Come on u knew some1 HAD to start this one.

I want to hear ur ideas, theories, opinions and how u support them

I personally am a 6 day literal creationist.
My support for this is Genesis 1. God said 6days so I believe 6days.

What about the rest of u?

i'm thinking the same thing.... 6 days, it was good, God rested on the 7th.. works for me

in Genesis 1, one Day = one 24 hour day. Because it says repeatedly "... And there was Day and Evening, the __th Day"

Ooooh. Evolution is the biggest scam I've ever heard about. Let's just add that evolution ios still just scientificly named a theory and not a fact. Ppl forget that.

Funny how this should be mentioned. i have a few good sites to explain away evolution. Scientificly. Guess what, they aren't very popular.

If ppl don't have to believe in God creating the world, they don't have to believe that there is a God. And that we are just animals.


My first attack on evolution will be that there has not elapsed enough time, for enough 'chances' to take place to create this orderly world, we live in today.

For instance common believe is that the universe is 15 Billion years old. (Big Bang took place supposedly 15 bil Y ago)

I think that is 15 000 000 000 000 years *356.25 days in a year *24 hours in a day * 60 minutes in a hour * 60 seconds in a minute.
That equals = 461700000000000000000 seconds according to scientists.

Lets say you have 200 bones in your body that means you have 200! combinations of that bones fitting together. In other words 200*199*198*197*...*1 = approx 3 with 374 zeros.
that means if your bones were rearrange by evolution until it comes up with your current state. There isn't enough seconds in time to go through all of the combinations.

Now take it to the kazillion million of cells in your body/ the atoms/ aioens
Endless possibilities. Not enough time to evolute a orderly world. There just hasn't passed enough time. Our galaxy is only supposedly about 4-5 bil years old. That's too little time to produce just 1 living cell with the enormous amount of info in the DNA.

Does that make sense?. ??? ?

in Genesis 1, one Day = one 24 hour day. Because it says repeatedly "... And there was Day and Evening, the __th Day"


In the original language the word for day is exactly a day=24 hours.

One thing that always irks me is the way schools teach evolution. They rarely say it is a theory. And they indirectly teach it as reality when they nonchalantly use the phrase "millions of years ago" during instructional time. And not neccesarily in science classes but in others as well. Like when they talk about dinosaurs to kindergarteners they'll say "they walked the earth millions of years ago"...

Agree with you Agent. Why not say that it is only a theory.

Here's a cool site. What you think?

http://www.mdstud.chalmers.se/~md0lukma/old/rl/evovscrt.htm

I think science is a wonderful gift God gave us to help us understand the world He created. There is evidence for adaptation amongst a species (people with different skin colors). I personally think that evolution could be true, that God might have used it to create us and the world. If not, oh well. It's nothing to go bananas over.

I think science is a wonderful gift God gave us to help us understand the world He created. There is evidence for adaptation amongst a species (people with different skin colors). I personally think that evolution could be true, that God might have used it to create us and the world. If not, oh well. It's nothing to go bananas over.


what you refer to is natural selection. it is a proved fact that it occurs. one example is what you mentioned above. another is with moths.

there were some moths that were brownish/black. well a nearby factory started spewing out stuff that turned the bark on the trees white. well, the moths eventually all became white (through natural selection). then the factory went away & the moths went back to brownish/black.

so natural selection is a proven fact, but evolution is taking it too far. even tho evolution is a theory (i say "even tho" because it takes a lot to make something a scientific theory. but it will never be fact since they cannot ever know for sure, making it a faith akin to Creation), it holds no water when you think about it intellectually.

the moth experiment was disproven 50yrs ago. The guy admitted to having tampered with the evidence by pinning dead moths of the colour he wanted to a tree.
Moth thing never happened :P

Here's the funny thing. IT STILL gets taught in txtbooks. Yeah I know they take a while to get updated but jeeze 50yrs!?!?

I used to be whats known as a Theistic Evolutionist. Believing God used evolution.

A friend told me this.

For the wages of sin is death - Romans
Death exists because sin exists.
If death is NOt the result of Adam's sin then sin is fiction
If sin is fiction we do not need a saviour.
That is evolutions purpose.

Destroy sin and the need for a saviour so ppl call live whatever way they feel like!

Even the experiment, true or not cannot prove evolution.

The thing is that this can only happen in a ordered environment. It is not something that happens by chance.

So i agree with you unshakeable, It can't be used to explain evolution, cause you need a system to make it work, which you don't have in evolution, cause there is no system to start a system.

skynes I am not really up to date about the experiment, so it could've been disproven. There is a lot of stuff that has been scientificly disproven about evolution, that is still taught in txtbooks.

I know... the whole horses evolving thing, moth experiment. Sooo many lies still in there.

Reason its still there is cause its all the Evolutionists have! If they lose that stuff they got nothing!!!

Did ne one check out that site? Or is it a bit toooooo loooooong?

I thought it was a bit extreme.

What crackes me up is the fact that when I was in elementary school we were taught that the biggest dinosaur was Brontasaurus. To make a long story short. Scientist put the wrong skull on it. Now that they figured this out some 30 or more years later. The biggest dinosaur is Bracheasaurus. Same body as Bronty but with the correct head on...... Theory being taught as fact.

I know! Scientists make BIG booboos quite alot.

God cudnt have used evolution for animals either cus the bible says that animals aren't made from the same flesh there's one for birds one for fish etc.

the magnetic field of the earth decreases every year by some extremely minute ammount. if you go back in time past about 10,000 years, the magnetic field would have been so strong on the earth that it would have closed in on itself, collapsed by its own pull. so the earth cannot be billions of years old.

It says in Genesis that God had water below and above a firmament (sky).

this means there was actually water held in the sky! held up by the magnetic fields. This is also the water dome that burst and caused the flood. ;)

what do you guys think when most historians agree that Genesis is based off of the Babylonian creation myth, the enuma elish? (to spice up the conversation)

OK. My logic says, that it would be prob the same, cause if you write 2 accounts of something that happened, it would look like they are based on each other.

There was really scribes who knew what happened, not all the ppl were wicked, some did the will of God and God used them to preserve the beginning for us, who are at the end of the times.

I know nothing of Enuma Elish, never heard of it.

Have u noticed that whenever Christians have something that another religion has or a Christian band soudns like a secular one Everyone immediately says "The Christians ripped them off!"
Its never the other way around.

U don't here ppl moaning at Pantera for sounding like Metallica but they do moan at Eternal Decision.

Its just an anti-Christian attitude.

I disagree, skynes. Alot of Christian bands DO rip off other secular musicians. But it goes both ways- some of the most original bands I've ever listened to are christian bands.

The Enuma Elish is dated somewhere around 2000 b.c.- 1500 b.c. The Old Testament is dated 1400-400 b.c. Most historians think that when the Isrealites were uprooted to Babylon for the I think it was about a 70 or 77 year period, they picked up the Babylonian myth while in Mesopotamia. Then they put their twist on it in Genesis when they came back to their land.

Whether this turns out to be true or not, I don't know. Just want to know what you think about it.

As for the existence of an anti-christian attitude... Yes, christians are the target of alot of unfair skepticism, but Christianity gets the most attention for a reason- the Christian Church shaped much of how our western heritage turned out to be. And I think we overreact too much at times when someone says something that opposes church doctrine. Just my opinion.

2 Timothy 3:16, 17-All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitalbe for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in rightousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoughly equipped for every good work.

If this scripture is true the whole bible is. If this scripture is false than the whole bible is false. I believe it is true. So I believe in creation.

I have a website that has some very interesting stuff on it. I'll find it and post a link.

http://www.creationism.org/cem/

here's the link. there's alot of info on this site. I found it very interesting.

Can God speak to us through myth? (I'm not saying that the stories of the Old Testament are myth, but just incase they turn out to be in future...)

If God can speak through a donkey then yes he can speaks through myth.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the 1st five books written by Moses?

yups, they were

My point is if the biblical creation account ends up as myth, it is still reliable. But I am not by any means saying it is myth.

I'm not sure if they were written by Moses, you may be right, but I want to study that.

Yup, Moses wrote them. (Well, actually God wrote them but He used Moses as His instrument.) ;) I believe they are called the Pentatok (darn, I don't know how to spell that word!)

Some people already do think that Biblical stories are myths. I understand what you are saying. People can call it whatever they want, it doesn't change the validity or the accuracy or the truth.

THe thing is, no one can say that the Bible is false. It is the best preserved collection of writings that we have of ANY scripts EVER. It is the most reliable, because the script was copied so widely.

Yup, Moses wrote them. (Well, actually God wrote them but He used Moses as His instrument.) ;) I believe they are called the Pentatok (darn, I don't know how to spell that word!)

Some people already do think that Biblical stories are myths. I understand what you are saying. People can call it whatever they want, it doesn't change the validity or the accuracy or the truth.


Pentatuch? Or something like that.

And Xon is VERY right.

I believe in evolution!

2Co 3:18 “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”

I also believe in the gap theory, that Genesis 1:1 was a full creation and that Satan destroyed it when he fell (Isa 14:12) or caused it destroy itself. The “was” in Gen 1:2 can rightly be translated “became”. I also believe that this is where demons (evil, disembodied spirits) come from. Since they had a body, that would leave place for any of the extremely old fossils of “pre-humans” they find. So, when they find something like that and say it’s a Billion years old I believe that it could very well be.

There’s more to Genesis than the natural creation account, it has some very cool spiritual applications.

first off, 2 Cor 3:18 was talking about spiritual change, not physical. Second, Genesis 1 doesn't give any indication that evolution took place. In fact, it doesn't even give enough time for evolution to take place (evolution in 6 days? I think not). The bottom line is that evolution is a man made theory (at best), creaton is divinly inspired!

first off, 2 Cor 3:18 was talking about spiritual change, not physical

I wasn't refering to physical change. It's more in the sense of...

Rom 12:2 "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

Evolution dosn't always refer to the theory. Websters: n .1 a process of formation or growth; development.
So, as we draw closer to the Lord we evolve by being trasformed into His image. Even though this "evolution" is really a restoration, changing us back to the way we are intended to be.

sorry, that was unclear to me, I thought that you were talking about evolution as the process of (for example) an ape turning into man in several thousand years.

one thing I would like to remind you, science is full off errors. some scientists may say a fossil is 6 billion years old, based on carbon dating, but carbon dating is faulty for several reasons (What was the original composition? were there any other factors that could have caused decay much faster?). And we have only studied carbon dating for less than a hundred years. we can never be sure of what science say. I am not saying the gap theory is invalid (I don't know enough about it to determine wether or not it is), but the age scientists put on things could be way off.

I have a theory on dating using carbon and why biblically it prob can't work.

Sin = death and therefore decay.
When the world was full of sin, there was more decay? So logically radioactive decay, is effected by the state of the human race, sin or otherwise.

So at the time of Noah, for instance decay would've taken place a lot faster. And then at specific geographical areas for instance at sodom and gomorrah. There would be more more decay than for instance at Abrahams tent.

This is just a theory.

There is a dispute whether Moses wrote the first books in the new testament or not. Theres the JEDP theory, which is that a number of people contributed to the writings, AND the theory that Moses wrote them.
To be honest, it doesn't matter that much to me who wrote them, God used them regardless to show us Himself.

Xon...that is a interesting theory...while we are on the topic of theories here is mine on dinosaurs and prehistoric man

Ok first the facts.
1 Lucifer had already fallen before the creation of Adam
2 Water had already been created and had flooded the earth which also was already created
3 Lucifer wanted to be greater then God and thought he could.
4 Adam was told to "replenish" the earth which means 'fill again"
5 Lucifer had a kingdom...which was prolly earth because he "ascended" into heaven to try to overthrow God

Ok my theory is that perhaps Lucifer in a futile attempt to be like God tried to create his own world....of animals and men...of course like everything he does it didnt match up to what God could do and he wound up with these hideous creatures we call prehistoric life....after he tried to overthrow heaven and was defeated God destroyed his(Lucifers) kingdom with a flood and the earth stood that way until the point in time that God decided to create the beautiful world that we now know...this also could explain why scientist have never found the so called "missing link"

Like Xon said about his theory...this is just my theory....and what i think and 75 cents will buy you a cup of coffee ;D

what i think and 75 cents will buy you a cup of coffee ;D


really? not at starbucks it won't. ;)

those are interesting theories. i don't really know how accurate they are (but theories never are, are they). but they sure do sound interesting. maybe they could be used as the premise for a book....

That’s cool john316. If I may give some thoughts, for a tweak or 2 on the theory (not that you have to accept, just something to think about).

Lucifer is Latin and not in the original text or even rightly translated there. Basically what happened was there was a scribe (in Africa I think) that 1 of the translators didn’t like. So, to insult him, he placed the scribes name there (the same as if someone put your name there, cause they don’t like you). And for some reason it stuck, and hence became a bad name. But I guess everything happens for a reason so, anyway…

“Ok my theory is that perhaps Lucifer in a futile attempt to be like God tried to create his own world”

Satan can’t create, he can only twist (pervert) and destroy. I believe that God made that 1st earth, but that creation didn’t have the limitations that we have. They were given full access to all the Lord’s glory, but as time went on, they took it for granted and began to despise it which lead to the fall. When the fall occurred it had an effect like that on Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:33, which is why the fossils seem primitive.
I remember reading a theory that as Satan was 1 of the 3 Archangels he was given a ruler ship over that earth. A verse that seems to support this is in Isa 14:20 where it talks about his fall…

“…Because you have destroyed your land and slain your people…”

God then cleansed that creation with a flood and started anew. This time though, he gave us an option to be with Him or not. By way off Adam’s fall, we now live in a corrupt world where we have to fight and press in to get to the Lord. Where sometimes were only left with a glimmer of hope to hold on to in faith while surrounded by darkness. This is something the Angels have never seen or experienced, and so they marvel at us. I don’t know if it’s scripture or not but I remember hearing that angels desire to worship the Lord for even a moment as we do…and I can’t believe the witness I’m getting as I’ve written this last part!
God bless,

Unshakeable......You can keep starbucks...I am more of a corner Qwikmart man!!! ;)

UD...I agree that in his present state Satan can only twist and pervert...but who knows what power he had before the fall and as for creating life we see in Rev. that Satan through the anti-christ will be able to give life to the image of the beast.

I think maybe we agree that there was life on earth before Adam??? So who or what do you think these nations were? I know it really doesnt matter in the long run but its neat to speculate on it.

Oh man its time to head to work >:(....later dudes

I don't believe satan can create, it is against his nature - insteads he does the opposite - destroy.

anti-christ will be able to give life to the image of the beast

I don't think he can give 'life' to the beast. He can animate it in the natural yes. but it can not have spiritual life. It is a dead thing. Movement<>life

All power that satan has, is that wich God allows him to use/gave him. He is powerless as he stands against the greatest enemy that one can have: Jesus Christ. Jesus is the devil's enemy and that means he is in trouble.

Since we're on the topic of satan-

Most Christians accept that the story of satan is basically that he was created good- like all things originally are- and that he eventually opposed God. He tried to get himself equal to God in power (and possibly more so), and was eventually defeated.

My question is- why? Why did satan do what he did? What could possibly drive an angel, an originally GOOD angel, to rebel against his own Creator?

The last part of ^ reply is.. Yes I believe Satan denied (was it that he denied Jesus or what's a better word for it??) Back on the topic of creation... I believe God made it in 6 days (rested on the 7th) becuse who else could create everything the way it is?

I don't believe satan can create, it is against his nature - insteads he does the opposite - destroy.

anti-christ will be able to give life to the image of the beast

I don't think he can give 'life' to the beast. He can animate it in the natural yes. but it can not have spiritual life. It is a dead thing. Movement<>life




Rev.13:15...And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast,that the image of the beast should both speak and cause that as as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. KJV

This was the false prophet who gives life to the image but verses 2 and 12(same chapter) state that both he and the anti-christ get this power from satan.
As for if the image has a soul or spiritual life i doubt it but it will be able to have thinking processes.

In my opinion....after the rapture of the church and the spirit of God is withdrawn form the earth satan will once again have great powers..so great that it will decieve many.........bottom line is i dont want to be here when any of this happens

All power that satan has, is that wich God allows him to use/gave him. He is powerless as he stands against the greatest enemy that one can have: Jesus Christ. Jesus is the devil's enemy and that means he is in trouble.


Oh btw .....I agree 110% with that statement Jesus is satan's worse nightmare. 8)

I think maybe we agree that there was life on earth before Adam??? So who or what do you think these nations were?

Ya, they were probably something like the Garden Eden. There were Angel’s, now the principalities and powers that we wrestle against (the 1’s that fell anyway), and other inhabitance (probably similar to us) that were wiped out and became the demons (spirits of wickedness) we now face. Demons are disembodied spirit’s and can possess someone, so they must have a had physical a body at 1 time and lost it. Angels are their own being in themselves and can influence but not possess a person. We wrestle against and displace principalities, not cast them out.

but who knows what power he had before the fall

I don’t believe so, though I could wrong. Everything that I’ve seen of the Lord’s Angel’s, they have never created anything but gave or used what the Lord gave them. A sign or wonder is 1 thing, to make life is another.

Why did satan do what he did?

Because…

Mat 11:29 "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls."

I believe that Satan was the lead worshiper (1 of the reasons worship is so effective, cause were displacing him). The Lord is “meek and lowly in heart” not someone you would naturally think to worship. Eventual pride got in there, and he thought he was better than the humble King that he served. Thus leading to Isa 14:12-21.Satan is always “I will” Jesus is always “Thy will”.

Rev.13:15...And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast

I believe that the “Image” is a spiritual type just as the Beasts from the sea and the earth are. We are to judge all things on a balanced scale, so to say it’s a literal image, then the Beasts from the sea and earth should be literal too.
Revelation is spoken by the Lord and he speaks “Spirit and Life”(John 6:63) and in parables (Matt 13:10-11).

In my opinion....after the rapture of the church and the spirit of God is withdrawn form the earth satan will once again have great powers..so great that it will decieve many.........bottom line is i dont want to be here when any of this happens

Have you checked the “rapture” thread lately?

Ya, they were probably something like the Garden Eden. There were Angel’s, now the principalities and powers that we wrestle against (the 1’s that fell anyway), and other inhabitance (probably similar to us) that were wiped out and became the demons (spirits of wickedness) we now face. Demons are disembodied spirit’s and can possess someone, so they must have a had physical a body at 1 time and lost it. Angels are their own being in themselves and can influence but not possess a person. We wrestle against and displace principalities, not cast them out.


