Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Genisis 1 is meant to teach one thing and one thing only:
That God created everything out of nothing

Yes, But we need Genesis 2...Genesis 6...Psalms...Revelation Etc. No verse, or chapter should be taken without the context of all Scripture. I imagine we agree on that?

that he created man in his own image

Yes, but we are also told how God created humans as physical beings; man from the dust...woman from mans rib.

that man seperated himself from God through disobedience, and that God immediately set about the long - or at least it seems long to us - process of healing that rift, a process which culminated with the death and resurrection of Christ. That is ALL it teaches.

Actually, Genesis teaches much more than that. Do you know of a single Christian doctrine that is not founded in Genesis. (Doctrine of sin, death, imputation, God, trinity, marriage etc). We are taught that death, suffering, pain and corruption of creation is a result of mans sin.

I do not believe there was a serpent, or a tree, or a garden, etc. These are all images & allegories, in a certain style of writing, meant to convey the fundamental truth I stated above.

Rather, it seems you reject the fundamental truth of scripture. Genesis is written as literal history, and accepted as such by the vast majority of church fathers. However in recent times, many try to dismiss the foundation of the gospel inserting atheistic ideas (IE Man from 'monkeys', Death not a result of sin etc)

 

[gcthomas]

Oh, well that explains the origins of sex then!! Mix together some sugars, amino acids, and lipids...Stir in lots of time and Voila...Both sexes together in a flower

So it is clear that you don't know the difference between 'could', 'did' and 'must'. Is English your second language, or are you just acting stupid to undermine the creationist cause?

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't say that Jose. I think you are a bit forgetful?

Well then let's clarify. Here is the key phrase from AiG's Statement of Faith...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Do you believe that to be a scientific framework?

 

[redfern]

RR posted:

Redfern, not ignoring you particularly. This is our Canadian Thanksgiving weekend. Here, let me help out to save time. Please tell me you aren't assuming that dark rings in ice are "annual" ice rings?

And 6days interjected:

… Yes... that is sort of a general assumption, but then they try back it up with oxygen isotope comparisons and other methods.

First, RR, I was not previously aware that you were in Canada, perhaps inattention on my part. I am not familiar with many special days in the Canadian calendar (like Thanksgiving), again perhaps something I should be more aware of. Truthfully, I didn’t know that Canadians formally had a Thanksgiving. I presume it has significance (and maybe involves a feast) similar to that in the US

A few years ago while driving in BC, for reasons I can’t pinpoint, I fell in love with a little community called Smithers. And I very seriously keep Vancouver on my short list of places that I could move to and enjoy. Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving (if that is the appropriate salutation).

Returning to the thread subject matter, I wish everyone would use these discussions more for edification and understanding, and much less for (both overt and implied) putdowns.

In your case, RR, your chosen words “Please tell me you aren't assuming …” are commonly a way of indirectly saying, “Are you stupid enough that …”.

And perhaps it is endemic to Creationists, but 6days follows suit when he says “…they try (to) back it up with…”, leaving the impression that aren’t having much success (“try”) in backing it up. When you guys present ideas and question using implicitly prejudicial phrasing, then you are not doing your side any favors. (And I would hope “my side” would opt for courtesy in place of snarkiness as well).

I will turn to the ice core subject only briefly for now. I asked before, and I repeat it now:

If you are honestly interested in looking more in-depth at ice-core dating, I will agree to, as you say, “baby-step” through some relevant data with you. That way we can agree each step of the way that I am not thinking apples while you are seeing oranges.

Not a complicated question, or one that requires anyone to compromise their beliefs. What say ye?

 

[6days]

So it is clear that you don't know the difference between 'could', 'did' and 'must'.

Very simple....
'Could have', 'would of', 'must have', 'I suggested', 'apparent' "the obvious solution", "if we postulate"... Those are words of belief. How many of those words have evolutionists used just in the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread?*

 

[6days]

Well then let's clarify. Here is the key phrase from*AiG's Statement of Faith

Before you move the goalposts asking my opinion on AIG;
How about admit this from you was a fabrication?

