The Truth of Genesis

[101G]

[QUOTE="101G, post: 705683,

PICJAG.

Can you explain
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

In the beginning the earth had no form? Just don't understand that![/QUOTE]
first thanks for the reply, second, sure, God "CREATED" everything at once in the beginning, the only thing left to do is "MAKE" it into what you want. which require time and effort.

example, to make a wooden rocking chair, first a tree is created, and from the tree one cuts, mold and shape the cut out part of the tree into a rocking chair. see the difference now?.

create and then make

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

1. You were not their neither was I
2. You just limited God, then said I did

if god can make the universe as complex as it is, and the human body as complex as it is

he can put the auto sphere together in 1 day like he said he did.

First thanks for the reply. second, true, none of us was there when God created everything so he gave us his word or written record of what he did, so his written record is our proof of what he did. so that was a straw man argument, or excuse on your part.

as a matter of fact this is why God gave us "TRUE" science so we may peek, and I say "peek" humbly” because we will never understand all the complexity of God’s creation and his working of it.

PICJAG.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

First thanks for the reply. second, true, none of us was there when God created everything so he gave us his word or written record of what he did, so his written record is our proof of what he did. so that was a straw man argument, or excuse on your part.

as a matter of fact this is why God gave us "TRUE" science so we may peek, and I say "peek" humbly” because we will never understand all the complexity of God’s creation and his working of it.

PICJAG.

Thank you,

Yes he did give us his word

1.he said the earth was created in 6 days
2.is says he rested on the 7th
3. He later told Israel. Work for 6 days as he did, on the 7th, rest as he did

If God made the earth for his creation to inhabit. It would be created in an “aged”or “completed state”

To science it would appear this had to take millions of year.. because their is no other way to explain it.. Yet it happened the way God said it

Science also ignores the flood. Most scientific findings concerning the earth is answered by the flood. The fossil record. The Grand Canyon. The way the layers of the earth are found as we see it. Even the continental drift and formation of mountains and plate tectonics which were started when the fountains of the great deep burst open. Causing the flood

Remember, Peter warned us in the last days, men will be mockers.. one of their excuses would be things are the same as they have been since the beginning of creation.

2 Peter 3:4
and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation

This is the basis of all science, from Caron dating, about every earth science you can think of.

The fact. Peter warns of this house show us, things have not been the same since creation. Something happened which changed things.

In my view that something was Noah’s flood

 

[101G]

thanks for the reply, you said,

Yes he did give us his word

1.he said the earth was created in 6 days
2.is says he rested on the 7th

lets take this one step at a time.
my question is this, "is God still at rest in the seventh day yes or no? "

your answer please.

PICJAG.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

thanks for the reply, you said,

lets take this one step at a time.
my question is this, "is God still at rest in the seventh day yes or no? "

your answer please.

PICJAG.

I will answer with another question

Did God tell Israel that as he rested on the 7th day they to should rest

This is God putting into context the 7th day (sabbath) and pointing directly to creation. Hence in effect pointing to how long a day the 7th day was (as well as the 6 days)

The idea that he is still resting is invalid because if it was valid God would tell Isreal. Work for 6 days then take the rest of your lives off.

Is this not true?

 

[Enow]

Okay. I get the feeling you're never going to post the actual study. That's why I keep saying these "debates" are pointless.

Wrong.


Everything? No. A lot of it, yes I have. I have read many, many, many papers and talked with many scientists.

Right. Just like you don't even discern the actual reports from the media either. You take it as is, with no skepticism even when the line of bull has been given to you right there.

I don't know what you're referring to.

I had given you an example; first they said it was a fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs but now they say dinosaurs evolved from birds.

The evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould said that because of the huge gap of supposed transitional fossils in the fossil record, gradual macroevolution cannot be true for why he had proposed Punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution. He proposed that there was an explosion in the fossil record whereby he had assumed it had taken place in the Cambrian period. He went on to explain for that to happen, there has to have been a global flood.