I agree. But I disagree on the fact that the "spirits of wickedness" were from a pre ADAMIC race. They are described in the book of Enoch as the spirits of the giants who came into being when the Angels took for themselves wives amongst men.

These giants was slain by other angels, because they defiled the land with their wickedness. They can move on earth because they are part Angelic and "part human" (they only carry characteristics) , but they are wicked through and through. They don't belong to heaven, because they were born on earth. Angels were formed in heaven and belong to that realm. We are born on earth, but we are the children of God, cause we are born from the Spirit from abovem, so we belong on/in heaven and earth.

You can just forget all this mumbo jumbo, cause it's part of the book Enoch wrote. The pre Adamic thing, doesn't have a lot of proof in the Bible, only verses that might point to it, nothing conclusive. So I'm not totally open to that discussion. Maybe we need a new thread for that.

I believe that Satan was the lead worshiper (1 of the reasons worship is so effective, cause were displacing him). The Lord is “meek and lowly in heart” not someone you would naturally think to worship. Eventual pride got in there, and he thought he was better than the humble King that he served. Thus leading to Isa 14:12-21.Satan is always “I will” Jesus is always “Thy will”.


satan was the worship leader in Heaven (at least, that's the popular theory. i'm not exactly sure where it says that in Scripture). but i'm sure he didn't take it of his own initiative. why do i say that?

Isaiah 43.6-7 "I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' and to the south, 'Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth-- everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."

according to this, we have been made for His glory, to worship Him. if we are created soley to worship, then why couldn't lucifer (as he was known) also have been created to lead that worship?

4 Adam was told to "replenish" the earth which means 'fill again"



This is a common mistake among Christians. That word replenish is from the KJV. In old english it means 'to fill' Not 'to fill again' Its only in modern english that it means 'to fill again'

If something existed before Adam and Eve then God lied when he called the creation 'all good' I don't believe Satan fell until after Adam existed. Genesis 1 says God created the heavens and the earth. Heaven'S' plural. There are 3 hebrew words for heaven meaning

Sky, Space and God's Home.

God created all 3 at the same time. Satan was part of the creation so in order for it to be 'all good' he mustn't have fallen yet.

If Evolution is true with billions of years of death and decay then the creation definitely ISNT all good.

This topic kinda died. No1 else got nething to say?

How bout this.
Evolution as in amoeba - fish - lizard - man
Is NOT science. It is in fact a materialistic religion. It is an anti-God faith as a way to show how the world could have come into being WITHOUT the need for a supernatural creator.
It is a method of allowing man to take God's place in setting the rules and being in control.
It denies God's existence, The fall of man, the original sin and the need for a saviour.

(Satan's method of tempting Eve shud spring to mind right about now.)

God created all 3 at the same time. Satan was part of the creation so in order for it to be 'all good' he mustn't have fallen yet.



i always thought of the Angels being created before the world, not sure why tho it doesn't say anything about them in that first part of Genesis, so when did they come into being?

one thing that i can remember from the creation vs. evolution Bible studies that i have attended is this. if you believe the Bible is completely true, then you should believe in creation simply because of this: if death didn't exist before the fall of man, then there's no way that evolution could possibly exist. evolution implies that things lived and died before humans even existed as adam and eve did.

i always thought of the Angels being created before the world, not sure why tho it doesn't say anything about them in that first part of Genesis, so when did they come into being?


Genesis 1 says God created the Heaven'S' plural.
Hebrew has 3 words for heaven there's Sky, Space and the Heaven where God lives.
When he created the heaven he lives in he prolly made the angels as well.


I have a book at home with quotes from evolutionist scientists explaining that they will believe Evolution despite all and any evidence against it because they have made a commitment to their materialistic religion and will accept no supernatural alternative.

Thought I'd let you read these so you can tell me what you think of them


"Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible" DMA Watson - "Adaptation" Nature

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scinetific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories. because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary that we are forced by out a priori adherance to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foor in the door." Richard Lewontin "Billions and billions of demons" The New York review January 9, 1997 Page 31.

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" SC Todd - Correspondence to Nature

Hey, im new here. But here's something to ponder. I don't understand why they can teach evolution in schools and not creationism. Since the government believes in the seperation of church and state, why not ban evolution in schools. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, therefore, it has to be accepted on faith. Isn't Christianity considered a faith? If you ban Christianity in schools, ban evolution, because that's a faith, and could be considered a religion. Schools are also telling me that evolution is the correct way on how we came about, therefore telling me there is no God. There are many religions that believe in no God. So telling me this is saying there is no God and that's pushing a belief or religion on me. Where is the seperation there? If you teach evolution, teach creationism. If you ban creationism, ban evolution. That would the only way to use the seperation of church and state mumbo jumbo.

*claps* you got it right there. Evolution IS a religion, an athiestic religion.

Separation of church and state was a statement written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. His purpose in writing wasn't to keep the church out of state affirs, but exactly the opposite. It was to keep the state out of church affairs so the state couldn't tell the church what to do. The bit after this in the letter he goes on to say that principles of Christianity will ALWAYS be the foundation of this great nation.

Funny how they leave that bit out isn't it? They accuse Christians of chopping and cutting the Bible taking it to say whatever they want (even though alot of us don't) yet they did that very same thing to this letter.

I agree that when they are teaching evilution and not creation they are excluding a theory that is widely accepted even by many in the scientific community. By teaching evilution they are teaching an atheistic view "There is no God". For those who believe in God creation is the truth. I think that they should teach the class on "Major Theories of the Beggining", since there will never be 100% agreement. Teach both supports and problems. Don't emphasize one over the other. Also "Intelegent Design" can be taught without forcing religion on anyone. There's a myriad of evidence for creation, it's just that nobody hears it because they aren't allowed to have a real discussion about it. I also think that if they can't give equal time to both major theories then they should drop the subject completely. I would love it if creation was accepted and taught instead but that won't happen...

I'm going to go off on a tangent here about seperation of church and state, but this is interesting. If you don't already know, the Supreme Court is taking a case on the Pledge of Allegiance on whether or not to take out "under God" out of the pledge. Now, the argument is that "under God" is in violation of the estabishment clause of the first amendment. It's supposedly forcing a religion on students. First of all, "under God" isn't saying to worship God and to be part of that religion, it's part of our cultural heritage. Another point is that if you take out "under God", then the government is essentially saying there is no God, therefore forcing a religious belief that there is no God. That's not fair to the Christians in schools who believe there is a God. What happens to the fairness supposedly established by the first amendment? It's saying there is no God, and therefore forcing an atheistic religion on students.

Evolution IS a religion, an athiestic religion.

Evolution is not a religion; it's a theory. Athiesm is the religion itself and not all athiests believe in evolution. Religion defined by the Cambridge dictionary is thus:
religion
noun
1 [C or U] the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship:
the Christian religion

I can see how one can belive in it but I don't really know how you can worship evolution or practice it.

Evolution is not trying to explain why we came into existance, it tries to explain how life came to be at this point.

Who says God didn't create evolution?
Genesis 2:7 says "the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Dust huh? just up and *poof* there was man or did we grow from dust?

Genesis 2:19 "19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

So the animals existed before man, and were also formed from the ground... interesting.

It all comes down to the translation of the Bible. If you think it literally took only 6 days (144 hours) for God to create the universe then no, you probably won't believe in evolution.

Does the Bible say those days were back to back? Or was there a period of time in between those days? Does being made from dust literally mean that God shaped us like we were play-doh?

First off, it didn't say that we were formed out of the other animals, it said that we were spesifically (sp?) created apart from the animals. so what if we both came from the same "Dust", we were made separetely (and on the same day)

Genesis 1:
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Also notice how in verse 24 it says Twice "according to their kinds" (or "after their kind" in other versions). Evolution states that Creature A (let's say a lizard) can evolve into Creature B (let's say a bird). That's not producing according to their kinds, it producing after a new kind (or diffrent kind). There is no place for evolution in biblical creation.

I don't know if he literally formed us like we were play-doh, but it was by his design that we were created that day, not chance over many centuries.

And to close, God saw that it was good the DAY he created the animals. he didn't see that they could be good, or that they would become good, but that they were on that day they were created GOOD. the only thing that was not good was Man not having a companion, and that is where woman came into the picture and it was good.

There is no place for evolution in biblical creation.

I don't know if he literally formed us like we were play-doh, but it was by his design that we were created that day, not chance over many centuries.

and you believe that there is absolutely no possible way that God's design involved creatures that evovle?

"let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds"
so the land produces the creatures and not God. that sounds a lot more like evolution than creation to me.

It's probably english translation problems. I don't know what the Hebrew says, but there are several of places in the Bible that are hard to translate because of the lack of a certain word isn't in the english and there is a bit of a cultural meaning to some phrases. In fact look at genesis 1:26 "let us create man in our image..." Who is God talking to? Is it the angels? But we were not made in the angel's image. Are there other gods? it is taught that there is only one God in the bible so how it that true? (here comes the answer...) The words that are plural are literally translated something like myselves or some thing like this (I heard this from a pastor who's knowledge of Hebrew I trust, he was showing how there are signs of the trinity in the old testement... another topic for a later day). there is a lot lost in translation.

And it says God MADE the animals in verse 25
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


but if by "evolution" you mean the dominace of traits (like breeding a dog to have a thicker coat and a stronger build) than God probably used that. but the word for that is dominace of traits (there is probably a better word for it). (I bring this up because I had some one argue dominace of traits as proof of evolution)

first off, to the people who say that since evolution isn't fact, it's theory, it most definitely has flaws, i must state this (& remember, i'm on your side. i agree that it has flaws & is stupidity beyond all).

to become a scientific theory takes a lot (& i mean A LOT) of work. it's not just "well, maybe man came from monkey's... i like that. now i have a theory!" it actually goes from a hypothosis (which is tested, modified, tested & modified again until it proves itself) to a theory to a fact. but, evolution will neve go to the fact stage simply because you cannot reproduce the original situation. it's a fact that mixing a spark, oxygen & fuel will make a fire. you can reproduce that. you cannot reproduce man's "birth" from nothing, not because it didn't happen (it did, but it was nothing molded by God, not nature), but because it has gone & will not return.

on the "creationist evolution" theory, it doesn't hold up when closely examined. it takes the best of both worlds & in the mixing of them, loses any grip it has as a theory.

for example, why would God set in motion evolution as the way to make man when it doesn't point to Him at all? God doesn't always work in the miraculous & hugely spectacular (in fact, he works in the mundane 90% of the time), but in everything He does, it points to Him. everything God does is it bring us to Him, to get us to worship Him. so why would he make us through a process that points to an accidental birth instead of an intentional formation?

Who says God didn't create evolution?
Genesis 2:7 says "the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Dust huh? just up and *poof* there was man or did we grow from dust?



So if dust to Adam is symbolic for man evolving from dust what does rib to Eve mean?

but if by "evolution" you mean the dominace of traits (like breeding a dog to have a thicker coat and a stronger build) than God probably used that

I have no problem with Micro-Evolution. God created the kind canine, these original canines contained the genetic information for ALL the breeds of dog we have today. They would have to. After all Noah only took 2 dogs on the ark, so all dogs today must be descended from those 2 dogs

-----------------

Like it or not belief in evolution undermines your own faith. Let me give some examples why

In the Bible it says that death is a result of Adam's sin.
According to evolution death has always existed and there is no such thing as sin.

Bible says - God created the earth.
Evolution says - God does not exist, he is not naturalistic therefore random chance must have created the earth.

Bible says - God created us, so he has the right to lay down rules and laws
Evolution says - We have no creator, therefore there are no absolute moral laws

Bible says - Death is an enemy, one defeated at the cross.
Evolution says - death is a friend, it kills off the weak and leaves the strong.

Bible says - Blessed are the meek and poor and weak.
Evolution says - Blessed are the strong and mighty, those who crush the weaker underfoot.

Bible says - God uses those that are weak to ebat those that are strong.
Evolution says - The strong will always beat the weak.

Bible says in Exodus 20:11 at the giving of the ten commandments - "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. "

If there are spaces between these days then what God means is "6 million years you shall labour and rest on the 7th million year, neither you nor your servants etc shall labour."

Bible says - God created plants on day 3 but the sun on day 4
If the 'days' had spaces between them the plants would all have died. But they only needed to survive ONE day without the sun. (anyway they already had light since that was the first thing God made).

Bible says - "It was all good" God looked at the creation and saw that it was good. The Bible is very clear that death is not good so if death brought everything into eistence then God lied as everything wasn't good.

^ That is but a mere fraction of the contradictions between evolution and Christianity. You can have ONE or the other, NOT both. Either Evolution is wrong or the Bible is wrong.

Thought I'd post this http://www.sciencediscussion.com/DisplayBP.aspx?Loc=BioPaleo/Article/A004600.html

seems the Chinese think Darwinism is pretty silly.

^^ about dogs... I read something in Nat'l Geographic that all dogs, no matter what kind, have the same skeletal structure, they have just been bred to emphasize different traits. Considering how quickly you can breed dogs, even if the world is only ~6000 years old (which the Bible says and I believe) that is plenty of time to get all the different breeds of dogs we have today.

What I find amusing is that evolutionists use dog breeding as proof of evolution but hang on a mo.... Isn't there outside intelligence being involved? Selecting and choosing the dogs that breed?

gives skynes a standing O............. well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*blushes*

Those more "intellectual" probably won't try to push controlled breeding as proof of evolution (though you never know)... but they might still be foolish enough to push microevolution (a fact that even Christians do not argue -- things evolve on a small scale within their own species; what else would you call a mutation?) as proof for macroevolution (i.e. all fish, birds, mammals, insects, etc. came from one original cell).

My question is that since in science nothing is ever gained or lost, only transferred (conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, conservation of matter), how did life suddenly appear one day? Since nothing can be created from nothing, it just doesn't make sense.

And no, I don't believe evolution can fit with a real Biblical view of our history. Macroevolution denies a God, period. Macroevolution claims all kinds came from one; the Bible says that God created all kinds according to their own kind (mammals, birds, fish, etc.). The word used for "day" in Genesis (when talking about the seven days) is "yom," I believe, which is a Hebrew word for one literal 24-hour period (correct me if I'm wrong -- I have no notes; I'm only recalling things I've learned), not a figurative day.

And things just don't fit. Darwin really only ever pushed microevolution -- natural selection, basically. And check this out: Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, [b]slight[b] modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (emphasis mine). So the modern-day believers in evolution come up with things like the Cambrian explosion to explain why simple and complex organisms exist in the same level of rock which is supposed to represent one small section of time -- the Cambrian explosion says, basically, there was a little bit of simple life and then in a very short period of time it became a lot of very very complex lifeforms. That goes against what Darwin himself originally believed (yay for punctuated equilibrium).

I'm being all disconnected here, but basically proof keeps coming up AGAINST evolution, and its defenders come up with any way possible to make it true because once they let go of evolution, they know they have to embrace a Creator. See previously mentioned "well, we guess things don't really develop gradually over insanely long amounts of time, so we'll say it all exploded at once to make up for it." So.. yeah. Maybe when I reign in my brain I'll come back here and try to clean up this mess of a post.

Geez, Evolution is a theory, not a proven fact, and you either believe that God created us, or you don't trust that he did.

My question is that since in science nothing is ever gained or lost, only transferred (conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, conservation of matter), how did life suddenly appear one day? Since nothing can be created from nothing, it just doesn't make sense.




Exactly. Couldn't have said it better. Something coming from nothing? Give me a break. Props. Major props.

before i say anything i would like to point out that i love to argue for the sake of arguing. okay, that being said...

"In the Bible it says that death is a result of Adam's sin.
According to evolution death has always existed and there is no such thing as sin."

Evolution is merely a theory that attempts to explain how the world came to be at this point ( not it's origins, it's inhabitants). It has nothing to do with morality and sin.

"Bible says - God created the earth.
Evolution says - God does not exist, he is not naturalistic therefore random chance must have created the earth."

Evolution is merely a theory that attempts to explain how the world came to be at this point. It does not explain the origin of the universe, thus, not denying God's existance.

"Bible says - God created us, so he has the right to lay down rules and laws
Evolution says - We have no creator, therefore there are no absolute moral laws"

Evolution is merely a theory that attempts to explain how the world came to be at this point. It does not explain the origin of the universe, thus, not denying God's existance and ,thus, has nothing to do with morality and sin. (does this sound familiar?)

"Bible says - Death is an enemy, one defeated at the cross.
Evolution says - death is a friend, it kills off the weak and leaves the strong."

I wouldn't say evolution says it's a friend, more like it's natural.

"Bible says - Blessed are the meek and poor and weak.
Evolution says - Blessed are the strong and mighty, those who crush the weaker underfoot."

Evolution doesn't bless anything. It's a theory stating the strong will survive. The Bible, however, is the basis for a religion.

"Bible says - God uses those that are weak to ebat those that are strong.
Evolution says - The strong will always beat the weak."

Correct. Again, the Bible conveys a religion, Evolution... simply a theory.

"Bible says in Exodus 20:11 at the giving of the ten commandments - "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. "

If there are spaces between these days then what God means is "6 million years you shall labour and rest on the 7th million year, neither you nor your servants etc shall labour."

I'll give you that one.

"Bible says - God created plants on day 3 but the sun on day 4
If the 'days' had spaces between them the plants would all have died. But they only needed to survive ONE day without the sun. (anyway they already had light since that was the first thing God made)."

Thanks for doing my job for me...I'll just repeat what you said as a rebuttle. "anyway they already had light since that was the first thing God made."

"Bible says - "It was all good" God looked at the creation and saw that it was good. The Bible is very clear that death is not good so if death brought everything into eistence then God lied as everything wasn't good."

Yes, death is bad. Makes you think though, that God would know the destiny of his creations even before creating them. Knowing of all the evils that would come and go in the years, yet he still calls it 'good.'

"^ That is but a mere fraction of the contradictions between evolution and Christianity. You can have ONE or the other, NOT both. Either Evolution is wrong or the Bible is wrong."

You had better tell the Presbyterian church that so they can change their official view on the matter.
During the 214th general assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA): * "Approved a resolution affirming that God created the universe and “there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.” http://www.pcusa.org/ga214/news/ga02108.htm

Your link is one reason why I take no denomination, you never know EVERYTHING that denomination believes. I know that over here presbyterians are usually very conservative and don't believe in evolution.

Unfortunately, Evolution IS about morality and sin. It removes the need for a creator. If God is removed then he has no right to lay down laws so the 10 commandments are nothing. Truth is relative to the person so there is no absolute right and wrong.

