions of years ago. Evolution does not exist in microscopic particles."

What do you think that sounds like coming from a person who's demonstrated that they don't know the first thing about any of those subjects? How do you think it makes you look? Do you think doing this sort of thing presents a positive public image of Christianity? Does it make our faith look reasonable?

Let me give you an idea.....I don't know what you do for a living, but I bet I'm pretty ignorant of it. Now imagine me going around saying a bunch of really ridiculous and absurd things about how you and your colleagues don't have clue what you're doing, most of your work is "assumption", and it's not at all convincing. Yet in the process of making such assertions, I misuse words, get numbers horribly wrong, make basic errors of fact, etc.

If I did that, I'd look pretty stupid, wouldn't I?

Now think about it.

Why should we ignore the time span? It was given for a purpose.

Ok, let's not ignore it. Are you willing to address the question of days, mornings, and evenings again?

Scripture doesn't say HOW. The fact that God said "let the earth produce", "let the water teem", "let the birds fly above the earth" says nothing about how the land produced, or the water, or the air. It simply shows us that God designated different environments for different creatures.

Right. So how do we go about figuring out the "how"?

You also seem to have missed the fact that your "letting things just happen by themselves"-argument falls flat on it's face when it comes to man.

But I didn't invoke that for us. Genesis 1 merely says God created mankind. There's no mention of Adam, Eve, or the method used. Now, if you want to bring in Genesis 2, then that takes us back to what I asked you earlier about how a "plain reading" of those two accounts works.

What the Genesis account says is:

"Let US make man in our image".

It wasn't the earth that made us, just as it wasn't the sky that made the birds. GOD created us. He made us male and female, on the sixth day.

I never said the earth made us. God made us, and on that we agree. The question is, by what method?

So although scripture doesn't divulge exactly how God created everything, what it DOES say on the other hand is that different kinds were created separately on different days.

But it never says what a "kind" is, or what a "day" refers to.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Scripture also could have described plate tectonics, volcanism, temperature gradients, the rotation of the earth, etc., but it doesn't. It just says God creates mountains and winds.

That's why your argument fails.

Yes , scripture could have given us all the details .... but it would be a big book .... John 21:25

We are only given the short version , and John 21:24 says it is true

 

[KingJ]

That's what you believe. A lot of Christians believe otherwise.

You think Catholics are with you? Do you agree with their infallible dogma on creation? Would your lecturer suggesting you believe what you are taught believe them? You are brainwashed by your studies and there are Christians out there nervous of / intimidated by science and hence oblivious to false science.

And Christ never said anything about the shape of the earth, the microbial or genetic causes of the diseases he cured, etc.

He never needed to. Those subjects never attacked scripture. Evolution does, see conclusion below. Also remember Jesus rebuked the devil with the OT. He never said ''it is written by some people's opinion / narrow minded view that you must not tempt God''.

That's a pretty significant claim. If you've truly found fundamental flaws in the scientific material I've posted here, please write something up detailing how. I'm truly interested in what you've discovered.

I have shown you the math. The odds of us evolving from a flatworm over 550 million years when we are unchanged for 30 000 years results in 18 333 steps / mutations between us and a flatworm = BS. Evolution only works if it is trillions x near to infinity number of years. Clearly many biologists never did math.

Apart from that ...if you would just abandon your field for a couple of years and allow common sense / lateral thought to kick in...you would clearly see the cesspool of brainwashed tripe you are stuck in.

I don't understand how it "takes faith to believe in" something I've seen with my own eyes. Does it take faith to believe in erosion?

You have not seen evolution with your own eyes River. Stop this self induced brain-washing. Fish not created to breathe air that try to get out of water DIE. It's offspring will NEVER hear about it. Mankind can swim in the see for the next trillion (lol at million) years and they will still not be fish. Going microscopic only blurs reality for a while longer, buying more time to push evolution. When it is debunked, the world / satan will have a new theory.

And yes, your posts very clearly show that you are highly ignorant about evolution, biology, and science. So what? I never once expected you or anyone else here to be otherwise. Unless you've spent years in study, the field, and the lab, expecting you to be an expert would be unreasonable.

There is no need for that today. We have the internet. I can read all your textbooks on wikipedia. Just as you can read all the counter arguments to your ''accepted beliefs'' and then chew on both views. But you don't. You repeatedly / completely reject every creationist claim. With such bias how can you be surprised when many here question your agenda and faith?

Yet despite your perfectly understandable ignorance of science, you say things like "Evolution does not exist at all in our day. Evolution does not exist millions of years ago. Evolution does not exist in microscopic particles."

Why do you say it is ignorance of science? Show me this un-debatable proof you have please!

What do you think that sounds like coming from a person who's demonstrated that they don't know the first thing about any of those subjects? How do you think it makes you look? Do you think doing this sort of thing presents a positive public image of Christianity? Does it make our faith look reasonable?

You need IQ to know when you are hearing tripe! You may not have the facts at first but they will come.