Now evolutionists will contend that he never meant that it went up over the mountains, but a news report from the NY Times had evolutionists explain it away that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea, trapping marine life on it, BUT they never bothered to explain the fossilized land animals that were buried with them TOGETHER on that mountain top where they can just pick them up at this link:

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

Now if you want to swallow that line of bull because you want to believe in the evolution theory, you do so at your own risk as someone resisting the truth when you see it. And there are plenty of other reports of fossilized marine life found on mountain tops all over the world to debunk any lying rationalization that it was an isolated incident and that Gould never meant a global flood that covered the mountains.

Whale Fossils in Mountains: How Did Million-Year-Old Bones End Up There?

You can do whatever you like but it wouldn't make sense for you to do that. I have no more anti-religious or anti-God issues when it comes to science than I do with car repair.

And yet people rips people off sometimes in these car repairs. When you are dealing with sinful fallible men in science where the education system is forcing students to believe in the evolution theory in calling it a fact, even though it fails the litmus test of being a valid theory because macroevolution is not a phenomenon that can be found in the natural world, as it only exists in the realm of the imagination as in, only in the minds of gullible men by a tainted educational system. You are failing to see that for all the trees of hypothesizing by these dreamers for the evolution theory, you fail to see the unproven theory for what it is.

Even the laws of science disproves the evolution theory. We are not in the process of macroevolving in light pf the 2nd law of thermodynamics when the created system or order of things are breaking down. Even science has discerned that the speed of light is slowing down. We are not evolving anywhere in nature.

Micro evolution is just a term borrowed from the Law of Biogenesis where life does not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life. That means a cow will always be a cow. It can become a different kind of cow, but still a cow. All that false science does is by the use of microevolution borrowed from the Law of Biogenesis is to make macroevolution believable by way of "gradual macroevolution" which Gould "proved" wrong.

How many samples of macroevolution has these reports you read shows examples instead of "microevolution" or the Law of Biogenesis and not macroevolution at all?

One report says they discover a new kind of lizard on an island where a volcano had erupted. They claim it came from the known species of lizards on the island as a conclusion. Another similar report ( from the same island ? ) says they discovered a new kind of bird and they assumed it came from a known species of birds on that island. Both reports did not cite the new species actually coming from that known species. They only assumed that it did. They did not do anything scientific to prove that the new species came from the old species. They just built a report on an assumption based on a new discovered specie on that island. And yet they herald it as proof of macroevolution when the lizard is still a lizard and the bird is still a bird. They could have isolated the known species to see if it lays eggs now for being on a volcano island to produce this new kind of lizard. The same for the bird. They did nothing to prove this assumption at all when the volcano could have forced lizards that dwell beneath the earthy out just burned away the foliage to expose them more to the eyes of man just as they would for the birds. People in the States will see a new kind of bird at their bird feeder but that doesn't mean they are new to the area or they just macroevolved there. They just are not typically seen.

So where is your skepticism there? In any of that? If you still don't have any, then it is only because you want to believe in the evolution theory.

So I point out to skeptics that Jesus's tomb is empty and secular history did record that unexplainable darkness at His crucifixion where one secular historian, Thallus, had assumed it was an eclipse, whereas another historian, a Jew turned Christian, Julius Africanus, said it was unlikely because the Jewish Passover takes place 15 days from the new moon which means a full moon was there that day and eclipse lasts only minutes, not 3 hours.

I do not know if you were a Christian believer turned agnostics or not, but if you are, I testify that Jesus Christ is still in you ( 2 Timothy 2:13 ) and by this reference of where an example of how a believer can err from the truth and have his faith overthrown in verse 18 of this call in 2 Timothy 2:18-21, I am asking you to go before that throne of grace for help from Jesus ( Hebrews 4:12-16 ) to help you discern the lies in science and for help to see the truth in His words so you can return to abiding in Him as a believer before the Bridegroom comes or else be left behind to be resurrected after the great tribulation as a vessel unto dishonor in His House.