--------
Evolution is merely a theory that attempts to explain how the world came to be at this point. It does not explain the origin of the universe, thus, not denying God's existance.
---------

Big Bang theory goes hand in hand with Evolution. Evolution is origins of this world, big bang is origins of universe.

-------
Evolution doesn't bless anything. It's a theory stating the strong will survive. The Bible, however, is the basis for a religion.
-------
I was using similar wording to what was in the Bible, I didn't actually mean that evolution blessed anything. The theory however does place greater importance on the stronger and less on the weaker.

Another thing I refuse under ANY circumstances to call Christianity a religion. Religions are man-made or demon-made garbage. They lead nowhere. I have a Faith in the one true God. Big difference.

---------
Yes, death is bad. Makes you think though, that God would know the destiny of his creations even before creating them. Knowing of all the evils that would come and go in the years, yet he still calls it 'good.'
--------
knowing something and doing something are totally different. God gave mankind a choice, we chose wrong. Before this wrong choice the earth and everything in it was perfect. (Also this shows that Satan hadn't fallen yet.)


--------------------------------------------
Trying to line up the Bible with Evolution is in a word - compromise. Christians did the same thing with the geocentrific theory - that the earth was flat. When the bible is quite clear that it is round.

People should stop taking man's beliefs over what God says. God said HE made the world in SIX days. End of Story.

"Unfortunately, Evolution IS about morality and sin. It removes the need for a creator."

Skynes, how many times do you need to hear this? Evolution is a theory of how the world came to be up to this point. It does not attempt to explain how this world came into being. Every effect needs a cause. Evolution provides no cause for the universe existing. It does not remove the need for a creator at all.

Our existance requires an explanation. Evolution does nothing to answer this.

Why couldn't God have used evolution as a means of creation? Genesis states that the land creates the plants and animals after God commanded it to.

the big bang is the most popular explanation that goes a long with evolution, however, that doesn't mean it's true or that you must believe inthe big bang instead of believe that God is the creator of all.

Why do you fear the idea of evolution so much? Is it becuase that's what you've always been taught, God created us with his own hands and that's that? Is it tradition? is it because you don't want to see yourself as an advanced primate?

I was an evolutionist for 18yrs. I wud have went up against anyone saying its false. I was convinced that the 'days' in Gen 1 were metaphorical not literal.

However unlike alot of evolutionists I was open-minded to accept alternatives. I asked God many times how he created the earth, was it evolution or something else. That led up to a series of events and coincidences that led me convinced that Evolution was wrong and that God did it himself.

After doing A LOT of studying and research I am convinced that things like Euthanasia, Abortion, Racism, Facism etc. ALL have their roots in the Evolutionary theory. That by destroying evolution you indirectly destroy all of the above.




Listen to this
For the wages of sin is death. Ok? Those who sin, die. Death is a result of sin. Agreed?
Evolution teaches that man existed long after death was in the world. But the Bible teaches that death was a result of Adam's sin. Death was THE BIG result of sin. It is called the last enemy. It was what Jesus defeated at the cross. SO If death has always been around and was never a result of Adam's sin then WHAT ON EARTH DID SIN DO!?!? Nothing. It did Nothing. So we do not need a Saviour

So we have two options here

a)God created the earth on his own, no assistance from nature, he created the world PERFECT. No sin. No death. No millions of fossils under Adam's feet. Creation was perfect. Adam sinned by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He disobeyed God and brought death into the world. Also he separated us from God. Jesus came and died and in doing so destroyed death's power and defeated sin.

OR

b)Evolution created mankind in different places at different times, Adam never existed. Death has always been around and always will be. Sin is nothing. We don't need a Saviour.


------------
It does not attempt to explain how this world came into being.
----------
Big Bang and Evolution go hand in hand. One leads into the other. First big bang then cooling of earth then evolution occurs. May be two separate theories but they tell the same story.

-----------
Our existance requires an explanation. Evolution does nothing to answer this.
-----------
We were random products of evolution. That is the explanation. We have no purpose or meaning. We exist by chance.


-----------
the big bang is the most popular explanation that goes a long with evolution, however, that doesn't mean it's true or that you must believe inthe big bang instead of believe that God is the creator of all.
-----------
You're right Big Band is the most popular theory and it does go with evolution. And you're right this doesn't make it true. But why should I believe evolution then? Why should I believe men over God?

I do believe God is the creator of all. He did it in 6 days just like he said. If he did not do it in 6 days then he lied. Since God cannot lie then he must have done it in 6 days.
--------------
Why do you fear the idea of evolution so much?
--------------
I don't fear evolution at all. Why fear something that doesn't exist?

--------------
Is it becuase that's what you've always been taught, God created us with his own hands and that's that?
--------------
I was never taught either way. I was allowed to do research and come to my own conclusions. My school taught evolution like a hard hitting fact which is probably why I believed it for so long.

---------------
Is it tradition?
---------------
I don't have traditions. I hate the things. They are binding, they entrap ppl in legalism.

---------------
is it because you don't want to see yourself as an advanced primate?
---------------
I'll semi-give you this one. I don't want to see myself as an ape. God created me in his image for his purpose. Says nothing in the Bible about him creating monkeys in his image, no just man. Therefore man is different from the animals.

Spiritual death, skynes. Sin caused spiritual death. And even if physical death did exist before man was created, that has nothing to do with man. Those were animals. Completely different.

Also- how would you deal with the issue of starlight being a testimony to a very old earth?

And lastly, you cannot link evolution to all of those problems you stated, skynes. If so, then we might as well blame christianity for witch burning, legalism, and the terrible loss of life in the 1400-1700's centuries because of religious warfare.
Obviously, those things are a result of people taking some part of the Bible way out of context. Same with evolution.

Spiritual death, skynes. Sin caused spiritual death. And even if physical death did exist before man was created, that has nothing to do with man. Those were animals. Completely different.


Give me a verse that says that it was Spiritual death. also, give me a verse that says death was their before Adam and Eve ate from the forbiden tree. if not, than you cannot use that argument.

And lastly, you cannot link evolution to all of those problems you stated, skynes. If so, then we might as well blame christianity for witch burning, legalism, and the terrible loss of life in the 1400-1700's centuries because of religious warfare.


I half agree with you, because we will all find some excuse for our sin (I did it for the church / it's survival of the fittest, and they are not fit to survive). Evolution isn't entirely to blame, but it is just the excuse that some are looking for.

Okay, so you take Genesis literally, word for word. You believe what is written is the exact account of what happened. If you inteperate Genesis in such a way, you must interperate the rest of the Bible that way as well. Otherwise you'll be using a double-standard, saying that God can speak in metaphors in some passages and can't in others.

"God created the earth on his own, no assistance from nature, he created the world PERFECT."

Genesis 1: 24 "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so."

Taken literally, God created the plants and animals through the land. This sounds like a fantastic case for, intelligent design.
If God induced evolution, we are still his creation.

Matthew 18:21 & 22 "21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times."

So...we are told only to forgive someone 77 times (if taken literally). Now I'm not nobody's nothing... but I thought we were supposed to emulate God's eternal and unconditional love and patience. And we shall!!....only up until the 78th time, apparently. Then's it's "So long turd face! Go rot in hell!"

I highly doubt Jesus was literally giving us a limit on forgiveness, rather, just trying to say that however many times it takes.

Jesus, the son of God, used parables and stories to get his point across. Why cannot we then suspect that Genesis contains some as well?

Just wondering, is there some here who really think evolution is true, or just arguing because you have your own opions for the Bible.

Why is it that people say "all of it is literal or none of it is"? Some parts are Litteral, and some parts are Figuritive. Have you ever recalled a litteral event and used a figure of speach at one point? But this should not let us get away with picking and choosing what parts of the Bible are litteral and what are not. Was Jonah in a Big fish? nah that was a figure of speach. Was Goliath really a Giant? no, that just was a figure of speach. Did Jesus really die on the cross and rise on the third day? no way, God would never let that happen, it must be a figure of speach... [Sarcasm off] but there are parts that are a figure of speach, like the seventy times seven (490 times, Matt 18:22 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT%2B18%3A22&showfn=on&showxref=on &language=english&version=NASB&x=12&y=12)), Jesus' point wasn't to count much higher, but to forgive them so many times that it would be almost impossible to keep track of.

Here's a Question, Why would God need to use evolution? I find it even more miraculous that everything was created in 6 litteral days (144 hours) than put evolution into motion and used it over 6 billion years.

that was awesome, I always wanted to know why people believe in evolution, its madness, Darwin himself said it was a flaw when he died, plus, so much stuff is off, that they (Evolutionist) can't prove that God didn't do it, they just wan't an exuse from believeing Gods word.

Why is it that people say "all of it is literal or none of it is"? Some parts are Litteral, and some parts are Figuritive. Have you ever recalled a litteral event and used a figure of speach at one point? But this should not let us get away with picking and choosing what parts of the Bible are litteral and what are not. Was Jonah in a Big fish? nah that was a figure of speach. Was Goliath really a Giant? no, that just was a figure of speach. Did Jesus really die on the cross and rise on the third day? no way, God would never let that happen, it must be a figure of speach... [Sarcasm off] but there are parts that are a figure of speach, like the seventy times seven (490 times, Matt 18:22 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT%2B18%3A22&showfn=on&showxref=on &language=english&version=NASB&x=12&y=12)), Jesus' point wasn't to count much higher, but to forgive them so many times that it would be almost impossible to keep track of.

Here's a Question, Why would God need to use evolution? I find it even more miraculous that everything was created in 6 litteral days (144 hours) than put evolution into motion and used it over 6 billion years.

Darwin himself said it was a flaw when he died...

that's actually an urban legend. Darwin (as far as anyone knows) did not say that. it's a myth that has been spread by over-enthusiastic Christians. :-

oh well, heard that in my Science Christian prospective book.

Why is it that people say "all of it is literal or none of it is"? Some parts are Litteral, and some parts are Figuritive.

I never said that it has to be all literal. It may have sounded that way and for that I apologize. What I was trying to get across is that since not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally (obviously seen in matthew 18:22), one can't dismiss the possibility that some parts of the Bible (in this case Genesis) that are traditionally taken word for word are not.

"Here's a Question, Why would God need to use evolution? I find it even more miraculous that everything was created in 6 litteral days (144 hours) than put evolution into motion and used it over 6 billion years."

God didn't need to use evolution, he didn't need to create us in 144 hours. He doesn't have to do anything, he chooses to. And I won't even pretend that I know why he chose the method that he did. We can ask him when we get to heaven, I'm sure he's nice enough to answer.

Actually, the universe is estimated to be around 13.6 to 13.7 billion years old, give or take a few million years.
Why you put so much emphasis on time when we are discussing a being ( God ) who has always existed. What's so unbelievable about him being that old if he has always existed? If God has forever existed, what's 13.7 billion years?

The 13.6 billion years came from secular science, not a revelation from God. the same with the theory of evolution. people who believe "theistic evolution", in my oppinion, are putting more faith in secular science saying that we evolved and trying to fit that into the Bible in some way than believing what the Bible says about creation.

Why do I believe that the litteral creation in genesis? Because God would not decieve us, it would be against his nature. He said through the writer of Genesis that he created the world in 6 24 hour days (the hebrew word for day in all of the verses means a 24 hour period). Why would he put something so deceptive in saying that he created the world in 6 days (using the hebrew word for 24 hour days) when it took him 6 billion years? he could not, or else he would be a liar and have sin within him thus he would not be holy at all and everything about Christianity would be a sham.

Genesis could not be a parable as it doesn't say it is!

When Jesus spoke in parables he made it obvious he was speaking in parables. It's like that ALL the way through the Bible. If something is not meant to be taken literally it is made totally obvious that it is metaphorical.

Genesis uses the definite tense the whole way through

In THE Beginning

THE first day
THE second day

that isn't the language of metaphors and parables.


What about before evolution was popular? People believed what the Bible said - a literal 6 day creation

If God used evolution then millions of people have been deceived over thousands of years!

------------
Spiritual death, skynes. Sin caused spiritual death.
------------
Eh, wrong. Sin caused DEATH period. ALL forms of death. Bible is clear that after Adam sinned the WHOLE creation became corrupt and death entered the world.
Adam spiritually died the day he sinned, but this ultimately led to full death. spiritual death was an immediate result, physical death followed.



I believe that if a god needs 6 billion years to make a world then he is pathetically weak and not worth worship. My God was able to do it in 6 days. He did it in 6 days to give us an example to follow. Work 6 days, rest the 7th.

another standing O to skynes!!!! Also one to Agent!!!!! You took the words right out of my mouth. As I was reading posts I was thinking just what you replied. Then I go one more post down and see that you've posted exactly what I was thinking.....

btw whats a standing O?
lol

btw whats a standing O?
lol


i believe she means "standing ovation." :)

people also believed the world was flat, skynes.
btw- I don't necessarily disagree with you. But there are a number of things I am not sure about, and discussing them here helps get out a little of my frustrations.

And you never answered my question- how do you explain the age of starlight? (Honostly, I want to know your opinion on that)

i have no biblical or scientific evidence for this because i don't think it's ever been a huge issue, but what if God created them at different stages so that they give off different light?? this also shows that God is a magnificent artist, creating different stages of stars to make different colors in the sky

yes skynes "standing ovation"... I think all of the things skynes mentioned can be tied in to the fact that: in order to believe in evolution you have to believe in no God. People choose not to believe in God because they don't want to consider that they are accountable for thier lifestyle and that morality is whatever one chooses it to be. If we all made our own morality then things like pedophilia would be ok for those who choose to do that. And obviously it's not.

people also believed the world was flat, skynes.

actually, they only believed that for a couple hundred years. the world was seen as round (spherical if you want to get technical ::)) until the Church leaders thought differently & decided that the earth was flat. so it wasn't exactly a scientific belief in the same way evolution is.

in order to believe in evolution you have to believe in no God. People choose not to believe in God because they don't want to consider that they are accountable for thier lifestyle and that morality is whatever one chooses it to be. If we all made our own morality then things like pedophilia would be ok for those who choose to do that. And obviously it's not.

Ya, I agree.

I do thoroughly love a good debate, so here's a 'thank you' to all who are participating. And a huge 'thank you' for keeping it a debate and not a name calling fest (which could easily have happened considering the touchy subject at hand).
Before I get started, I would like to say that the main thing is, we believe in a God that (no matter which way he chose to do so) is the creator of our world and sent his son to earth to die for us so we can become saved. This is all that really matters. Okay, on with the debate.

"I think all of the things skynes mentioned can be tied in to the fact that: in order to believe in evolution you have to believe in no God."

First of all, that is not a fact. I, myself, am concrete evidence that belief in evolution and belief in God can co-exist. I believe in God, I believe he created the universe through some means closely resembling evolution. I do believe he had a much more direct involvement than the true theory of evolution however. The Presbyterian Church (which I am not part of) has accepted that both belief in God and Evolution can exist. So that is clearly not a fact of any kind.
Secondly, and this goes for all who read this, think for yourself, not what tradition has taught you.

“What about before evolution was popular? People believed what the Bible said - a literal 6 day creation”

What about it? Technology evolves; we grow more intelligent each day. Do you think those people had access to the knowledge that exists now? What else were they supposed to believe? It made the most sense to them at the time. New discoveries should make people re-evaluate what is understood as 'the answer.' Just like when new evidence shows up in a crime case. The case is reopened for investigation.
The ‘flat earth’ theory is a GREAT example of this. People believed the earth was flat because they did not know better. Again, a literal translation of the Bible where it was not meant to be one easily suggest that the earth was flat (read Revelation 7:1) Once advances in the sciences took place, that theory was proven wrong.

“how do you explain the age of starlight?”

Well, the age of starlight goes something like this: When you look at stars or galaxies, (or anything really) let's say a galaxy for this example, what you are seeing is what the galaxy looked like when it gave off that light. We really never see anything at it's current state, just the light that it gives off. Go into a dark room and flip on the light, that light takes an amount of time (not very much, but some) to travel throughout the room, hit the objects in the room, bounce off of them, and go into your eyes. So, what you see is the room in the past. When you look into the sky at the stars and galaxies, you are, essentially, looking into the deep past of the universe.

The speed of light travels at 300,000 kilometers(186,000 miles) per second (rounded). A light year is the distance that light travels in one year, this being roughly 10 trillion km. (5,878,499,812,499 miles).
How do we know the distance of other planets and stars? There’s quite a few methods.
The Crab Nebula (the remains of an star that exploded) is about 37,034,548,818,743,700 miles away. Which means, in order for us to be able to see the Crab Nebula, the light from it must travel for 6,300 years in order to reach us.

'Gee, Gimmick, thanks for the astronomy lesson, what does this have to do with anything, you idiot?'
Well the point is that it takes a lot of time for the light from those stars to reach earth. So much time in fact, that we see the Crab Nebula now when it existed around 4,300 BC. The Crab Nebula is fairly close to us compared to the rest of the universe; so the deeper we look into space, the longer back in time we look. This suggests that the universe is not as young as creationists would believe; over billions of years old, actually. Since God has the power to do anything, this is not factual evidence of an old Universe. It is merely suggesting that the universe is billions of years old.

Now all of this would be trivial information, after all, God could have placed them there WAY before creating earth since he has forever existed, but those stars and galaxies are moving further and further away from us. The farther they are, the faster they distance themselves. This is mathematically proven by comparing absorption lines in the color spectrum of a distant object to the absorption lines with a stable object (I dare you to argue the validity of mathematics. It is the only thing can ever be truly proven as fact.).

How can we know that the stars and galaxies are moving away?
If an object is moving away from you, the wavelengths it produces will be longer than if it were nearing you. Think of Nascar (man, I really hate nascar. It’s so boring but a great example). As the cars get closer and closer to your position they emit this high pitch and as they pass you the pitch drops. (Here comes the car) VVRREEEEEEEE (approaching car) EEEEEE (it passes) OOOOOOOOO (moving away from you) OOOOOMMMMM. The car emits a closer wavelength when it approaches than when it moves away. We can compare the same thing with stars and galaxies, except using their color wavelengths.

Turns out, when looking at objects in space, we see that they are, indeed, moving away from us. Are we the center of the universe? No, because we revolve around the sun so if we were the center, that would mean the entire universe would constantly be doing one big hoola-hoop shuffle. It means that the universe is expanding in all directions.

This 'spreading out' of celestial bodies suggest (STRONGLY suggests) that since everything in the universe is traveling away from each other. If everything is traveling away from each other, there must have been, at one point in time, when everything thing was in the same point. This HIGHLY suggests that a big bang did happen.

Oh no, science is trying to find evidence that God does not exist.
No, we are using our god-given gift of intellect to find out how we came to be. Science and God can co-exist. The big bang theory DOES NOT NEGATE THE NEED FOR A CREATOR. It does not explain how the matter that was involved in the big bang came to exist in the first place.