(6days) said that AiG's framework is unscientific because it shows they will not follow the evidence wherever it leads

 

[6days]

Well then let's clarify. Here is the key phrase from*AiG's Statement of Faith

Before you move the goalposts asking my opinion on AIG;
How about admit this from you was a fabrication?

(6days) said that AiG's framework is unscientific because it shows they will not follow the evidence wherever it leads

 

[Jose Fly]

No 6days, I'm not playing this again where we all spend days and days chasing you around trying to get you to answer a simple question.

Here is the key phrase from AiG's Statement of Faith...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Do you believe that to be a scientific framework?

 

[6days]

No 6days, I'm not playing this again where we all spend days and days chasing you around trying to get you to answer a simple question.

Translation...you don't want to be questioned after you fabricate what others have said.*

 

[gcthomas]

Translation...you don't want to be questioned after you fabricate what others have said.*

You have been given the platform to clarify - do you think AiG's Statement of Faith represents a scientific framework? Easy question, and more wriggling about will tell us the answer.

 

[Rosenritter]

That would be silly.

Most flowering plants have both male and female sex organs in every flower -- are you saying that these plants must have two sexes as well that just haven't been discovered yet?

Yet the single-celled organisms that you (must inevitably claim) that these evolved from do not. Therefore, stop assuming what it is you wish to prove and go back to before male and female, then show how such a thing happens. Circular reasoning may be the accepted norm within groups that already accept evolution as gospel, but this is not such a group.

 

[Rosenritter]

I am not at all suggesting that we try to make God's Word fit with secular ideas. I am suggesting that you have wrongly interpreted Genesis.

Genisis 1 is meant to teach one thing and one thing only:

That God created everything out of nothing, that he created man in his own image, that man seperated himself from God through disobedience, and that God immediately set about the long - or at least it seems long to us - process of healing that rift, a process which culminated with the death and resurrection of Christ. That is ALL it teaches.

Everything in Genesis is meant to convey that truth, but it is done in the ancient Semitic style of writing, using allegories, fantastic imagery, and all based on traditions that were handed down for centuries. I do not believe there was a serpent, or a tree, or a garden, etc. These are all images & allegories, in a certain style of writing, meant to convey the fundamental truth I stated above.

For clarification, you are suggesting that Genesis 1-3 is a giant parable meant to convey a concept that God created, yet not at all in the way that it describes him as creating it?

 

[Jose Fly]

Translation...you don't want to be questioned after you fabricate what others have said.*

Then you have my apologies. I was mistaken in thinking that you understood AiG's Statement of Faith....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

...to not be a scientific framework. I now realize you believe their framework is scientific.

 

[6days]

Do you think AiG's Statement of Faith represents a scientific framework? Easy question, and more wriggling about will tell us the answer

*
I don't mind discussing what AIG said..what I do mind is Jose being dishonest about what I said. So lets let Jose apologize for being dishonest, before you try move the goalposts for him.*

Again.. this is Jose's claim. ( The goalposts are what I said... not what AIG said)

(6days) said that AiG's framework is unscientific because it shows they will not follow the evidence wherever it leads

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.......Rather, it seems you reject the fundamental truth of scripture......

That is a slimy lie. What I reject is your over simplified, literalistic interpretation of those scriptures. Here's some news for you: Holy Scripture, and your personal interpretation of Holy Scripture, are two very different things.

 

[6days]

That is a slimy lie. What I reject is your over simplified, literalistic interpretation of those scriptures. Here's some news for you: Holy Scripture, and your personal interpretation of Holy Scripture, are two very different things.

So simple people like me should not believe what the Bible plainly says?
When God's Word says "in six days God made the heavens and earth"..... We need to get somebody to interpret it for us?

 

[MichaelCadry]

So simple people like me should not believe what the Bible plainly says?
When God's Word says "in six days God made the heavens and earth"..... We need to get somebody to interpret it for us?