If you are not an agnostic in that way, then you should pray to God the Father to reveal His Son to you so you can believe in Him and ask for help then to see the lies in science and the truth in His words as kept by those who loved Him and His words in the King James Bible.

And if you find yourself not wanting to because you want to live in sin still, pray that Jesus will deliver you from that bondage to sin and to death because that is not being honest with yourself when you refuse to see the truth about that false science and resist the truth about Jesus Christ because you want to live in sin. You will get worse and worse when those sins will start destroying your life because sin dominates you.

2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[101G]

I will answer with another question

Did God tell Israel that as he rested on the 7th day they to should rest

This is God putting into context the 7th day (sabbath) and pointing directly to creation. Hence in effect pointing to how long a day the 7th day was (as well as the 6 days)

The idea that he is still resting is invalid because if it was valid God would tell Isreal. Work for 6 days then take the rest of your lives off.

Is this not true?

hence the reason why the actual sun and moon was crearted, because they start over every week , GOD DON'T he's eternal, man is not.

so mind to answer the question?

PICJAG.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

hence the reason why the actual sun and moon was crearted, because they start over every week , GOD DON'T he's eternal, man is not.

so mind to answer the question?

PICJAG.

I did answer it by proving it has no bearing on our conversation

Of course jesus rested from his creation. Although he continues to hold the creations in his hands, and his work of creation is done, his work of maintaining continues

But again, It has no bearing on our conversation

God told us what the days meant, Again, He did not tell Israel to work for 6 days, then take the rest of eternity off because they were finished with their work.

 

[101G]

I did answer it by proving it has no bearing on our conversation

Of course jesus rested from his creation. Although he continues to hold the creations in his hands, and his work of creation is done, his work of maintaining continues

But again, It has no bearing on our conversation

God told us what the days meant, Again, He did not tell Israel to work for 6 days, then take the rest of eternity off because they were finished with their work.

if you believe you answered it then that's your belief.

thanks for the conservation.

PICJAG.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

if you believe you answered it then that's your belief.

thanks for the conservation.

PICJAG.

So you asked if he has rested from creation

And I said yes

And your going to mock me because I also said it had no bearing

I think you just showed what really is going on here

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I did answer it by proving it has no bearing on our conversation

Of course jesus rested from his creation. Although he continues to hold the creations in his hands, and his work of creation is done, his work of maintaining continues

But again, It has no bearing on our conversation

God told us what the days meant, Again, He did not tell Israel to work for 6 days, then take the rest of eternity off because they were finished with their work.

This is me not answering his question

 

[Justadude]

It's not unknown. It's unknown to science because science can't explain it. It is not something scientifically measureable

I'll say it again, when it comes to science I will rely on scientists over you. Every time.

 

[Justadude]

Right. Just like you don't even discern the actual reports from the media either. You take it as is, with no skepticism even when the line of bull has been given to you right there.

Well that was nice of you. I guess it would help if you'd specify exactly which media reports I haven't discerned, but I'm betting you won't, just like you won't post the mollusk C-14 study.

I had given you an example; first they said it was a fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs but now they say dinosaurs evolved from birds.

The evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould said that because of the huge gap of supposed transitional fossils in the fossil record, gradual macroevolution cannot be true for why he had proposed Punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution. He proposed that there was an explosion in the fossil record whereby he had assumed it had taken place in the Cambrian period. He went on to explain for that to happen, there has to have been a global flood.

Now evolutionists will contend that he never meant that it went up over the mountains, but a news report from the NY Times had evolutionists explain it away that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea, trapping marine life on it, BUT they never bothered to explain the fossilized land animals that were buried with them TOGETHER on that mountain top where they can just pick them up at this link:

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

Now if you want to swallow that line of bull because you want to believe in the evolution theory, you do so at your own risk as someone resisting the truth when you see it. And there are plenty of other reports of fossilized marine life found on mountain tops all over the world to debunk any lying rationalization that it was an isolated incident and that Gould never meant a global flood that covered the mountains.