Uh oh, I just said big bang… on a Christian message board, I think I just lost my audience. They don’t like to hear the words big or bang, let alone next to each other.

Genesis 1:1 “1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

It doesn’t say how they were made, only that he created them. It doesn’t say ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth by placing each celestial body in its place.” It doesn’t say ‘God created the heavens and the earth, first by making the earth, then placing the Sun and a couple more planets around it for decoration.” All it says is that God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn’t rule ANY possibility out.

I think God carefully constructed that bang. I believe that God created us by orchestrating the most complicated process imaginable. I believe he lit and tossed the firecracker to end all firecrackers. And I believe he created man separate from all of that. He gave us a soul; it separates us from the rest of monkeys and I believe

Now, I do realize that I am in the minority in believing this, and that most of you have been ingrained with teachings that the Big Bang theory is exclusively for atheists and that if you believe in evolution or the big bang theory you are out-right nutty. I do also realize that the most popular beliefs are not necessarily true.



…. I’m tired of thinking.… I’m going to go play some video games.

Here is an interesting thought... On the first day, God created the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1:1) but later, on the fourth day he created the stars (1:16). how he distributed the stars and gallaxies is not said, but he made them after he had started the earth.

*rolls up sleeves... literally*
Firstly name calling fests are pointless. I won't take part in them. I like a nice debate too, especially on this.

Starlight-

Did God create Adam as a baby? Throw him a pack of seeds and say "Better hurry up and plant those, u need em for your dinner"

No he created Adam as an adult. He created plants fully grown and bloomed. It was a 'mature' creation. So when God created the stars he created them mature, with light already stretching far away.

----------------
One point I'd like to make is that majority opinion does make truth. Just because Presbyterians believe in evolution doesn't make it true.
------------
flat earth - I may be wrong on this cus it's something I haven't really looked up on BUT If memory serves me right it was the Catholic church that taught the earth was flat and heavily opposed Galileos research into the world being round to the extent of persecution for it.

-------------
Secondly, and this goes for all who read this, think for yourself, not what tradition has taught you.
------------
I do, I went out, looked at the evidence, seen things from both sides and concluded that evolution is utter nonsense. Tradition taught me evolution not creation.
-----------

Technology Advance
I beg to differ on this. Humans aren't getting smarter I think we're getting dumber. Think about it. Cain had the knowledge to build a city, his son was an expert in brass and iron, another son was a musician. Noah was able to build an ark. It's evolution that teaches that we are smart and older people are dumb. If anything the opposite is true. All we have is a collection of knowledge built up on the previous generations, NOT greater intelligence.

--------------
This 'spreading out' of celestial bodies suggest (STRONGLY suggests) that since everything in the universe is traveling away from each other.

Does it not say in Scripture that God "stretches out the heavens like a curtain" Psalm 104:2


---------
Big Bang - the only parts of the big bang I agree with are this

1) Before the universe existed, there was nothing (ex nihilo)

2) Something created the universe

Thats it. I don't believe this tiny packet of dirt smaller then this full stop . exploded for no reason and created everything. <-- Big Bang theory.

It's rediculous. Where on earth did the dirt come from the exploded!? Also where did the energy to make it explode come from!?

FURTHERMORE centripital (sp?) force states that an object moving away spinning will continue to spin in the SAME direction. So if this tiny bit of dirt was spinning around and around then exploded (as big bang says) ALL galaxies, stars and planets MUST be spinning the same way. Hang on a mo.... aren't a few of our planets in our solar system spinning BACKWARDS! ... Yeah they are... So how does this work then?

Lemme take a guess. God SPOKE the universe into existence, he SPOKE stars and planets in place. Then DELIBERATELY set some of the planets to spin backwards just to screw the big bang over... and yes I do believe my God is smart enough to do that.

You make an assumption in your big bang idea. Just because galaxies are moving away from each other NOW, that doesn't mean they have always been moving. If I see a guy driving down the highway at 100mph. That doesn't mean he started on the other side of Ireland 2hrs ago. He may only have just got on the highway at the entrance before I seen him.
---------------

Evolution and science

the greatest flaw in your argument is the idea that evolution and science are the same. They are NOT.

Science is when you see something - working out how it works through testing and experimentation.

Evolution cannot be tested or experimented. MICRO-evolution can, but that is in no way evidence for MACRO-evolution since not 1 intermediate fossil has ever been found! The fossil record states that all kinds of animals just suddenly appeared, this is called the Cambrian explosion.

Evolution must be accepted on faith. Faith that it happened as the scientists say it did. They cannot prove it or test it or experiment on it. They only have whats in the present.

You talk about discoveries and evidence etc. What evidence is there for evolution? I'm pretty sure I've asked this before in this thread and got NO ANSWER.
I'm serious - What hard evidence is there for evolution.


ALL areas of science imaginable were all started by Bible believing creationist Christians! Here's but a few examples

Physics - Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry - Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur
Geology - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz
Astronomy - Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder

There's sooooo many more. these guys started science on the belief that this universe is created by an orderful God. Therefore his creation follows Order. this order can be studied.

An explosion creating the universe is not orderful. Explosions bring chaos and destruction - not creation. Detonate some C4 and you'll see what I mean. Explosions bring death and destruction not life and harmony.



Whatever way you look at evolution you will always have the SAME problem with the Bible.

Bible says that death did NOT exist until Adam's sin. All kinds of animals already existed at this point. So Evolution could not have occured.

Furthermore the Bible says both in OT and NT that animals produce after their own KIND! Dogs give birth to dogs, cats give birth to cats.
To say that a lizard can become a bird, then a monkey, then a lion maybe is denying this biblical truth.

Evolution calls God a liar. End of Story.

"Technology Advance
I beg to differ on this. Humans aren't getting smarter I think we're getting dumber. Think about it. Cain had the knowledge to build a city, his son was an expert in brass and iron, another son was a musician. Noah was able to build an ark. It's evolution that teaches that we are smart and older people are dumb. If anything the opposite is true. All we have is a collection of knowledge built up on the previous generations, NOT greater intelligence."

I don't think it's a matter of greater or lesser intelligence between modern people and those in the past; it's just a DIFFERENT kind of intelligence. Just because we don't know what someone back then knew doesn't mean we're dumber. Just because we know something now about, say, what makes up an atom, doesn't mean we're smarter than people in the past. There's just different kinds of intelligence. As for the "knowledge to build a city" thing and all of that.. I'm not sure where you're going with this. I mean, are you suggesting that no one today knows how to make buildings? There are no architects? Or were you instead suggesting that it was somehow common knowledge to every single person back then, and EVERYONE could build a city, just off the top of their head? See, that's why it's hard to feel good about either sides of this debate: both sides tend to make generalizations. You can't speak for everyone. Some modern people are smarter than other modern people. Some people in the past were smarter than other people in the past. They weren't all smart or dumb. Come on.

Firstly name calling fests are pointless. I won't take part in them. I like a nice debate too, especially on this.

& you both are to be commended for keeping this debate as a debate & not a poo flinging fest. thank you. :)


Furthermore the Bible says both in OT and NT that animals produce after their own KIND! Dogs give birth to dogs, cats give birth to cats.
To say that a lizard can become a bird, then a monkey, then a lion maybe is denying this biblical truth.


skynes, i may be on your side, but i feel like i need to help out Gimmick here so he won't have to refute this. from what i've read of his posts, it seems as if he believes that God set this world in motion through the evolutionary theories but that's it. it's not that God took one organism & made everything we see here today out that one creature & is constantly doing so. he believes that God is not continually changing & evolving His creation. it's just that He used evolution to get us this far. (all of this is what i've captured from what Gimmick believes, not my own thoughts on this).

Gimmick, am i right? do i understand you correctly? just trying to see both sides fairly.

What I meant by intelligence is this


God's creation was initially perfect. We only use a tiny fraction of our brains, that isn't exactly perfect. So I figure that the earliest humans used ALL of their brain. So every one of them would have been a thousand times more intelligent than any modern human.

I'm not saying noone today knows how to make buildings or create stuff. I'm saying that the technology we have today doesn't prove that we are any smarter than the previous generations. If people in Genesis could build cities and farm and raise animals and crops and use iron and brass then they obviously weren't stupid but were very intelligent.
-------------------

Poo flinging fests... Whats the point... People who get involved in those are just immature. This is actually the first Creation/Evolution discussion I've had that hasn't devolved into me being insulted for being closed minded and dogmatic and wanting to reject all science and return mankind to the dark ages.....

Yeah I cud really see me programming games on a bit of wood and stone... lol
------------------

You are correct unshakeable, although I do believe we (humans) have been created specifically by God, separate from everything else in this universe.


“No he created Adam as an adult. He created plants fully grown and bloomed. It was a 'mature' creation. So when God created the stars he created them mature, with light already stretching far away.”

Nowhere in Genesis does it state that the plants were “fully grown.” You are assuming much and you then make statements based upon your assumptions, trying to pass them off as fact.
I do believe God created Adam as an adult. I said in my last post, that I believe God made man separate from everything. He created us special and gave use the breath of life.
_______________

“Bible says that death did NOT exist until Adam's sin. All kinds of animals already existed at this point. So Evolution could not have occured.”

First, please show me where in the Bible this is stated. I am eager to learn.
Secondly, if you believe sin causes the death of animals, please explain to me just how an animal can sin and warrant the punishment of death from that sin.

Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[ Or through] Christ Jesus our Lord.”

“For the wages of sin is death” refers to our afterlife, since the second part says “but the gift of God is eternal life.” It clearly is talking about spiritual matters, not physical matters. Humans are the only ones who have souls, who can have eternal life. This verse is not meant to be taken literally as saying “sin causes things to die.”

If, though, the wages of sin is death, how come my brother’s hamster died? Did he commit adultery or give false testimony? How come the tree in my backyard died this winter? Did he have another god before God?
Plants and animals can’t sin. So, if sin causes death, how does it affect them and make them die?
The answer is simple: it doesn’t.
**rubs eyes** AWHA!?!?
Humans and animals were not meant to live forever!

Genesis 3:22 “And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Humans were not immortal, or meant to live forever, in the first place since God himself says we must not be allowed to live forever after eating from the tree of life. Sin causes only spiritual death. Physical death is natural.
This means that there could have very well been a long period where animals existed before man.
_______________

“FURTHERMORE centripital (sp?) force states that an object moving away spinning will continue to spin in the SAME direction. So if this tiny bit of dirt was spinning around and around then exploded (as big bang says) ALL galaxies, stars and planets MUST be spinning the same way. Hang on a mo.... aren't a few of our planets in our solar system spinning BACKWARDS! ... Yeah they are... So how does this work then?”

Haha… put some TNT under and top of a merry-go-round, spin that merry-go-round and set off the TNT. How much do you want to bet that the pieces of the merry-go-round will continue to spin in one, uniform, direction?

But wait, lets just forget about that obvious hole and let’s talk about how, in space, the fragments of the merry-go-round would attract to one another, ever so slightly. The fragments would attract and the different fragments’ gravity that they exert on each other would change the way they would spin once they reach one another.
_______________

“the greatest flaw in your argument is the idea that evolution and science are the same. They are NOT.”

I never said this, or intended for this to be understood from my statements. I know they are not the same. Evolution is a theory. Science is a means in which to derive theories from.

As for starlight, you said that God could have put those stars in place and then pushed them after they were settled. This would do nothing but confuse and mask the truth. My question is this, or rather, Agent_C68’s question in a different post. “Why would he be so deceptive?” why would God try to confuse us?
_______________

“There's sooooo many more. these guys started science on the belief that this universe is created by an orderful God. Therefore his creation follows Order. this order can be studied.”

… that doesn’t make any sense at all. You’re saying that because some guys (who believed in God) started different science fields means that God’s creation follows order?
While I do agree his creation follows order, your means of coming to that answer baffles me.
_______________

"Does it not say in Scripture that God "stretches out the heavens like a curtain" Psalm 104:2"
It does, it refers to God creating the heavens and the part of the verse you left out ('being clothed in light' or something similar) has to do with God saying 'let there be light.'

_______________
“An explosion creating the universe is not orderful. Explosions bring chaos and destruction - not creation. […] Explosions bring death and destruction not life and harmony.”

Are you saying that God couldn’t have created the universe through an explosion?
Are you saying that God could not create life and harmony through an explosion?
No?
Then you must conclude that God is not all-powerful. If you’re saying he couldn’t create the universe, in some way resembling the big bang theory, then you’re saying God has limits. If you believe God to be all-powerful, your mind MUST be open to the possibility that God could have created it through an explosion.


speaking of poo flinging contests, one of my friends was tauning a baboon at a zoo and got hit twice in the chest with a couple of nice, wet, pieces. I laughed SO hard i started to cry.
.... then he chased me around and tried to give me a hug for laughing at him.

Genesis 3:22 “And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Humans were not immortal, or meant to live forever, in the first place since God himself says we must not be allowed to live forever after eating from the tree of life. Sin causes only spiritual death. Physical death is natural.
This means that there could have very well been a long period where animals existed before man.

That was way out of context! That was after man had disobeyed and ate of the tree of the knowledge... you make it seem like it was his plan all along that we should die. He warned Adam that as soon as he ate from the tree of the know... that he would surely die, he didn't say immediately, but that he would die for sure. Death is only natural because that is the enviroment that you live in, you don't know what it is like to live in a world with no death, or a world that food does not need such extensive labor to grow and harvest.

I am just currious, but how do you read genesis 1 to be metephorical? could you please go through maybe verse by verse and explain the metephores that he is using. Because it is one thing to say this verse is a metephore for creating the universe and this verse is a metephore for earlie stages of evolution, but an entirely diffrent situation when you look at the whole chapter. I am just interested and currious on what you are reading into.

"Nowhere in Genesis does it state that the plants were “fully grown.” You are assuming much and you then make statements based upon your assumptions, trying to pass them off as fact."

Gimmick, so what are you saying here is that God didnt create plants mature? So where did Adam obtain food?

Are u not assuming that God DIDN'T create them mature, just because it doesn't say He did?

"the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Rom 8:21

When Adam sinned the entire creation fell apart.
Same way with a computer - one file gets a virus (sin) the ENTIRE PC is deemed infected and every part of the PC suffers because of it whether they sinned or not.

Creation is referred to as fallen. The ground is cursed because of Adam's sin. All of creation suffers because of sin. Death is NOT a good thing. Death is called an enemy many times in the Bible so for God to have death as a good thing is for God to be friends with his enemy. Doesn't work like that. Animals were meant to be immortal just like humans. Sin messed all of that up.
------------

Laura made the point I was about to. Adam was created fully grown, the animals created fully grown so Adam could name them. The planets were made fully grown to feed the animals and Adam. Otherwise they have to wait a few years for something to eat.
------------

Humans are the only ones who have souls, who can have eternal life.
I agree on the first bit, only humans have souls. But the eternal life I must disagree on. Bible says that heaven will have the lion lying with the lamb, Jesus rides a white horse. Obvious to me that animals are in heaven. Otherwise where on earth did Jesus get a white horse!?
Anyway ur right n that animals have never sinned. Sooo wouldn't they be able to get to heaven without a sacrifice?
----------------

Space - I think that even if merry-go-round remains were pulling on the planets it'd take a HELL of a lot of force to make a planet spin backwards!

I don't think God's trying to confuse us by making planets spin backwards. He does it to show "HEY I created this universe! Not a random explosion out of which all life formed! IT WAS MEEEE!!!!!"
----------------

Order
Let me explain this a bit. Evolution's nature is one of chaos. Evolution teaches that random mutations and random events created everything without a direction or a purpose. If the universe is an accident as evolution says then there is no order in the universe. There cannot be order if it was created by chaos.

Science was started by Christian men who believed that an order filled God created an order filled universe.

this universe follows laws. Law of gravity etc.
Laws require a lawgiver. Someone made the law.

Chaos cant make law and order. chaos makes chaos.

science studies the laws of the universe to learn how they work. The only way this works is if ALL the universe followed the same set of laws. God created this universe with law and order. Not out of chaos.

Yes God can use chaos to his will but before sin and death existed how could there be chaos? There was nothing. So When God originally created the universe he couldn't have used chaos because there wasn't any!

Chaos is the opposite of law and order.

If neither of these existed yet - due to universe not existing then how could God use a chaotic explosion?

Explosions don't create law, order and harmony. Yes God could have used one. But why should he? All he needs to do is speak and things come into existance.
He spoke and light came
He spoke and stars came
He spoke and plants grew.

When God speaks, stuff happens. He doesn't need explosions. Big Bang is a theory and no more. They is no evidence whatsoever that an explosion ever occured to create everything. YET there IS evidence that God spoke and created everything - Genesis 1.


------------------

About the baboon. EWWWW!!!!! Did u take any pictures of that? Wud love to see it heeheehee

Wow....this is a long one....sorry


“Death is only natural because that is the enviroment that you live in, you don't know what it is like to live in a world with no death, or a world that food does not need such extensive labor to grow and harvest.”

Let’s say that God’s original plan was for the living creatures of this world to live forever. That means every single plant, animal, and human could not die, correct? What would happen when those plants, animals, and humans begin to reproduce? The earth would be overrun with plants, animals, and human beings. They would be everywhere. Can you imagine how many rabbits there would be if rabbits were created immortal and had existed since man was around?!??!

Side note: What about animals that rely on the killing and consuming of other animals? How were they supposed to live if there was no death in the world? Were they originally vegetarians?
And don’t tell me that the animals did not need to eat. God made food available for man so food was a necessity from the beginning (another sign of mortal bodies).
Genesis 1:16 16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;”
So if before sin came into the world creatures did not need to eat, why then did God provide food for man? Was the food from the tree there to serve as entertainment for Adam and Eve?
(Okay, side not finished)

Now let’s examine this as if animals were supposed to die (since they obviously were after God told Adam that they were his food. Genesis 1:29-30) and only humans who were created with eternal life. Had this been God’s original plan and Adam and Eve did not sin the earth would be overpopulated with humans. Can you imagine if Adam and Eve never sinned and the world came to this age today? How many people would exist in the world?! We would be packed shoulder to shoulder, consuming every natural resource available, destroying God’s creation. God must have known this and planned for it by having physical death. Why would Adam need food if he was immortal?