Now, more importantly....what kind of image do you think you are setting by suggesting we disregard scripture? Your 'different view' suggestion is extremely deceptive. If anyone here interrogated you they will find you reject 99% of scripture. You may as well read from toilet paper. You are consistently ignorant / deceptive / evasive of scripture like John 1:1, 2 Tim 3:16 and Rev 22:19.

Ok, let's not ignore it. Are you willing to address the question of days, mornings, and evenings again?

Right. So how do we go about figuring out the "how"?

But I didn't invoke that for us. Genesis 1 merely says God created mankind. There's no mention of Adam, Eve, or the method used. Now, if you want to bring in Genesis 2, then that takes us back to what I asked you earlier about how a "plain reading" of those two accounts works.

I never said the earth made us. God made us, and on that we agree. The question is, by what method?

But it never says what a "kind" is, or what a "day" refers to.

We chase tail harping on non-issues. I have being trying to focus discussion with you to evolution only. As it is evolution that undermines scripture not age of the earth or how mountains are formed! Evolution of man debunks the cross as it suggests age of accountability evolved. Mankind was created in the image of God and beneath the angels. ALL of mankind was intelligent from day 1. Hence Jesus died for ALL of mankind. Mankind is clearly traced to 4k bc or 5.5k bc per the septuagint. NOT older! No Christian can accept evolution putting mankind at 200k or 30k unless we think of our scripture recording events of only 6000 years as a joke / man made belief. Agreed?

Secondly, for the umpteenth time...God is not evil. If you cannot trace natural selection to the fallen angels sin or man's sin....then there is NO period of natural selection that a Christian can accept.

Conclusion: Evolution mocks God (portrays Him as evil), the cross (evolving accountability) and all of scripture (where are the records of 200k years?) .

 

[River Jordan]

You think Catholics are with you? Do you agree with their infallible dogma on creation? Would your lecturer suggesting you believe what you are taught believe them?

Why are you so focused on Catholics? This whole reality-denying young-earth creationism is a US Protestant phenomenon. Most Christians the world over, from all sorts of denominations, disagree with your fundamentalist beliefs. Most Jews disagree with your reading of their texts (e.g. Genesis) too.

So don't try and act like I'm the outlier here. You are.

You are brainwashed by your studies and there are Christians out there nervous of / intimidated by science and hence oblivious to false science.

So would you be willing to walk into a conference of evolutionary biologists, go up on stage, and tell everyone there that you know more about their areas of expertise than they do, and that you are better at their professions than they are?

I can arrange that if you're willing to do more than snipe anonymously on internet forums.

He never needed to. Those subjects never attacked scripture. Evolution does, see conclusion below. Also remember Jesus rebuked the devil with the OT. He never said ''it is written by some people's opinion / narrow minded view that you must not tempt God''.

Again, that's your minority viewpoint.

I have shown you the math. The odds of us evolving from a flatworm over 550 million years when we are unchanged for 30 000 years results in 18 333 steps / mutations between us and a flatworm = BS. Evolution only works if it is trillions x near to infinity number of years. Clearly many biologists never did math.

I would really like to see present this, in person, at a scientific conference. You up for it?

You have not seen evolution with your own eyes River. Stop this self induced brain-washing.

Wow. Every time I think you can't get more full of yourself, you go all ELEVENTY!!11!!! on me. So now you're expecting me to reject what I've seen repeatedly with my own eyes, simply because you tell me I didn't see it?

Do I need to check with you on everything? When I think I see a traffic light turn red, do I need to call you first to make sure I really saw it?

Fish not created to breathe air that try to get out of water DIE. It's offspring will NEVER hear about it. Mankind can swim in the see for the next trillion (lol at million) years and they will still not be fish. Going microscopic only blurs reality for a while longer, buying more time to push evolution. When it is debunked, the world / satan will have a new theory.

Again, I would love to see you present this in person.

There is no need for that today. We have the internet. I can read all your textbooks on wikipedia. Just as you can read all the counter arguments to your ''accepted beliefs'' and then chew on both views. But you don't. You repeatedly / completely reject every creationist claim. With such bias how can you be surprised when many here question your agenda and faith?

Absolutely hilarious!! I don't need to be an expert....I have the internet!!

So what exactly have you read from the evolutionary biology camp?

Why do you say it is ignorance of science? Show me this un-debatable proof you have please!

Yeah, that's probably my fault. You saying evolution never happens isn't really ignorance of science; it's more just flat out denial of reality. Even when I tell you I've seen it myself, all you can muster is to yell back "No you didn't". That's on par with how my 3 year old niece "debates".

Now, more importantly....what kind of image do you think you are setting by suggesting we disregard scripture?

Well, I'd ask you to show where I've said we should "disregard scripture", but we've been down this road before and we both know you won't. I realize that in your fundamentalist black/white world, reading scripture differently than you is no different than rejecting it, disregarding it, using it as toilet paper, etc.

That's a box you've put yourself in.

We chase tail harping on non-issues. I have being trying to focus discussion with you to evolution only.

Really? Look at what you say below and how much of it is "evolution only"?