Whale Fossils in Mountains: How Did Million-Year-Old Bones End Up There?

I'll say this again, if you really are intent on debating science then you need to post actual scientific sources. Not newspaper articles. But to tell the truth, what's the point? You made it very clear that this is a religious issue for you and any science that you think contradicts your beliefs, you will conclude to be wrong. So why argue about the science? It doesn't matter to you!

And yet people rips people off sometimes in these car repairs. When you are dealing with sinful fallible men in science where the education system is forcing students to believe in the evolution theory in calling it a fact, even though it fails the litmus test of being a valid theory because macroevolution is not a phenomenon that can be found in the natural world, as it only exists in the realm of the imagination as in, only in the minds of gullible men by a tainted educational system. You are failing to see that for all the trees of hypothesizing by these dreamers for the evolution theory, you fail to see the unproven theory for what it is.

Even the laws of science disproves the evolution theory. We are not in the process of macroevolving in light pf the 2nd law of thermodynamics when the created system or order of things are breaking down. Even science has discerned that the speed of light is slowing down. We are not evolving anywhere in nature.

Micro evolution is just a term borrowed from the Law of Biogenesis where life does not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life. That means a cow will always be a cow. It can become a different kind of cow, but still a cow. All that false science does is by the use of microevolution borrowed from the Law of Biogenesis is to make macroevolution believable by way of "gradual macroevolution" which Gould "proved" wrong.

How many samples of macroevolution has these reports you read shows examples instead of "microevolution" or the Law of Biogenesis and not macroevolution at all?

One report says they discover a new kind of lizard on an island where a volcano had erupted. They claim it came from the known species of lizards on the island as a conclusion. Another similar report ( from the same island ? ) says they discovered a new kind of bird and they assumed it came from a known species of birds on that island. Both reports did not cite the new species actually coming from that known species. They only assumed that it did. They did not do anything scientific to prove that the new species came from the old species. They just built a report on an assumption based on a new discovered specie on that island. And yet they herald it as proof of macroevolution when the lizard is still a lizard and the bird is still a bird. They could have isolated the known species to see if it lays eggs now for being on a volcano island to produce this new kind of lizard. The same for the bird. They did nothing to prove this assumption at all when the volcano could have forced lizards that dwell beneath the earthy out just burned away the foliage to expose them more to the eyes of man just as they would for the birds. People in the States will see a new kind of bird at their bird feeder but that doesn't mean they are new to the area or they just macroevolved there. They just are not typically seen.

So where is your skepticism there? In any of that? If you still don't have any, then it is only because you want to believe in the evolution theory.

I'll say it again, when it comes to science I will rely on scientists over you. Every time. So unless you have something from actual scientists, I don't see the point. And besides, all your talking points are old and stale, and have been done to death. Plus, not one of them has ever impacted actual science in the real world. So maybe you should explain what you think you're going to accomplish by repeating them for the umpteenth time.

So I point out to skeptics that Jesus's tomb is empty and secular history did record that unexplainable darkness at His crucifixion where one secular historian, Thallus, had assumed it was an eclipse, whereas another historian, a Jew turned Christian, Julius Africanus, said it was unlikely because the Jewish Passover takes place 15 days from the new moon which means a full moon was there that day and eclipse lasts only minutes, not 3 hours.

I do not know if you were a Christian believer turned agnostics or not, but if you are, I testify that Jesus Christ is still in you ( 2 Timothy 2:13 ) and by this reference of where an example of how a believer can err from the truth and have his faith overthrown in verse 18 of this call in 2 Timothy 2:18-21, I am asking you to go before that throne of grace for help from Jesus ( Hebrews 4:12-16 ) to help you discern the lies in science and for help to see the truth in His words so you can return to abiding in Him as a believer before the Bridegroom comes or else be left behind to be resurrected after the great tribulation as a vessel unto dishonor in His House.