Which has more order: A world in which some sort of population control exists (death due to various reasons; be it age, or a food chain for example) or a world in which everything cannot die, causing the earth to be absolutely overrun with all kinds of creatures?
________________
“I am just currious, but how do you read genesis 1 to be metephorical? could you please go through maybe verse by verse and explain the metephores that he is using. Because it is one thing to say this verse is a metephore for creating the universe and this verse is a metephore for earlie stages of evolution, but an entirely diffrent situation when you look at the whole chapter. I am just interested and currious on what you are reading into.”

I will gladly do this. It will serve as a great lesson to myself; I might uncover something I had not seen before and will hopefully understand. I do admit, that I am not fully understanding so if there are any verses that I cannot offer my opion, I would greatly appreciate any input you have.
I do have an open mind and am not convinced that my theory is the ultimate answer. I am open to change. I find that when you are constantly evaluating what it is you believe in you either a) return to that belief after searching with an even stronger faith of said belief Or b) your belief changes.
It might take a bit, however, before I am able to complete it for lack of time (fulltime student and full time job holder speaking). But I will try to do this.
________________
“Gimmick, so what are you saying here is that God didnt create plants mature? So where did Adam obtain food?

Are u not assuming that God DIDN'T create them mature, just because it doesn't say He did?”

I don’t believe God created those plants mature. I believe those plants grew and developed over a period of time. Then, later, after they (and the animals) were mature (through a process similar to evolution), God created man.
I am assuming that he did not create them mature after reading Genesis 1:11, but because God didn’t say that he did create them mature.

Genesis 1:11 “11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.”

We need to define this term “produce” to understand just what these verses mean.
pro·duce (pr -d s , -dy s , pr -)
v. pro·duced, pro·duc·ing, pro·duc·es
v. tr.
1.***To bring forth; yield: a plant that produces pink flowers.
2.***
a.***To create by physical or mental effort: produce a tapestry; produce a poem.
b.***To manufacture: factories that produce cars and trucks.
3.***To cause to occur or exist; give rise to: chemicals that produce a noxious vapor when mixed.
4.***To bring forth; exhibit: reached into a pocket and produced a packet of matches; failed to produce an eyewitness to the crime.
5.***To supervise and finance the making and public presentation of: produce a stage play; produce a videotape.
First, all of the following examples describe a process, not a **POOF!** and a mature plant is suddenly there.
Second, only God can create things out of thin air, land cannot create thing out of thin air. ‘But God created the land, so why couldn’t it make things appear?’ God created you, can you produce anything out of thin air besides ideas in your mind?

Genesis 1:11 says the land produced at the command of God. To me, this does not sound like mature plants just sprang out of the ground like a giant game of whack-a-mole. It sounds as if God commanded the land, and the land obeyed by growing these plants.
_________________
“Laura made the point I was about to. Adam was created fully grown, the animals created fully grown so Adam could name them. The planets were made fully grown to feed the animals and Adam. Otherwise they have to wait a few years for something to eat.”

Again, I believe Adam was created fully-grown. I believe the animals were fully-grown when Adam was created but I believe they had existed for a period of time before Adam. Same with the planets. I believe God let the universe develop and then he created man.
_________________
“Anyway ur right n that animals have never sinned. Sooo wouldn't they be able to get to heaven without a sacrifice?”

I would say they could be able to get into heaven since they have no sin but… why would they?
Why would animals go to heaven? They were put here as food.
_________________
“Space - I think that even if merry-go-round remains were pulling on the planets it'd take a HELL of a lot of force to make a planet spin backwards!”

No, see the merry-go-round in that example is all that exists. There are no planets, or galaxies, it’s just the merry-go-round. The fragments of the merry-go-round eventually get drawn to one another after the explosion. This then creates those planets, stars, galaxies, what have you.
And it doesn’t take that much force in space to do anything. That happens when there is next to zero resistance.
Take two magnetic marbles and roll them at one another, their trajectory changes as they get close to each other. Then take them and roll them in the same direction, next to each other. They come together, much like meteors, they form larger masses of smaller matter.

Oh by the way, skynes just said ‘hell’!!! AHHH!!! (just kidding)
_________________
“Death is NOT a good thing. Death is called an enemy many times in the Bible so for God to have death as a good thing is for God to be friends with his enemy. Doesn't work like that.”

So it wasn’t God who brought death to all of the first-born children of Egypt?
Didn’t God also bring death upon sodom and gomorrah?
What about when the walls of Jericho came down?
Or the death of Christ? Was that not supposed to happen?
God can create GREAT things from the death of others. We received eternal LIFE from the DEATH of Jesus.
God being an enemy of death? You sure wouldn’t know it. If you’re talking spiritual death then I could see how God doesn’t get along with it.
_________________

“When God speaks, stuff happens. He doesn't need explosions. Big Bang is a theory and no more. They is no evidence whatsoever that an explosion ever occured to create everything. YET there IS evidence that God spoke and created everything - Genesis 1.”

I just gave some evidence of a big bang theory in my post about starlight and the expanding universe, but you can go ahead and ignore that, that’s okay.
Genesis 1 does not say God spoke everything into existence. The first verse proves this! “God created the heavens and the earth.” That’s it. Not ‘God spoke to create the heavens and the earth.”


I still think you people are being held up on the assumption that evolution must mean there is no God. I have tried to say this before and this is getting close to being the last time I will say it again.
God can be the driving force behind evolution. There’s no reason not to think this. God made man separate from animals, however.
God can be the conductor of the big bang. The big bang does not explain how the initial matter became to be. I believe God created that matter and had a plan for it. I believe he caused the so-called ‘big bang.’
If you think it’s ridiculous that it would have to take God some 13 billion years to make this universe that’s fine. I think it’s a bit ridiculous to think that an all-powerful being needed 6 days entire days and than an all-powerful being chose to rest on the 7th. Did he need to take a nap or something? (sorry, just joking around)
The point is, God is all-powerful so no possibility can be ruled out.



And back to the baboon, no pictures unfortunately.
……… but I still have nightmares of being chased by a monkey poo shirt.

It's late at night n I'm off to bed soon. I'll post a bigger reply tomorrow but this is just a quicky.

Were they originally vegetarians?

Actually Yes. Genesis says that God gave animals and man plants to eat. It wasn't until after the flood that God allowed animals to be eaten.

As for animal growth. Do you know humans live on something like 5% of the worlds surface? I don't know the exact amount but its really small. Even if there was no death there still wouldn't be that much room used up.

Gonna have to leave it at that for now, sorry. My bed calls.

let me throw this out there. it's kind of a combination of both of your theories, but i think you both could be happy about it. ;) it comes from The Magician's Nephew, the first book in the Chronicles of Narnia stories. C.S. Lewis wrote the entire series as an allegory to Christianity & the Christian walk. what he wrote in Nephew was an allegory of creation.

two children come to Narnia before it was Naria. all it is is nothingness. but then they hear a faint singing & with it comes light. Aslan, the Son of the Emperor over the Sea, was serenading the world into being. as He sang differently (the same song, yet sung with different cadence, tune, inflection...), different things came into being. the plants sprang from the ground & grew. in fact, a piece of a street lamp fell onto the ground & grew into a full street lamp. it didn't just appear, but it slowly grew with the song before the two children's eyes.

it was like Gimmick is saying, it wasn't just there full grown, it "produced." you could even say it "evolved" from the ground itself. yet, like Skynes has been saying, it is still a masterful creation that was spoken into being by our God. something that was set in place by an Intelligence.

i'm not saying that's how it was, but you two aren't as far from each other as you think you are. Gimmick, even tho he's more evolution minded, is still a lot closer than many people to classic creationism. Skynes isn't so much classic creationism as he is anti-evolution. ;)

just thot i should share this "idea" since i couldn't help but think of it between your posts.

Okay. If someone said something like what I'm about to now, don't get ticked at me because I didn't read all of this topic.

Now, what I have to say about evolotuion is, evolution starts with the Big Bang, right? Well, how'd the Big Bang occur? What caused it? Things don't happen without a cause, it has to start somewhere. And, what caused thecause of the Big Bang? and so on.

But, God, he didn't have a beginning, and he will never have an end. It all started with God, everything, the world, animals, us humans, everything.

God using death

When God put death in the first-born of egypt and wiped out Sodom and Gomorhoea (OK I cant spell it! SUE ME!)

They were acts of judgement. Before original sin judgement was not needed. So these events would not have occured.
-----------------------

I believe in a literal 6 day creation. God used 6 24 hr days to make everything. That carries some rammifications.

the plants made on day 3 MUST have been fully grown! Animals were made on day 6 so the plants would only have had a mazimum of 3 days to fully grow for the animals to start eating. Maybe God used giga-compost and has giant plants grown in 24hrs. I dunno how he did it. All Iknow is for the animals on day 6 to eat them they must have been grown.

Todays growing times are not fast enough.
--------------------

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Gen 1:1

We all seem to agree that heavens (plural) are

1. Sky
2. Space
3. God's home

ok?

This means that in ALL the universe there were no stars, no plants, no nebulas, no meteors. Just space and the earth.

Then on day 4 God put stars in the sky.

This is a clash between the bible and the big bang theory. Big Bang says stars and planets happened simultaneously, actually stars were first. Cause planets were molten lumps of boiling rock that then cooled.

"And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Gen 1:2

Hang on doesn't this verse say the earth was covered in water? Another clash with the Big Bang that states that the earth was covered in boiling rock that then cooled over millions of years and formed a solid crust.


I stand corrected on one part - It isn't centripetal force that would make the 'roundabout' parts spinning, its the conservation of angular momentum (I think... Haven't read it in a while)

Even if u threw sum TNT at the roundabout the parts would still spin the same way as the roundabout.

God used 7 days to create the world. 6 working and the 7th resting to give us a basis for our 7 day week. 6 days work, rest on the Sabbath. It's the exact reason God uses in Exodus for why he gave the commandment of keeping the Sabbath.

-----------------

Had another thought

We use less than 30% of our brain right? That's far from a 'very good' amunt. I figure that the first few generations of men before becoming badly corrupted by sin would have used ALL of their brain. So after 6000yrs of perfect geniuses I think the planet being used up problem would have been dealt with one way or another... Maybe we'd all live on space stations with replicators making us all our food. :P I am certain that God would have done something about that if it arose. But it hasn't.

------------------

After reading Genesis 1 again I noticed something interesting

After saying "Let the earth bring forth grass n plants n trees etc." The next verse says

"And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind"

BUT and this is a big BUT
When God commands sea creatures and birds to appear. It doesn't say and the sea nrought forth fish.
Instead it says

"So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind."

It says GOD CREATED THEM. Not the earth brought them forth but that he made them himself.

Says exactly the same thing about Beasts and animals

"And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind"

God made them, not the earth. God made them according to their own kind. So following this God made each individual kind there and then. They didn't evolve into new kinds they stuck with their own kinds.

----------------------

I've said this before but I'll repeat myself
The evolutionary order of life and the Biblical order are different.

Evolution says that first it was fish then amphibians, then lizards, then birds, then mammals.

But according to Genesis God made fish and birds simultaneously. Lizards - Which I suspect are included with the beasts as they didn't have their bellies on the ground at this stage. They were made along with beasts and insects (creeping things).
------------------------

I have no problem with the belief that God can do anything, I believe it myself. But for Him to knowingly use a method of creation that can explain Himself away is pretty dumb.
People use evolution to give an intellectual scientific reason for being an athiest. I doubt God would use something that doesn't require Him.

From my post earlier about scientists beliefs on evolution - It is naturalistic and materialistic. They will believe it despite ANY contrary evidence because they have made a commitment to evolution, and that they will not allow God in science.

As long as people see science and evolution as the same thing Christians fight an uphill battle.

evolution must be accepted on faith. Therefore it is a religion.


----------------------

I ask again - What evidence is there to support evolution?

Oh and yeah - I am quite anti-evolution. Also has a lot to do with taking man's word over the Bible. If something a human says goes against scripture: they're wrong end of story. Evolution goes against Genesis 1 so I am anti-evolution.

These posts are sooo long. :P

I am in no way certian, but I think Genesis could have been metaphorical, or at least something other than completely literal.

I also think that physical death could have existed before the fall of man. Physical death isn't evil, I think. There are things far worse that could happen to a man than death. (random movie qoute alert)

I also strongly believe that too often new scientific discoveries get plunked into whatever 'camp' they fit in with the most, and thus there is much useless generalizing (as Guest stated a page or two ago). Let's try not to fall into any kind of stereotyping.

"By one man's sin death entered the world"

Death wasn't around before sin.

"From my post earlier about scientists beliefs on evolution - It is naturalistic and materialistic. They will believe it despite ANY contrary evidence because they have made a commitment to evolution, and that they will not allow God in science."

You know, the exact same thing can be said about Christians and their beliefs. In fact, it even applies to you fairly accurately. You're both more or less the same in that way. An outsider who isn't sure whether he/she believes in creation or evolution would be totally turned off by the people on either side of the argument...

Difference however, I checked out both sides before making up my own mind, I didn't just suddenly make a commitment to it because I find the other unacceptable, as I've said many times before I used to be a theistic evolutionist myself. After looking at the evidence I found that Creation is mroe accurate.

I won't deny that both sides are biased. It's just a matter of which bias is the best bias with which to be biased.

In other words you can choose between materialistic man or God's Word.

Athiestic evolutionists have this nasty habit of using insults to knock down creationists. Say we have a lack of intelligence and have given up reason. I've read enough of their stfuf to know they do. I don't stoop as low as to insult them.
-----------------

As for the people who would be uncertain. When I speak to someone who was uncertain about it I speak to them in a calm and gentle manner. Not compromising what I say but not being nasty or offensive either. I doubt someone being approached that way would be put off.

here's a good book gimmick, or neone interested "The Lie: Evolution" by ken ham, i used to be a theist-evolutionist type, until i saw all the evidence

Ken Ham has some good stuff but I prefer Kent Hovind.

I've read that book it's excellent for pointing out the faults with evolution but he says in numerous areas - "There is overwhelming of evidence for creation" but doesn't give any :P I know its not the point of the book (its purpose is to show that evolution is a lie) but one or two would've been nice.
Kent Hovind gives evidence as well as pointing out the lies.

hey skynes Ken Ham's group Answers in Genesis has alot of resources books. One of them is a technical manual about geology and how it supports creation. It was at least an inch thick. I haven't read it but I bet it would be really interesting. If you've read up on Mt. St. Helens and how it's evidence supports the biblical flood I think you would be interested in the geology research..

1" thick? ... Ouch... heavy reading there...

yes, it was a bit intimidating looking to me...

are there any un-biased books anyone would recommend on this subject?

Nope. Both sides are biased. One is biased that there is no God the other is biased that there is a God.

Best way to go about it is to just ask God to show you. Look at books from both sides too.

Though maybe you might be interested in reading this: 10 dangers of theistic evolution.....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp

I'm yet to find any books or articles that are trully unbiased, but I have found a website and book that are at least fair and don't intentionally provoke anger.

www.reasons.org
and
The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross

Mainly, its the attitude of this site and the book that attracts me the most. They welcome skeptics and encourage others to think critically, without being negative. The book is also written in an extremely non-science-major-friendly way, so anyone can read it and understand what it is that Ross is trying to say. No, I don't always agree with him, but I really like him nontheless. At least give his opinions a shot.

I've read his stuff before, makes no sense to me. How can "the highest mountains " be covered by water, when the highest mountain is a hill? huh!?

If ur confused... good. So am I...

Gonna have to look into that site deeper. Seems to have Gap theory and Theistic evolution written all over it.
----------------------

Not getting at anyone but I've noticed that when scientists talk of 'thinking critically' what they mean is - Listen to what I say and believe me. If u dont, ur not thinking critically.

Not saying that's what he does, I've just noticed that in a lot of places that encourage 'critical' thinking.


--------------

On an off-note could someone please give me ANY evidence for evolution? All this thread has been so far is ideas and theories. I want someone to post some evidence for evolution.

;) yes, skynes, please look deeper into that site before you jump to any conclusions. You might be pleasantly surprised.

actually I kinda like the scientific approach to creation. tho there are times that I like to keep it simple.

and skynes I hear ya. my question to evolutionists is if there were transitional creatures then why is there no fossil record of them. And I'm not talking one or 2 disproven things. I'm talking various groupings of fossils. Take dinosaurs for example there are many dinosaur fossils, not just one stegasaurs but many different species of one kind... we are taught in school that man evolved from apes and I even remember the poster in the classroom of like the different stages from ape to man. yet we have no fossil record of them... I say show me some bones!!!!! oh I'm sorry they can't cuz there aren't any...

ahh, free time... such a lovely thing. So lovely that I dont want to waste it in front of a computer. so, very quickly here's a response.

How can you take Genesis so literally when there is plenty in the Bible that is not meant to be?

Fossils?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
more specifically:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
I don't doubt you'll deny them. It's okay. I even think some of them are a bit sketchy but they are there.


Kent Hovind?

haha i think i might be done talking about creation/evolution now

Sorry, but I don't feel as if I can listen to him with a willing and open mind after he tried to file for bankruptcy after evading taxes for 6 years.

Oh but he's a doctor though! ::) Got his degree from... from... Patriot University!! You know, Patriot University wait a second, I've never heard of Patriot University. Ohhh I know, it's an accreditition mill where you can buy a degree and complete courses in 2-4 weeks. That's in what state again?
Colorado right? colorado springs? It used to be in colorado springs, it's in Alamos now.
How can a University up and move cities?!

(these short posts are much better btw)

well the problem with most of that stuff is that it is quite sketchy. what it's got going against it is that a partial skull doesn't prove what it was attatched to. way to much room for speculation. and as for Lucy only 40% of her was found. my point with this is there should be numerous fossils of each. it cracks me up that they try and say that a jaw bone found fifteen meters from a partial skull is the jaw to that particular skull. case in point. scientist had the wrong skull on brontosaurus for 50 years just because the skull was found in the vicinity.

How can you take Genesis so literally when there is plenty in the Bible that is not meant to be?


Cause any time in the Bible that something isn't meant to be taken literally it says so. The parables are explained. Visions are interpretted (except apocalyptic ones like Revelation. But it's clear by the tense and grammar used that this guy is seeing waaay into the future and doesn't know how to describe what he sees.)


I can't remember the name of it, but Lucy is an actual monkey that exists someplace. I'd have to dig into books to find out where exactly.



Darwin himself said that for evolution to be true MILLIONS of intermediary fossils must be found and that the lack of fossils would destroy his theory.

Today: There are no intermediary fossils. There are intermediates ONLY within KINDS. E.g. different kinds of dog or cat or horse etc.
NO evidence that a dog became a cat or a lizard became a bird.

how did you like that site, skynes?