Dear 6days,

You gave me quite a chuckle there!! Cool!! Yes, the Bible is often quite believable, with easy words, so that anyone can understand.

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I am not at all suggesting that we try to make God's Word fit with secular ideas. I am suggesting that you have wrongly interpreted Genesis.

Genisis 1 is meant to teach one thing and one thing only:

That God created everything out of nothing, that he created man in his own image, that man seperated himself from God through disobedience, and that God immediately set about the long - or at least it seems long to us - process of healing that rift, a process which culminated with the death and resurrection of Christ. That is ALL it teaches.

Everything in Genesis is meant to convey that truth, but it is done in the ancient Semitic style of writing, using allegories, fantastic imagery, and all based on traditions that were handed down for centuries. I do not believe there was a serpent, or a tree, or a garden, etc. These are all images & allegories, in a certain style of writing, meant to convey the fundamental truth I stated above.

Dear Catholic Crusader,

What I got from Genesis was that it was all to teach man and woman to Choose Good Instead Of Evil!! That is the message throughout the Bible. Choose the Good, Eschew the Evil. It is plain as day, but no one seems to get it. And the Bible is The Good. And yes, there was a serpent, and garden. It is not made up, but reality. The serpent spoke 'telepathically,' for loss of a better word to describe it. I can't deal with a serpent that could speak plain Semitic words. I doubt that very much.

Even Jesus died as a symbol for men to live their life as per His Example. I've tried to do that same thing. I love everyone unconditionally, including my enemies. But I do hate their ways, if they are evil. As for myself, I forgive their ways quickly, considering how often I have sinned also. God and Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, have had to forgive me 7,000 times 7,000 ~ more or less. I've been no angel either. But I've learned that there are definitely other words to use instead of cussing or swearing. That was sort of easy once I realized it. I quit doing that. I've quit smoking, quit drinking, quit having sex, quit many other things. But still, the devil accuses me almost constantly. I ignore him. I know that he is after my soul, so I do my best. I do hope that you all will do so too!! See Rev. 12:10KJV, "and the accuser of our brothers/ brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God, day and night." It is extremely hard to be strong against all of his accusing, but I do my best. Someday, you will understand too, if you're going to Heaven, you will have to learn to overcome it also. It does say, "Woe to those who dwell on Earth, for the accuser of our brethren is cast down to the Earth..." I'm just telling you more of the Scripture that I first mentioned to help you understand. God Be With You All during those times and even more. Satan, that devil, will try anything to screw you up, but it will be in vain, because those who love God and Christ, and the Holy Ghost, will not let it get to them and shall be faithful to God! Do not fight, but instead, leave the fight to Jesus and God. You need not partake of the fight. They can handle the devil because he has been around for a long time and it isn't fair to ANY Christian to have to fight such evil. Let Jesus be your savior instead!! Okay, I hope that I've explained myself well here. You'll all be fine, those who love God and Jesus.

Praise The Lord!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

That is a slimy lie. What I reject is your over simplified, literalistic interpretation of those scriptures. Here's some news for you: Holy Scripture, and your personal interpretation of Holy Scripture, are two very different things.

Dear CatholicCrusader,

I have found that 6days interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is almost always correct, if not always. I guess there are those whom God is close to and those who God is not close to. I have not much room for those who don't understand the Scriptures correctly, so it all works out wonderfully. You are on the wrong beaten path!

We Have The Same God!

Michael

 

[Stripe]

Also, I see that once again our resident creationists are making all sorts of claims about "genetic information" and relative amounts of it, even though they can't really say what "genetic information" is, and last we checked in they admitted that they don't know how to measure it.

Genetic information is conceptualized by the ability an organism has by means of its DNA to generate offspring that can propagate its kind.

This can be measured. The most simple way would be to analyse the rate of infertile offspring.

Goes to show how these Darwinist arguments are nothing more than nonsense based on determined ignorance.