If you are not an agnostic in that way, then you should pray to God the Father to reveal His Son to you so you can believe in Him and ask for help then to see the lies in science and the truth in His words as kept by those who loved Him and His words in the King James Bible.

And if you find yourself not wanting to because you want to live in sin still, pray that Jesus will deliver you from that bondage to sin and to death because that is not being honest with yourself when you refuse to see the truth about that false science and resist the truth about Jesus Christ because you want to live in sin. You will get worse and worse when those sins will start destroying your life because sin dominates you.

2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

And I hope that one day you can gain the confidence to accept reality as it is.

 

[reformed1689]

I'll say it again, when it comes to science I will rely on scientists over you. Every time.

But Creation of the Universe IS NOT science.

 

[Enow]

Well that was nice of you. I guess it would help if you'd specify exactly which media reports I haven't discerned, but I'm betting you won't, just like you won't post the mollusk C-14 study.

You can look on the internet too, pal. Here is a science site but not exactly showing the results of those testing but just giving a general overview about river mollusks.

Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells

And I do not know if that is the reference reported from several scientific journals by Robert E. Kofhal on pg 119 of his book "Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter", by Beta Books of San Diego published in 1997, but it's there.

Again, you can look for it at "science" sites on the internet, but the only reason Christians listen to Christian sites is because they are referencing science.

I'll say this again, if you really are intent on debating science then you need to post actual scientific sources. Not newspaper articles. But to tell the truth, what's the point? You made it very clear that this is a religious issue for you and any science that you think contradicts your beliefs, you will conclude to be wrong. So why argue about the science? It doesn't matter to you!

Real science is what can be observed and proven. You just cannot accept the fact that macroevolution is not a phenomenon that can be observed in the natural world.

I'll say it again, when it comes to science I will rely on scientists over you. Every time. So unless you have something from actual scientists, I don't see the point. And besides, all your talking points are old and stale, and have been done to death. Plus, not one of them has ever impacted actual science in the real world. So maybe you should explain what you think you're going to accomplish by repeating them for the umpteenth time.

And you just lost all credibility in being an honest skeptic.

And I hope that one day you can gain the confidence to accept reality as it is.

Troll much?

 

[Justadude]

But Creation of the Universe IS NOT science.

Then why try to debate it from a scientific POV?

 

[Justadude]

You can look on the internet too, pal.

It's not my job to look up your sources for you.

Here is a science site but not exactly showing the results of those testing but just giving a general overview about river mollusks.

Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells

LOL! Did you read the paper? Because if you did and understood it, I have to wonder why someone like you would cite it.

the only reason Christians listen to Christian sites is because they are referencing science.

That, and because they tell you what you want to hear.

Real science is what can be observed and proven. You just cannot accept the fact that macroevolution is not a phenomenon that can be observed in the natural world.

I don't know why you keep posting things like that. Are you expecting me to be like, "well since this guy at Christianity Board posted that evolution isn't true, I'll just go with what he said"? I keep telling you I'm not going to change my mind on a scientific topic just because you post something like the above. Who do you think you are? Why would you expect me to just take your word for it on science topics?

And you just lost all credibility in being an honest skeptic.

LOL! If I don't take your word for it on science topics, I'm not an honest skeptic. That makes zero sense.

Troll much?

No more than you were.

 

[reformed1689]

Then why try to debate it from a scientific POV?

Because people like you insist on it. What I debate is the fact that atheistic theories are demonstrably false.

 

[Justadude]

Because people like you insist on it.

You should read the posts more carefully. I've been making the case that it's pointless to debate this from a scientific POV with people who approach it from a religious POV.

What I debate is the fact that atheistic theories are demonstrably false.

There's no such thing as atheistic theories.

 

[reformed1689]

You should read the posts more carefully. I've been making the case that it's pointless to debate this from a scientific POV with people who approach it from a religious POV.


There's no such thing as atheistic theories.

Well you can't exactly debate it from a scientific point of view as far as the origin because it is not a matter science can handle. And as far as atheistic theories, oh yes, that is exactly what evolution is.