I can't remember the name of it, but Lucy is an actual monkey that exists someplace. I'd have to dig into books to find out where exactly.


really? are you talking about australopithocine (sp?)lucy? are you talking about alive today or extinct because i've only read that's extinct (i think it's in africa, i'm 96% sure)

^ That's it and its alive. They HAVE found living specimens of it. (Of course scientists won't say this affects Lucy because it destroys evidence supporting their theory :P)


My final Project has started so I've been a bit busy to start site plundering atm. I'll read it as soon as I can.

Hugh Ross' name is very familiar to me.

Hugh Ross is a good guy. I want to go to one of his speeches. I have a friend who has gone a couple times. I actually heard about him from my mother, who has given me his books for Christmas over the years. I don't agree with all that he says, but I like him cuz he encourages critical thinking without provoking anger.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/creation_timeline_chart/creation_timeline_chart_color.pdf

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/creationtimeline.shtml?main

^ This stuff screams theistic evolution to me.

From readings bits and pieces it appears to me that this guy denies that the 'days' in Genesis are actual days but are metaphorical for unspecified periods of time.


Hugh Ross has some good Christian stuff but I think some of his creation/evolution stuff is a bit off.

He has an area about the speed of light and if a star is 13billion light years away then the universe must be 13billion years old.

The speed of light is NOT a constant. It is affected by gravitational forces (black holes anyone? Extreme gravity? Sucks light right in)

Anyway God made the stars to be signs for days and seasons. How could they be a sign if the light wasn't there? I figure he created it already there so we can see it.

most evolutionists consider lucy to have been a chimp btw.

I'll post this again since noone seemed to want to comment on it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
....and something else to look at.
A little chart plotting how creationist scientists categorize some fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

I would just like to say that this debate on Creation/Evolution is completley and utterly irrrelevent. The key verse for me in the first chapter is "And God saw that it was good." Does it really matter how God chose to create the universe? He saw his creation as "good" that should be what matters.....

Or to put it another way, if God himself came down to earth and told us that,yes, evolution was indeed the way that he created the universe would that really make you consider moving away from Christianity? What about if God came down and declared that Jesus was a complete and utter fraud, would that make you consider moving away from Christianity? Do you see what I'm trying to get at here? There are far far far more important things for a Christian to believe in than Creationism and I think that some times us Christians tend to forget that.

Just my 2 cents

phil, you're exactly right and i agree 100%


however.... i find this stuff to be fun. ;D


and to answer your question.
If God came down and said jesus was a fraud, i would probably move away from christianity, yes.

To me how it was done is VERY important. For if the Genesis1 order is wrong then the bible is a fraud! And Christianity is a joke.

Genesis 1 must be truth. Otherwise it is not God's Word.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/creation_timeline_chart/creation_timeline_chart_color.pdf

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/creationtimeline.shtml?main

^ This stuff screams theistic evolution to me.


So?


Hugh Ross has some good Christian stuff but I think some of his creation/evolution stuff is a bit off.


In what ways, now? You are entitled to your own opinion, but please, define off. Off, as in, he doesn't agree with what you believe, or what?



He has an area about the speed of light and if a star is 13billion light years away then the universe must be 13billion years old.

The speed of light is NOT a constant. It is affected by gravitational forces (black holes anyone? Extreme gravity? Sucks light right in)



does that affect the speed of light, or just the trajectory?



Anyway God made the stars to be signs for days and seasons. How could they be a sign if the light wasn't there? I figure he created it already there so we can see it.


If we believed that, then we might as well believe that we were created yesterday- God just placed our memories in our minds. Make sense?

And I think what phil said is relevant. This doesn't really matter that much- what matters is that we believe God's Son paid the price so we could be our true selves, the way God originally created us to be, and for us to spread the word and live the life so others can see.

(skynes, I like what you have to say, but I also love this kind of stuff, so don't think that I disagree with all that you say)

Does it really matter how God chose to create the universe? He saw his creation as "good" that should be what matters.....


yes, i think it does, as skynes said, if genisis isn't important or literal; really, then how can we say the rest of the bible be? according to what you say, genesis is metaphorical or whatever, right? who's to say the rest of the bible isn't???

Leviticus 11 : 20 " All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. "

forget about the detestable part and focus on the insects and all fours. If this is to be taken literally, it means that the Bible says insects have four legs, thus creating an innacurracy in the word of God.

Show me where in Leviticus 11 where it is made clear that this verse is not to be taken literally. It's a chapter full of direct instructions about clean and unclean food. show me where it says this is a metaphor.

and

Please, explain to me how this verse supposed to be taken literally.

*EDIT*hoho thanks for pointing that out ria ;)

That's Leviticus 11:20, before anyone like me comes up with the fact that Leviticus 20:11 has nothing to do with clean or unclean food or insects or anything of the sort.

I can't get this quoting thing working for some reason so I am replying to both skyness and alorian. This is a really difficult questions/statments to answer so I hope that the answer won't be to long or boring ;)

It seems to be that both of you are hung up on this idea that if any part of the Bible is deemed to be inaccurate then it can not be written or divinely inspired by God and therefore everything you believe is false. I do not believe this at all.

The first thing we must establish is what is the central belief of our Religion. I believe it is that God sent his only son Jesus Christ to earth, and that Jesus died for our sins that we may have eternal life and on the third day of death he rose again. If you don't believe that (or something similar) than we may have a problem!

The second thing we have to establish is how do we know that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for our sins. If you answered "through the Bible" we may have an even bigger problem ;). The problem with saying that is because it is Circular reasoning. I could easily write a book declaring that I was God and when people started asking for proof I simply point them to the book I wrote. The people who asked me where my proof was would simply point me in the direction of the nearest shrink!

So if we can't use the Bible to say that Jesus lives, forgave our sins etc how do we know that this is indeed the case?! If you are anything like me you will know that he exists though his influence on you in your daily life. That is how I (and I assume you guys) know for certain that Jesus exists and that is why it is so hard to explain to non believers why Jesus exists since many people require visual proof to believe in something of this kind of magnitude.

So now we come back to the Bible and its authenticity! Skyness, you said that if Genesis is a fake then the Bible is a fraud and therefore Christianity is a joke. Why is this the case? We have already established that the central belief to Christianity is Jesus Christ. Why should it matter if parts of the Old testement didn't happen the way the writers said it happend? Heck, I will go as far as saying that if God came down today and said that the entire Bible was false except for the stuff about Jesus then Chrisitanity would survive, prehaps not as we know it but it would survive, which is more than can be said for the Muslims and Jews because they would realise that all along that the Christians were right, Jesus was not a prophet but the Son of God.

Of course I'm not saying that everything in the Bible is a fraud but I suppose the next logical question would be why would God deceive us. Why would he put something in the Bible that did not happen. Well their are many possible reasons for this but I think the most obvious and logical reason is that the Bible was written in another place and time. Remeber, these were simpler times when there was almost no knowledge of Science. Do you really think that the average person of their time let alone OURS understands the evolutionary theroy well? Would you really expect that the first chapter of the Bible should read like a sciene book? Of course not, God could easily have given us the Creation story to symbolise that he created the Universe. The specifics are not necessarly important.

I personally believe that the Bible is made up of four different types of "things" (can't think of a better word sorry :-) . The literal truth and it is relevant today (i.e Jesus). The literal truth and it is irelevant today (i.e God telling the Jews not to eat Pig). A symbolic story or a metaphor that is indicated as such (for example one of Jesus's parables) and A symbolic story or a metaphor that is not indicated (i.e Genesis). how we interpret each part of the Bible comes down to alot of prayer and alot of thinking. Just because not everything in the Bible is the literal truth doesn't make it any less relevant and it defenitly doesn't make it not Gods word. I guess what I'm trying to say is that every story has a purpose in the bible but that purpose may no longer be relevant to us or its purpose may not be immediatly recognizable*to us.

This post has gone on way way way way to long, especially for a some-what offtopic post so I guess I better wrap things up! I'll sum up by saying this. We are Christians not Bibleians. Christ is our central pillar not the Bible. If something in the Bible is found not to be 100% literal then that is okay. It doesn't mean that its not God's Word and it doesn't mean that God is a liar it means that we have misinterperted it. In my opinion the Bible should be used like a guide......

Cheers and God Bless

Phil

p.s Sorry for the spelling errors :D

p.s.s And the grammatical errors :-

very well said phil!!!
I agree with most of what you said, however i do think that the Bible needs to be 100% accurate on all accounts. If there is even one thing that is wrong, there is some doubt in the validity of the entire bible. I believe it must be completely true, since it comes from God.

I agree that it is all trivial in the end.
I mean it's not like God will throw us a pop quiz about how he created everything before he lets us into Heaven.
But then again, like i said, i find this stuff to be fun.

There is a logical reason that God would not use non-indicated metephores in the Bible. why? Because every part of the Bible that was hard to believe would become metephore in the eyes of men. there are cults that believe that Jesus' resurection was just a spiritual resurection and that he was still physically dead. they claim that the resurection was a metephore. some claim that he did not really die (either he fainted or never when on the cross), but that he "death" was a transformation into the glorified Jesus. This claims that the death was a metephore. With that posibility, what stop us from completely chainging the Bible?

As for man being "simpler" back then seems sort of arrogant on our part. Don't we strugle with the same sins they did? sure the medium that we feed our sin nature with is diffrent, we still have to deal with the same sins. And there are no sins that we as humans have grown out of either, we still have idols worshipers, we still have adulters, we still have thieves, we still have liars... And all of our technology serves the same purposes that people had back then, The Internet = Communication, Television = Entertainment, Guns and Bombs = weapons of war... There is nothing new under the sun, King Solomen said that in Ecclesiastes 1:9 I don't mean to say that our current technology isn't "new" but the reason for them has been around for all time. And our scientists and Acheologist still don't know how the egyptians constructed the pyramids with out the help of modern mechanical devices. There are several mysteries of the ancient world we don't know. So we have advanced in some fields, but are still clueless in others.

phil, this is not something we are "hung up on" it is based on biblical teaching, biblical fact. The bible tells us that God is true Psalm 117:2-For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Rev 15:3-And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty, just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
The bible describes scripture as truth 2 Tim 2:15-Study to show thyself approved unto God. a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. James 1:18-Of his own will bagat he us with the word of truth. Psalm 119:160-Thy word is true from the beginning.
The bible states that scripture comes from God (the God of truth) 2 Tim 3:16-All scripture is given by inspiration of God

So God is true, The bible Gods word is true, and scripture comes from God. That means that whether it is speaking literaly, metaphoricaly, or profeticaly it is still true. Therefor God wouldn't put something in it that was not true; that would go against the very nature of God. If we can't believe it from beginning to end then there's no point in believing any of it because parts of it would be based on lies which would make it unreliable. That is not circular reasoning. And if you just believed the parts you agreed with that would be pick and choose religion.

If you go back and read the whole thread you will read all about how the Genesis creation is literal. The whole (the word in the bible used there for day does mean a literal 24 hour period) discussion is covered.

Thanks Gimmik! I'ld better clarify myself though. I didn't mean to say that the Bible was anything less than 100% accurate (or though I suppose it could be, i'll explain later on) or that it was irrelevent in anyway. The Bible is very much relevent, it is one of the major ways that God communicates to us. I am saying however that as long as we believe in Christ than we are on the right path regardless of wether or not our interpretation of the Bible is accurate. I was also trying to say that we are imperfect and therefore our interpretation of the bible i.e working out what is relevant to us today and what isn't, working out what is meant to be taken literally and what isn't, will also be imperfect no matter how hard we try.

The only way the Bible may not be less than 100% accurate is if the people who translated the Bible from Greek into English (or any other language for that matter) mistook the context or could not adequetly explain what was said in Greek in English and therefore translated certain parts of the Bible wrongly. Lets just hope for our sake that these mistakes are minor and few and far between!

p.s I find this stuff fun to ;)

As for man being "simpler" back then seems sort of arrogant on our part.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realise that Moses typed up the Book of Genesis on his laptop, emailed it off to God for proof reading and then printed out multiple copies and gave it to his followers ;D

In all seriousness I never said that man was simpler back then I said they were simpler times. You see this illustrates my point perfectly! As humans we keep mis-interpretating everything! How are we ever meant to fully understand what the Bible, a work written (albeit indirectly) by God, who is of course someone who is infinitley better than us when we can't often understand each other?!?

I'm not saying that the Men (and Women!) back then couldn't understand the concepts of Science, I am saying that they had yet to discover many of the concepts of Science. I'm sure if we teleported Moses from his time to ours, after the initial shock wore off, he could adapt to our life reasonably well! But for God to tell Moses about molecular Biology, F=MA etc would be completly and utterly irrelevant for him and the people of their time. So is it not unreasonable that God decided to give a metaphor for Creation rather than how Creation actually happened? You know, kind of like a father telling his four year old kid that he became their son because him and his mummy loved each other very much? Its not a lie, but then again it isn't the full story either.

Note 1: I have a great deal of respect for people who lived thousands of years ago. I'm sure if you gave me a couple of goats and sent me off wandering around in the desert I would be dead in a week! :o

Note 2: I'm not saying that it happened this way, I'm just using this as an example as to why Genesis is not necessarily a literal translation.

phil, this is not something we are "hung up on" it is based on biblical teaching, biblical fact. The bible tells us that God is true Psalm 117:2-For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Rev 15:3-And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty, just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
The bible describes scripture as truth 2 Tim 2:15-Study to show thyself approved unto God. a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. James 1:18-Of his own will bagat he us with the word of truth. Psalm 119:160-Thy word is true from the beginning.
The bible states that scripture comes from God (the God of truth) 2 Tim 3:16-All scripture is given by inspiration of God

And I never disagreed with any of that!

So God is true, The bible Gods word is true, and scripture comes from God. That means that whether it is speaking literaly, metaphoricaly, or profeticaly it is still true. Therefor God wouldn't put something in it that was not true; that would go against the very nature of God. If we can't believe it from beginning to end then there's no point in believing any of it because parts of it would be based on lies which would make it unreliable. That is not circular reasoning. And if you just believed the parts you agreed with that would be pick and choose religion.

You said it yourself, scripture could be speaking metaphoricaly. This DOES NOT mean that you discard anything you disagree with as being metaphorical. What you have to do is take all of your available knowledge, read the scriputure, attempt to understand the time period, pray a lot and hope that an answer comes to you. If you simply take the Bible at face value I believe that you are missing out on a lot of hidden meaning.

If you go back and read the whole thread you will read all about how the Genesis creation is literal. The whole (the word in the bible used there for day does mean a literal 24 hour period) discussion is covered.

I am not arguing the Greek intepretation of the words here. I am saying that the entire Creation story has possibly been misinterpretated.

I'll leave you with this:

During the middleages the Bible was interpreted as saying that the Earth was both flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Is it just not possible that the Creation story is the biggest misinterpretaion of them all?

Sorry Agent not quite sure how I missed the first part of your message :-

There is a logical reason that God would not use non-indicated metephores in the Bible.* why?* Because every part of the Bible that was hard to believe would become metephore in the eyes of men.

Maybe but you also have to remember the time that this was written. God was hardly going to dedicate 10 pages or so explaining the process of say the big bang and evolution to people who had never even heard of an atom before.

The question is that if God came back today would he catch up with say Stephen Hawking and have a chat with him about the sub atomic world? Or would he dismiss evolution totally? Either way the world would be in awe of his knowledge and power.

there are cults that believe that Jesus' resurection was just a spiritual resurection and that he was still physically dead.* they claim that the resurection was a metephore.* some claim that he did not really die (either he fainted or never when on the cross), but that he "death" was a transformation into the glorified Jesus.* This claims that the death was a metephore.* With that posibility, what stop us from completely chainging the Bible?

As I said in my last post, you have to take all of your available knowledge, read the scriputure, attempt to understand the time period, pray a lot and hope that an answer comes to you. If we are completly changing the Bible, God will let us know somehow.

Actually your comment brings up a side question. How would you define a Cult? I'm new to this forum so have you guys discussed this before? Prehaps we should start up a new topic.....

For the people who have just started in this thread- READ IT!!! ALL OF IT!!!! Every argument I have read the past two pages has come up and been answered. Personally I'm getting annoyed with repeating myself constantly. Read everything I have said THEN post something.

I am saying however that as long as we believe in Christ than we are on the right path regardless of wether or not our interpretation of the Bible is accurate.

Did u know that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Christ? Did you know that mormons believe in Christ? Muslims too believe in Christ.

They are all hell-bound cults started by Satan, so yeah the interpretation of the Bible is VERY important and it MUST be accurate!

First thing Satan did in the garden of Eden was question God's Word. He questioned what God has said to Eve. Seems like he's doing the same thing today and always has - destroy faith in God's Word and he can start up whatever cult he wants and get away with it!



The second thing we have to establish is how do we know that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for our sins. If you answered "through the Bible" we may have an even bigger problem . The problem with saying that is because it is Circular reasoning.

That is grade A crap and no more.

Circular reasoning requires BOTH sides to cease to exist if one is false.
Whether the bible is true or not - it exists. It will exist whether it is true or false.

So it cannot be circular reasoning. It must be read in order to be seen to be true.

We have already established that the central belief to Christianity is Jesus Christ. Why should it matter if parts of the Old testement didn't happen the way the writers said it happend?

If Genesis is all metaphorical you are destroying multiple things

1. God's glory - You are saying that God is incapable of putting across what he meant. That he cant give a simple message right.

2. Original sin - Why do we need a Saviour? Why does sin exist? Without Genesis and Adam and Eve there IS NO ORIGINAL SIN.

3. God's Judgement - You have removed God's right to judge. If the flood (which is GLOBAL not LOCAL!) didn't happen then what right does God have to judge the earth with fire?
If God did NOT create us what right does he have to do anything here?

4. Basis of a 7 day week
We have a 7 day week because of Genesis, remove Genesis, remove that basis

5. Basis for marriage - the foundation for marriage - one man, one woman is based on Genesis. Remove Genesis and what do u get? Ppl living together unmarried, homosexual marriage, even more adultery and fornication.

During the middleages the Bible was interpreted as saying that the Earth was both flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Is it just not possible that the Creation story is the biggest misinterpretaion of them all?

That was the Catholic church. NOT the Protestant church. The Protestants fully backed up Galileo.

There is ample proof in the Bible for a round earth.
---------------------

Let's forget dumb theories and ideas for 30 seconds here.

What does the Bible say

1. ALL scripture is God inspired
2. God is NOT the author of confusion
3. God created the world in 6 days each having a morning and an evening.
4. The order God did things is 100% different to evolution and big bang theories.