As it is evolution that undermines scripture not age of the earth or how mountains are formed! Evolution of man debunks the cross as it suggests age of accountability evolved. Mankind was created in the image of God and beneath the angels. ALL of mankind was intelligent from day 1. Hence Jesus died for ALL of mankind. Mankind is clearly traced to 4k bc or 5.5k bc per the septuagint. NOT older! No Christian can accept evolution putting mankind at 200k or 30k unless we think of our scripture recording events of only 6000 years as a joke / man made belief. Agreed?

Secondly, for the umpteenth time...God is not evil. If you cannot trace natural selection to the fallen angels sin or man's sin....then there is NO period of natural selection that a Christian can accept.

Yep....looks to me like it's more "Evolution conflicts with my fundamentalist beliefs, therefore it's wrong". If only you would just leave it at that.

Conclusion: Evolution mocks God (portrays Him as evil), the cross (evolving accountability) and all of scripture (where are the records of 200k years?) .

Yep, you've made it quite clear how that's your conclusion, and that like most fundamentalists, you have absolutely no tolerance for differing opinions. But again, that view is a minority one within Christianity.

 

[KingJ]

I would really like to see present this, in person, at a scientific conference. You up for it?

I don't mind attending and helping you all to unbiasedly google the probability odds of evolution.

Yep, you've made it quite clear how that's your conclusion, and that like most fundamentalists, you have absolutely no tolerance for differing opinions. But again, that view is a minority one within Christianity.

You have no problem urinating on scripture like the majority?

I pray God will help my conclusion in post #137 sink in. There is simply no other conclusion for a Christian to draw.

The first human to have sufficient consciousness to be accountable to God.

and miraculously Eve was right behind that... human...with equal sufficient consciousness :blink:...why must I help someone with a biology degree grasp probability odds?

You are very evasive River.

Christian = ''Since you say we come from monkeys therefore x and y is not possible''
Atheist = We don't come from monkeys we come from apes
Conclusion = pedantically evasive atheist.

Me = How many particles that can ''mutate'' in 1 cell 3.5 billion years ago? lets determine the insurmountable probability odds.
You: particles don't mutate...full stop.
Conclusion = pedantically evasive, cling to heterodoxy. Why not ''grasp'' the inverted commas around ''mutate'' and say, particles don't mutate but such and such do and there are x amount needed in that cell for likely evolution / whatever.

Me = Will your unsaved lecturer agree with Catholic infallible dogma on creation?
You = Don't try and act like I'm the outlier here. You are. / This whole reality-denying young-earth creationism blah blah blah
Conclusion = dumb and evasive.

Me = Evolution mocks God (portrays Him as evil), the cross (evolving accountability) and all of scripture (where are the records of 200k years?) .
You = Yep, you've made it quite clear how that's your conclusion, and that like most fundamentalists, you have absolutely no tolerance for differing opinions. But again, that view is a minority one within Christianity
Conclusion = Childish /evasive / blurring /cling to heterodoxy. A reply should be, ''no, natural selection does not mock God because of X and Y....the cross is not mocked because of X and Y...scripture is not mocked because of X and Y.'' That would then transpire into fruitful discussion where we can evaluate the soundness / logic of your belief. Agreeing with the majority does not make you right. Scripture / Jesus and all the prophets would agree with me that the probability odds are not in your favor.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Ok, let's not ignore it. Are you willing to address the question of days, mornings, and evenings again?

Sure, I have been willing all along.

Right. So how do we go about figuring out the "how"?

Who told you that everything is available for us to figure out?

Did you figure out that Jesus rose from the dead or did you believe what scripture told you?

But I didn't invoke that for us. Genesis 1 merely says God created mankind. There's no mention of Adam, Eve, or the method used.

What do you mean you didn't invoke that for us? Are you saying that we are not the product of evolution?

Now, if you want to bring in Genesis 2, then that takes us back to what I asked you earlier about how a "plain reading" of those two accounts works.

I take it you are referring to what you were dicussing in the other thread. I have responded to that.
I never said the earth made us.

OK, so why have you repeatedly pointed out the fact that God "let the earth bring forth..." and even claimed that him "letting" it happen indicated that it occurred "by itself". Perhaps I missunderstood your point.

But it never says what a "kind" is, or what a "day" refers to.

It DOES say what a kind is in as much as it distinguishes between earth-dwellers, sea-dwellers and sky-dwellers. It also teaches us that from the day of creation separate kinds produced "after its kind". That might not be enough to satisfy our needs to classify all animals from a scientific perspective, but it is enough information to show us that the theory of common descent contradicts scripture.

Also, scripture would only need to tell us what a "day" refers to if it didn't refer to what we normally consider to be a day. There is nothing in the text that indicates a divergence from the common meaning of the word and we can also see that it delimits the creation days with evenings and mornings.

Now you could make the objection that there would hardly have been evenings and mornings without the sun. But again, that doesn't help you. A day doesn't suddenly cease to be "literal" because it doesn't seem logical from our perspective. And if for some reason the sun was suddenly blotted out of the sky for a few days I think we would STILL call the first half of the day morning, the second half evening, and the whole 24 hours would still be called a "day".

So unless you can explain how the absence of sunlight during the first three days suddenly makes it symbolic, I think the literal meaning of the word is the best explanation.