So then if Genesis is metaphorical, many ppl over the millenia have believed a literal 6 day creation. Jesus, Paul etc. If it is not true then God has created confusion within the church. Confusion is from Satan not God.

One must true, one must be false. Either God did it in 6 days or 6 billion years. One or the other. Believe what the Word of God says or believe what some moron with a long beard says.
---------------------------------------------------



What scientific evidence is there for evolution? I want an answer to this one.



Oh and for the insect thing - New species of insect are being catalogued daily, old species have died out. Kinda simple that one specie of insect could have had 4 legs. Just because we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

God was very very specific with the foods they could eat. I really doubt he's going to say something as a commandment as strict as the foods and be metaphorical about it ;) He said "all 4 legged flying insects are disgusting to you" <-- He meant that.

Oh and thats not saying that ALL insects have 4 legs, God was picking out one specie of insect.

First of all, I have read this entire thread

Did u know that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Christ? Did you know that mormons believe in Christ? Muslims too believe in Christ.

They are all hell-bound cults started by Satan, so yeah the interpretation of the Bible is VERY important and it MUST be accurate!

First thing Satan did in the garden of Eden was question God's Word. He questioned what God has said to Eve. Seems like he's doing the same thing today and always has - destroy faith in God's Word and he can start up whatever cult he wants and get away with it!

You took me out of context Sky. I had already said in a previous posting what the defenition of "Christ" is too me and I believe Christians as a whole. The Muslims/Jehovah's Witnesses/Mormons all have different interpretations on who Christ was and in most cases base their knowledge and beliefs on sources outside of the traditional Bible.

However what you are implying Sky, and I want to be very sure on this. That Creationism is just as important to you as Jesus dying for your sins. Is that what you are saying? If one area of the Bible is found to not be literal than your entire faith collapses?

That is grade A crap and no more.

Circular reasoning requires BOTH sides to cease to exist if one is false.
Whether the bible is true or not - it exists. It will exist whether it is true or false.

So it cannot be circular reasoning. It must be read in order to be seen to be true.

Well at least it is not D grade crap Sky ;)

It must be read in order for it to be seen to be true is circular reasoning however. Please tell me the difference between these two statements.

I am Cool because I say I am Cool.
The Bible is the word of God because it says it is the word of God.

Can you see how that is circular reason? You can't say that Jesus is the Son of God because the Bible says so, that is circular reasoning. I could also say that Muhummad was the ultimate prophet since it says so in the Koran. What you can say however is that I have felt Jesus in my life, in my heart, now I'm going to the Bible to learn more about him. That ISN'T circular reasoning.

1. God's glory - You are saying that God is incapable of putting across what he meant. That he cant give a simple message right.

Evolution a simple message? Are you serious? I am telling your right here and right now that NO ONE on this board fully grasps the concepts of Evolution. Not me, Not you, No One. People spend there entire lives studying this concept and you expect God to be able to explain something like this to people 3000 years ago in a few thousand words?

2. Original sin - Why do we need a Saviour? Why does sin exist? Without Genesis and Adam and Eve there IS NO ORIGINAL SIN.

Suprisingly enough I was just reading something on this a few minutes ago. The article is located here: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/77/story_7794_1.html

Now I havn't done any research into this and I'm too tired right now (it is midnight here) to give my own response to this question so don't take that response to be my own. However it does go to show that this is obviously not a problem too at least one protestant out their.

3. God's Judgement - You have removed God's right to judge. If the flood (which is GLOBAL not LOCAL!) didn't happen then what right does God have to judge the earth with fire?
If God did NOT create us what right does he have to do anything here?

So let me get this straight since God did not flood the earth for some reason he doesn't have the right to judge the earth with fire? Does that make any sense at all to anyone!?! Am I missing something here?!?

You are jumping to conclusions however Sky. Show me where I said God did not create us? I said creation may have come across in a different way than the Bible has indicated. I did not say God did not create us.

4. Basis of a 7 day week
We have a 7 day week because of Genesis, remove Genesis, remove that basis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week

There is one explanation of how the 7 day week came about. Genesis does not have to be literal for the 7 day week to come about. One of the reasons why God may have chosen to tell the story of Creation the way he did was to enforce the idea of a 7 day week. Once again too tired to elaborate sorry.

5. Basis for marriage - the foundation for marriage - one man, one woman is based on Genesis. Remove Genesis and what do u get? Ppl living together unmarried, homosexual marriage, even more adultery and fornication.

Once again this does not derail the various "Non Creationist" Theroies. Once again God may have told the Creationist story to help reinforce the man/woman senario.

Don't you get what I am trying to say? Jesus used parables in his teaching to help explain key concepts. Are you saying that it is impossible for God to use a parable or metaphore to help explain key concepts?

That was the Catholic church. NOT the Protestant church. The Protestants fully backed up Galileo.

Is that right? Then explain this

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/astronomy/victory-church.html

The relevant information is down towards the bottom. Hardly a "full backing" by any stretch of the imagination. From my own knowledge of the time era while the Protestants didn't go after Galileo to such a degree as the Catholics there was definatley a lack of trust of this scientific development.

There is ample proof in the Bible for a round earth.

There is NOW that people no what to look for. However people did mis-interpet verses. That is really one of my major points. No one can understand the Bible Fully. Many of the versers can be re-interpereted in different ways - Even if you are looking at a literal translation.

One must true, one must be false. Either God did it in 6 days or 6 billion years. One or the other. Believe what the Word of God says or believe what some moron with a long beard says.

Why Sky do you limit yourself to this thinking? Why does it matter if God did it in 6 billion years or 6 days? It is completley and utterly irrelevant. I think however it is time to ask YOU some questions about creationism of the top of my head.

Q1. If God was all powerful why couldn't he just snap his fingers and have the entire world created in .01 seconds?
Q2. Why did God need to Rest?

I'm to tired to think up anymore. I'm off to bed. Sorry for the 50 billion grammatical and spelling mistakes. I will most likley have to clarify myself in the morning I think ;)

Oh yeah, as for the whole evolutionary argument no matter what I say you will dismiss it off hand therefore it really is pointless for me go there.

The thing is, while a literal-day creationist view may not be as important as a belief in Christ, it still is rather important.

Evolution is a belief that, unless stretched somehow to "fit" with Biblical creation, contradicts it in many ways.

Unless you believe that everything else evolved and man was created mature and perfect on the seventh billion year (whatever), then there is no basis for woman's submission to man as she was created from him. There's no basis for a monogamous heterosexual relationship. There's no basis for marriage as it is (scratch that, as it should be) today -- and hey, get this: the relationship between man and woman is supposed to be symbolic of the relationship between Christ and the church. They're married! Woman is to submit to man as the church is to submit to Christ, and man is to love woman completely, totally, SACRIFICIALLY, as Christ did for His bride!

If you don't believe Adam and Eve were the FIRST man and woman, CREATED, not evolved, then all of Ephesians 5:22-33 goes out the window (and it's one of my favorite passages in the Bible). Why? Because woman was not created of man -- she was born of another woman, as was man. Genesis 2:18 (I am such a dork, I typoed this as "Gebesus" ;p) says a) man was alone, and b) woman was created as a "helper suitable for him." Explain to me this in the evolutionist viewpoint, please. Did Adam's primate parents conveniently die before this particular moment?

Also note that everything was created "according to its kind" (read all of Genesis 1). Unless you contrive something like "God created every kind and then it evolved into what it is now" (microevolution, anyone?) -- which DOES NOT REQUIRE billions of years to happen!! -- then where do you fit in that every plant, every sea animal, every bird, every land animal was created (yes, it says created by God, not of the ground) according to its own kind -- not "every living thing evolved from one cell into which God breathed the breath of life." Adam got that.

I also honestly don't see why God would inspire Genesis as a metaphor "because the simpler people wouldn't understand 'atom' or other such complicated terms.'" Since when do we understand everything that is in the Bible? Since when does God put it one way for one group of people then change it later on when science progresses? And since when is evolution, or creation by the world, not God, more complicated and God-glorifying than God creating EVERYTHING from nothing? (Conservation of matter, hm?)

Someone said this, and it's right: if you can make Genesis into metaphor because it's too hard to understand otherwise, then it's too easy to make Christ into metaphor. Personally, I believe that what is metaphorical in the Bible is clearly indicated to be so -- and Genesis is referenced throughout all the rest of the Bible (yes, in the New Testament! -- and yes, the Old Testament is as God-inspured, true, and IMPORTANT to our knowledge of God as the New Testament is) as fact, not fiction. Why would God tell a lie to his people until they found out the "truth" apart from him, then smile sheepishly and say, "Oh, I guess you were right"?

Okay, if you want to compromise between evolution and creationism, I can see that. And I'm not ruling out evolutionism as pure fact consistent with the Bible yet, either -- but I have yet to see anyone make a good point of it without trying to discredit the Bible. Make evolution fit with Genesis, and then maybe I'll see it as possibly valid... but for now, for myself, it just isn't consistent with the Biblical account of creation.

However what you are implying Sky, and I want to be very sure on this. That Creationism is just as important to you as Jesus dying for your sins. Is that what you are saying? If one area of the Bible is found to not be literal than your entire faith collapses?



Ur pulling me out of context now :P
What I meant about my statement about Genesis is that without Genesis the Bible has no foundation. ALL aspects of Christianity have their basis in Genesis.
Why God has the right to give laws and judge
7 day week
Marriage
Original Sin
Why the world is messed up

ALL those things have their basis in Genesis, which btw is more quoted throughout scipture than ANY other book of the Bible!

If the Genesis week is metaphorical then that metaphor MUST apply to every other place in the Bible that mentions it..

Like the giving of the 10 commandments. God commanded us to rest on day 7 because he rested on day 7 (him resting is setting an example, he wasn't actually tired)

Jesus and Paul both quote Genesis.
Paul quite heavily when calling Jesus the last Adam (I think it's last Adam)

So Paul in fact called Jesus a monkey.... yeeaaahhh.
No..... What he meant was that Jesus was perfect in the same way that Adam was perfect, he was sinless. (I think thats it anyway.)

I'll respond to more later. Gotta eat food.

These posts are interesting, but extremely long and tiring :p

I think just because something is Myth, does not make it irrelevant. God can use myth to show us Truth, just as He can use anything, right? Myth is the opposite of literal truth, not truth. I'm not necessarily supporting the belief that Genesis is fiction, but if it is, I'm comfortable with that. It will not be an excuse to end my relationship with Jesus, in other words.

(skynes, I wanted to keep the other conversation going, I thought you had some good stuff to say and I took the time to respond to it...)

Jesus and Paul both quote Genesis.
Paul quite heavily when calling Jesus the last Adam (I think it's last Adam)


Romans 5:12-21 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=Romans+ 5%3A12-21&x=17&y=11) (if that is what you were looking for)

what I wonder is why try and add all the "what ifs" and it could be possible". what real purpose does that serve other than an endless search for truth. why can't one just stand on Gods word?

There's no symbolism or parabolic (I mean that not metaphore sorry poor choice of words) language even used in Genesis 1. Where's the symbol? Break it down by verse and show us the symbolism.

This is your quote to me:You said it yourself, scripture could be speaking metaphoricaly. This DOES NOT mean that you discard anything you disagree with as being metaphorical. My response is no I didn't say that Genesis 1 was in any way symbolic or parabalic. I do agree that there is symbolism and parables in other parts of the bible. And I would say that trying to add these ingredients to Genesis 1 is discarding it as metaphorical. I in no way have discarded anything because I disagree. In fact I agree with the simple factual words of Genesis 1 as I have made abundantly clear.

I chose to use the bible as my basis for belief in my prior post because there is Godly wisdom in His word. And Godly wisdom is much higher than humanities wisdom (logic). That is said in 1st Cor about the 3rd or 4th chap.

First think I would like to say to "Sky and friends" :) is that unless you have some new line of thinking I would kindly suggest that you stop saying stuff like "If Genesis isn't real all of its moral lessons and practical stuff (such as the 7 day week) are not valid and therefore Christianity is built on a lie" that line of thinking does not wash with me at all.

For example when Jesus told parables such as the Good Samaritan did it really matter that this don't really happen? Because there really wasn't a Good Samaritan somehow the morals that Jesus shows us through the use of this passage are somehow irrelevent? Of course not! Just as wether or not the story of Creation is 100% accurate or not is irrelevent. The morals that we get from this story are what matters.

I also honestly don't see why God would inspire Genesis as a metaphor "because the simpler people wouldn't understand 'atom' or other such complicated terms.'" Since when do we understand everything that is in the Bible? Since when does God put it one way for one group of people then change it later on when science progresses? And since when is evolution, or creation by the world, not God, more complicated and God-glorifying than God creating EVERYTHING from nothing? (Conservation of matter, hm?)

Your'e making a few assumptions here Ria which are

1] God wanted us to know how we were created (In that case why did he want us to know? Why should God reveal his secrets to us?)
2] Assuming God did want us to know how we were created he wanted to let us know at the time of Moses (Unlikley if it was a more scientific solution than what was in the Bible, why would God want to accelerate scientific discovery?)
3] Since when is Evolution "creation by the world"? You are assuming that God did not play a major role in Evolution.

Someone said this, and it's right: if you can make Genesis into metaphor because it's too hard to understand otherwise, then it's too easy to make Christ into metaphor. Personally, I believe that what is metaphorical in the Bible is clearly indicated to be so -- and Genesis is referenced throughout all the rest of the Bible (yes, in the New Testament! -- and yes, the Old Testament is as God-inspured, true, and IMPORTANT to our knowledge of God as the New Testament is) as fact, not fiction. Why would God tell a lie to his people until they found out the "truth" apart from him, then smile sheepishly and say, "Oh, I guess you were right"?

I have already brought this example up before but I'll bring it up again and flesh it out abit.

Lets assume that their was a 3 year old kid who found out that his parents were having a Baby. The kid asks his parents where he came from. The parents who do not believe that there kid is ready to know the full truth reply "Babies happen when mummy and daddy love each other very much." By doing this they have pushed good morals (i.e Love in this case) without telling the whole truth yet which they believe the Kid is not ready for. Once the kid grows up some more he starts to learn how babies are really made the love aspect that the parents pushed on the teenager does not become any less important. Infact it may become even MORE important. In the same way God may have told the story of Creationism to instill such values that you and Sky have listed before me. Just because we now have a clearer picture of what actually happened doesn't make the values from Genesis irrelevent. Indeed they may infact be more important than ever before.

what I wonder is why try and add all the "what ifs" and it could be possible". what real purpose does that serve other than an endless search for truth. why can't one just stand on Gods word?

Because not only do you have to stand on Gods word you have to understand his word which is an endless search for truth. The day you stop leaning about God is a sad day indeed.

My response is no I didn't say that Genesis 1 was in any way symbolic or parabalic. I do agree that there is symbolism and parables in other parts of the bible.

I never said you did. However it is a possibility, and its a possibility that for whatever reason, you are unwilling to even contemplate.

I chose to use the bible as my basis for belief in my prior post because there is Godly wisdom in His word. And Godly wisdom is much higher than humanities wisdom (logic).* That is said in 1st Cor about the 3rd or 4th chap.

And once again this does nothing really to explain why Genesis is accurate. There is Godly wisdom in his word but the words he speaks does not necessarily have to be literal.


As for you Sky, I think I replied to most of you basic arguments in my thread to ria. If you disagree just ask me again for an answer ;)

Anytime in the Bible that Jesus uses a parable he makes it quite clear that it's a parable. Genesis doesn't use metaphorical language nor does it try and say this is a parable. It simply states "In the beginning God" The tense used at the end of each section it says "THE first day" "THE second day" these are definite tenses. An absolute statement. Not really a figurative way to speak...

Reason I think that Genesis must be literal is that it is quoted sooo often as literal. "Have u not read that he who made them in the beginning made them male and female?"


If Genesis is allegory and metaphorical even though it doesn't SAY its metaphorical then that CAN be applied to anywhere else!
------------------


Just wondering. If evolutionary theory had never been written, what would u believe about the creation of the earth?

Havn't got time to answer the rest so I'll just answer this and write more later!

Just wondering. If evolutionary theory had never been written, what would u believe about the creation of the earth?

Since when have I said that evolution was the way the earth was created? I have merley stated that the Creation story as you know it does not hold water regardless of wether evolution happened or not. For example have a read of this article here:

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/starligh.htm

The question is Sky is that if you have lived in 1500AD would you have believed that the earth was flat and the the sun moved around the earth?

Anytime in the Bible that Jesus uses a parable he makes it quite clear that it's a parable. Genesis doesn't use metaphorical language nor does it try and say this is a parable. It simply states "In the beginning God" The tense used at the end of each section it says "THE first day" "THE second day" these are definite tenses. An absolute statement. Not really a figurative way to speak...

Reason I think that Genesis must be literal is that it is quoted sooo often as literal. "Have u not read that he who made them in the beginning made them male and female?"



Leviticus 11 isn't metaphorical. It's full of direct commands and instructions of what to and not to eat. but embedded in those instructions is leviticus 11: 20 "'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you"

well, there's no such thing as a 4 legged insect (do we need to step back into elementary school?).
God can't even make a four-legged insect. That's like asking him to make a triangle with four sides. By definition, it can't be done.

Insects have six legs and a God-inspired book cannot have a single error. So it's either literal and wrong, or it means something else.
The verse isn't literally talking about a bug that has four legs, it means insects that crawl and walk on the ground.
God doesn't make it clear that it's a metaphor either.
I don't see anywhere in this chapter where God says, "and by 'all fours' i'm not speaking literally."

This verse is metaphorical without identification that it is.

btw, your comment about jesus being a monkey... the bible said God made man separate. How many times have I said this before?

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/starligh.htm


I don't think God created the illusion of light it says quite clearly that on day 4 God created the sun, moon and stars and he set them in space to give light to the earth.

Firstly anytime I've read anything about God creating stars they always assume that the speed of light is a constant. IT IS NOT! Light is heavily affected by gravitational forces! We don't know what's between the stars and the earth could be a planet large enough to pull the light in 5 or 6 times its normal speed then it shoots out other side just as fast!

Another thing God was specific that these 'lights' in the sky were to shine light on the earth. So he put them in the sky with their light shining on the earth. He wasn't going to wait around a few billion years for it to it naturally. God made the laws of nature he can change them and twist them at ANY time he likes. He can make planets turn backwards, stop time, walk on water, command the elements to obey.
------------

Just an idea along this, first God created the stars THEN he put them in space do u think it could be possible that God since he was on earth working on earth made the stars close to earth then placed them where he wanted them to go? Just a strange idea...

--------------

The 4 legged insect thing - I would like to know what that is in Hebrew before I jump to conclusions on it.
Some other translations say

""You are to consider detestable all swarming insects that walk along the ground." NLT

All winged insects are unclean Good News Translation

My Pastor told me a similar thing - it's a term used for crawling on the ground.
----------
BTW God could make a 4 legged insect, its US that have said that ALL insects have 4 legs. To God they are creeping things. If he wants a 4 legged one he can have it.

Actually I do remember reading somewhere about a specie of locust that have 4 legs ???
---------------------
God didn't need to be literal he was using a figure of speech, a pretty well known one too. The Israelites would more than likely would have understood what he meant totally.

If Genesis is allegory and metaphorical even though it doesn't SAY its metaphorical then that CAN be applied to anywhere else!


Why?! Please explain why that is! So many people have said that, yet it makes NO sense to me. One book on my shelf is fiction...thus the rest must be?


Just wondering. If evolutionary theory had never been written, what would u believe about the creation of the earth?


What's the point of that question? To make science out to be a bad thing that pulls people away from God? Since when did Jesus say, "If you believe in Me, and if you believe that the Genesis account is a literal interpretation and not metaphorical/mythical/symoblic, then you will be with my Father in heaven."

And Ria- I have to disagree about Genesis losing its meaning if it isn't literal, word for word interpreted. God can tell us what He wants through stories and fiction, just as He can use science and literal truth. (BTW, I am still not saying that I believe that it is Myth, but I have no problem with it if it is).

Oh, and about your starlight- does gravitational pull affect the speed of light, or just it's trajectory? Isn't light pulled in by our own planet every day? Are you saying that ALL of the light we see is pulled around and sped up by a planet that is in it's way, or a black hole?

Genesis is speaking as if this stuff actually happened exactly as it is written. when you start saying oh this is metaphorical to fit in with some belief you have then that idea can be used ANYWHERE.

Like the ppl who think that Jesus resurrection was spiritual not physical are using the exact same method. they claim that something is metaphorical NOT literal when there is NO evidence at all that it is metaphorical.

Same with Genesis. There isn't any evidence that it is metaphorical. It states definite terms "THE first day, THE second day" etc. Its making absolute truth statements.

When ppl start twisting God's Word away from what it says then that opens the door for EVERYONE to do that.


Simply put People are trying to make the Bible fit with evolution.

What's the point of that question? To make science out to be a bad thing that pulls people away from God?

Science is a good thing. But Evolution is not science. It canot be tested, cannot be observed. It must be accepted by faith. So it is not science it IS a religion.


God can tell us what He wants through stories and fiction, just as He can use science and literal truth.
Yeah and this is what he's saying in Genesis "I created the universe in 6 days just by speaking".


And yes gravity DOES affect the speed of light. Black holes are a perfect example. They suck the light straight in affecting both the lights trajectory AND its speed.

In the interest of searching for truth, if anyone believes that Genesis 1 is symbolic, parabolic, or metaphoric then please break it down verse by verse and show where and why. If it can't be shown then one would have to come to the conclusion that it is not there and it is a literal story. The search for truth in the chapter is over, truth found. As skynes has shown the language used is in definate terms "the first day, the second day".

Letting Gods word be the final word over humanities wisdom should be what we stand on. God is truth, His word is true. The idea that God would tell an untrue story (which is totally different than symbolism, parables, or metaphorical language) would go against His very nature. Satan is the Father of Lies, and that fact is the truth.

What's the point of that question? To make science out to be a bad thing that pulls people away from God?

Science is a good thing. But Evolution is not science. It canot be tested, cannot be observed. It must be accepted by faith. So it is not science it IS a religion.


i know what you're thinking (some of you) and here's a dictionary definition from Webster's

"4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

evolution is based on faith therefore it is a religion

There's evidence that the Isrealites weren't even the ones who came up with Genesis, that they based it off of the Babylonian creation story, the Enuma Elish.

Also, if you are saying that every part of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, then we must do so. There's a verse that says that God holds Isreal or His people in the shadow of His wing. God has wings? He's a bird! There's a verse that says God holds the earth firm, that it does not move. It doesn't move? The sun and stars revolve around the earth! The earth is the center of the universe! ......get my point? That's what the churches did in the 16-18 centuries- missinterpreted a great many verses by trying to take them literally, when they were not meant to be, and thus branded many of the scientific pioneers of the time as heretics for 'going against' the Word.

To me (this is just my opinion), I think the point of Genesis was not to show science at work, but to simply show the Glory and Power of God. God created the world, God created man in His image, Man sinned and was thrown out, but God made a plan to free man from sin. We can learn all of that without taking any of it literally, word for word. You still can take it literally, and that's fine. But you do not have to.

Well this is what we do with it. God is all knowing, all powerfull, and ever present. Therefore His hand was in control when the bible was written and compiled. Therefore again I say it would go against His very nature to use a literal story that was untrue being that He is the God of truth.

What's the point of that question? To make science out to be a bad thing that pulls people away from God?

Science is a good thing. But Evolution is not science. It canot be tested, cannot be observed. It must be accepted by faith. So it is not science it IS a religion.


i know what you're thinking (some of you) and here's a dictionary definition from Webster's

"4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

evolution is based on faith therefore it is a religion

please. According to this anything you believe turns into a religion.
I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I guess the sun is now a religion. I have faith that I exist. does that make me a religion? I also have faith that when I flush my toilet the nasty stuff goes down the pipe. I guess toilet flushing is a religion now, huh?
just like christianity is a religion. I better start praying to my toilet and devoting my life to it since i have faith in it.

What is a religion without practicing its teachings?
What if i believed in God and did nothing to live like the bible says?
That religion becomes a belief, nothing more. Nothing to practice, maintain, no lifestyle change. Just a belief.

Evolution is a theory that requires faith, yes. BUT just how does one practice evolution? You can practice christianity, bhuddism, etc etc but evolution has no god and has no teachings.
i know one of you will try to say, 'Man is the god evolution and by doing nothing you're practicing it so its religion' well I said it for you so you don't have to mention it.

next time, don't pick out one definition out of four just because you find it handy in an argument. the other definitions, that you conveniently failed to list, all had moral values and practices in their definition.

Also, if you are saying that every part of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, then we must do so.


I said Genesis 1. Please go back and read my last couple of posts.

I've seen alot of arguments that because God doesn't specifically say that Genesis is a metaphor that means that it must be a literal account. I have also seen critisim that if you can take a book like Genesis and say that it is a metaphor then you can do that with any other book of the Bible. I'm going to attempt to answer both these aguments so bear with me folks, this post could be a long one ;)

As far as I am aware The major difference between the book of Gensis and the other books of the Bible is that Genesis was written a loooooooooong time after the events in question. The other books of the Bible were all written shortly after the events in question.

Why is this important? Because, if say, the Exodus didn't happen why would Moses write about it? Don't you think Moses would have questioned God if he had asked him to write events that he was meant to have done but infact never did? The same can be said for the authors of the rest of the books in the Bible to the best of my knowlede (I am no Biblical Scholar, so correct me if I'm wrong) they were all writing about Events that just happened to them or events within a generation or two of the events in question (i.e there would have still been a somewhat reliable "word of mouth" history of the event in question) and it would seem odd that they would write something down that they themselves new to be untrue. So from this argument you could say that, unless otherwise indicated, the Bible was meant to be interpretated literally.

This argument does not hold true for Genesis because neither Moses or any other Human in recent history could have witnessed those events. This allows God to then create up a story about how the world came into being because the people couldn't say "Hey, wait a minute, I wasn't there, that didn't happen that way!"

So then the question obviously becomes why would God tell us something that isn't true? However I think an even more imporant question is why did he feel the need to explain to us how he created the Universe? That is a tricky question to answer and no matter what answer we come up with it will be a highly speculative answer since it is never answerd in the Bible. I suppose one possible answer would be that God felt a need to show just how powerful he was but this answer has a few problems

1) A simple verse saying "I created everything" would have shown that he was all-powerful, there was no need to go into specifics
2) The isralites would have witnessed several miricals. You would think that they would have known that he was an all-powerful God by now.

Another answer is that prehaps the Isralites demanded to know how the World came about; after all the Babylonians had a creation story, the Egyptions had a creation story, why couldn't they? As you are well aware the Isralites were a demanding bunch (for example there wish for a King) so this isn't totally out of the realm of possibility. God, not wanting to explain the real way he had done (there could be many reasons for this, one reason that I have already given is that he did not feel that they were ready to know the full answer) gave the Isralites a story that reinforced key concepts such as Man being the most important of his Creation etc but not necessarily the whole truth. This is highly speculatve of course, but it is a possiblity and when you add it to the wealth of Scientific knowledge that we have accumulated over the years means that you shouldn't automatically rule out something along the lines of this senario.

This anwsers the question "Why did God not tell us that it was a metaphor" because the answer could be "Because he didn't really want us to know"

Of course the whole Creation story has problems, even if you don't take into account Scientific theroies such as Evolution. Why would God take 6 + 1 days to create the Universe? If he was all powerful shorley he could do it in a second! Why is there no mention of Dinosaurs? Beyond a few mentions of a Behemoth, which lets face it, could mean any large creature there is no mention of them! I don't know about you but if there were creatures as big and as vicious as a T-Rex wandering around you would think they would get some mention somewhere.

And once you bring in Scientfic discoveries than the entire story of Creation falls apart. Regardless of wether or not God used Evolution or not it is fairly clear that the traditional 6 day creation does not hold water. For example, starlight, your answer does not hold water skyness. Have a read of this:

http://www.vttoth.com/LIGHT/light.htm

However even if Gravity does affect the speed of light it would have to do it to an AMAZING level to reach the earth in any reasonable time (say, 6000 years)

Another thing God was specific that these 'lights' in the sky were to shine light on the earth. So he put them in the sky with their light shining on the earth. He wasn't going to wait around a few billion years for it to it naturally. God made the laws of nature he can change them and twist them at ANY time he likes. He can make planets turn backwards, stop time, walk on water, command the elements to obey.

And by saying that you run into the exact same problems that the author of the article I pointed to you said that young creationists fall into. If you don't understand what I'm refering to go back to the article again. It explains it much better than I ever could.

So even if Evolution does not hold together as a theroy there is still more than enough evidence out there to show that the story of Creation is not necessarly accurate.

I've typed for way to long now.

This allows God to then create up a story about how the world came into being because the people couldn't say "Hey, wait a minute, I wasn't there, that didn't happen that way!"

So you're telling me that because we weren't around to witness creation, it's okay for God to make up a story about what happened -- i.e. lie -- since we can't call him on it?

Show me where God has done this elsewhere in the Bible! If I'm correct, none of other metaphorical passages give a metaphorical explanation of a specific event as a replacement for the actual history of that event.

If what you're saying is true, then God essentially told his children that they were brought about by storks until they were old enough to understand biology. That means he told them a lie to pacify them until they could learn better apart from him.

I really don't care whether or not a 6-day creation is scientifically accurate. Scientifically, it is not possible to create something of nothing, thereby making a 6-day creation view scientifically inaccurate anyway. I believe God isn't bound by science, and I believe he wouldn't pacify me with an untrue explanation.

So if you really believe Genesis 1 is metaphorical, do as so many have asked and break it down, passage by passage, to show my what parts are metaphorical for what. Until you do, your belief does not hold water for me personally. And a BONUS!! If you do this, and it's reasonable (and I tend to be pretty tolerant of arguments -- I might not agree with them, but I'll concede when it's true that they could be true), then you'll have at least me who concedes that your viewpoint is a valid one :) And I'm really interested for myself. I honestly don't want to continue on with my own viewpoint if it's wrong, so if you could show me how it's wrong in this way, I'd appreciate it.

Oh, and we could argue back and forth for eternity on whether God would use 6 days or a million billion trillion kazillion years to create the earth. We don't know God's mind and why he would do something -- the argument works on either side: why do it in six days when he could do it in a second? .... but why do it in billions of years and decieve his children? essentially, when you have an argument that works for both sides, repeating it endlessly gets you nowhere. :)

So then the question obviously becomes why would God tell us something that isn't true?


Answer-He wouldn't. The bible tells us that God is true, that He is not the author of confusion, and His word is God breathed. It is against His very nature to lie. We all know that to believe in God, Christ, and his word that there it takes faith. I choose to put my faith in Him and His word being the truth.

So you're telling me that because we weren't around to witness creation, it's okay for God to make up a story about what happened -- i.e. lie -- since we can't call him on it?

Let me guess, you believe everything is either black or white there is no inbetween. Lets first look at the dictionary definition of "lie" (from dictionary.com)

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Now, whatever way you look at things, God has lied if we accept that there are no "half-truths" or whatever.

If Genesis is methaphorical then God has lied to us because the story of Creation is "a false statment deliberately presented as being true"

If Genesis is literal then God has lied to us because there is more than enough evidence scattered around that implies that the earth is older than 6000 years. In otherwords he has made "something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."

Show me where God has done this elsewhere in the Bible! If I'm correct, none of other metaphorical passages give a metaphorical explanation of a specific event as a replacement for the actual history of that event.

That is faulty reasoning ;) Thats kinda like me asking you to point out to me one person except for Jesus who was born from a virgin womb. Oh, what you can't!?! Therefore Jesus could not be born a virgin. Its silly reasoning. Just because it only happened once doesn't mean it hasn't happened at all.

If what you're saying is true, then God essentially told his children that they were brought about by storks until they were old enough to understand biology. That means he told them a lie to pacify them until they could learn better apart from him.

And why couldn't this be the case? God often relates himself to a father figure. How many fathers do you know that explain the facts of life to their young child? It would be irresponsable of him to do this! Knowledge in the minds of the young is a very dangerous thing indeed. Maybe God wanted to delay men getting this kind of knowledge. Maybe he didn't want us to explore science at all!?! Maybe the whole "tree of knowlege" aspect of Creation is really symbolizing Science!?! Because of science,in many ways we are becoming like God, just as the serpent intended. For example, God could wipe out the world with a flood, we can wipe out the world with our nuclear weapons. Now why would God want to speed up that process?

So if you really believe Genesis 1 is metaphorical, do as so many have asked and break it down, passage by passage, to show my what parts are metaphorical for what. Until you do, your belief does not hold water for me personally.

I'm not going to touch that with a 50 foot pole! Just because I believe that Genesis is metaphorical doesn't mean I know exactly what he is trying to communicate to us. You see establishing if something is metaphorical or not and what that metaphor is trying to communicate is 2 different questions! i.e.

1) Is Genesis a metaphor
2) If so what is it trying to communicate to us.

The 2nd Question would take a life time to decode if at all. My rant on Science above (which btw I just thought up on the spot) is one example of how you could interpret aspects of Genesis. Although probably a poor one....

Oh, and we could argue back and forth for eternity on whether God would use 6 days or a million billion trillion kazillion years to create the earth. We don't know God's mind and why he would do something -- the argument works on either side: why do it in six days when he could do it in a second? .... but why do it in billions of years and decieve his children? essentially, when you have an argument that works for both sides, repeating it endlessly gets you nowhere.

Yes, you are 100% correct. But it still doesn't answer why he felt it was necessary to tell us the indepth process of creation.

So if you really believe Genesis 1 is metaphorical, do as so many have asked and break it down, passage by passage, to show my what parts are metaphorical for what. Until you do, your belief does not hold water for me personally.

I forgot to say this to about your challenge. If you have a look at Jesus's parables not every verse had a special meaning, it is only as a whole that the parable made sense. It is therefore impossible to do what you ask even if I did know everything there is to know about Genesis.

Simply put the theory of evolution has caused ppl to doubt God and fall away from their faith. THAT IS NOT FROM GOD.

God wants ppl to turn TO him NOT away from him! Evolution has destroyed many ppl's faith in God! Why would God use a process that destroys ppl? Why use a method that denies his existence? Why sue a purely naturalistic method that ppl use to explain he doesnt exist?

If Genesis is literal then God has lied to us because there is more than enough evidence scattered around that implies that the earth is older than 6000 years. In otherwords he has made "something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."

That is crap. There isnt ANY evidence that the earth is over 6000yrs old. C14 and PA only work within a certain time limit and are HEAVILY affected by outside interference. E.g. weather.

Genesis is true. The Bible is true, what God says is true.
God did not lie or deceive in that the earth is 6000yrs old, he tells the truth. Men lie. So who am I going to believe? A bunch of humans who lie and have admitted that they would deny ANY evidence that contradicts evolution. Or the God who only speaks truth? HMMMMMMM

According to this anything you believe turns into a religion.
I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I guess the sun is now a religion. I have faith that I exist. does that make me a religion? I also have faith that when I flush my toilet the nasty stuff goes down the pipe. I guess toilet flushing is a religion now, huh?


This thread is just getting stupid now. And frankly its pissing me off, this isn't a debate anymore, its stupidity central 101. Words are being twisted, things are being pulled out of context and my patience is running out with it.

you do not have faith that the sun will rise you KNOW it will rise! Same for flushing the toilet. you KNOW it will happen. HUGE difference.

Evolution is a theory that requires faith, yes. BUT just how does one practice evolution?

You practice it by being naturalistic, materialistic and athiest.

Evolution is a naturalistic religion. They deny God because he is NOT naturalistic, he is super-natural. any reason that isn't natural they write-off despite ANY evidence for it.
----------------------

I forgot to say this to about your challenge. If you have a look at Jesus's parables not every verse had a special meaning

All the parables I can think of DO have a special meaning for every single verse and line. It ALL meant something.
-----------------------


What evidence is there for evolution?
I have asked this question MANY times here. NOT ONCE has my question been acknowledged. I want you to say some hard solid evidence for evolution. If u can...

Simply put the theory of evolution has caused ppl to doubt God and fall away from their faith. THAT IS NOT FROM GOD.

No, the theroy of evolution was devised by Man. But it is not against God. It is simply away that God may of chosen to bring this universe into being. There are millions upon millions of christians out there (not to mention people from other faiths) who believe that evolution and God can exist, why can't you?

God wants ppl to turn TO him NOT away from him! Evolution has destroyed many ppl's faith in God! Why would God use a process that destroys ppl? Why use a method that denies his existence? Why sue a purely naturalistic method that ppl use to explain he doesnt exist?

This line of thinking is totally wrong. Even before Darwin even thought about the possibility of Evolution people were still turning away from God (or at least a Christian view point of God) for many different reasons, most of them non-scientific. Philosophy is a far bigger enemy to the Christian religion than Evolution will ever be. Evolution is always netrual. Philosophy isn't.

That is crap. There isnt ANY evidence that the earth is over 6000yrs old. C14 and PA only work within a certain time limit and are HEAVILY affected by outside interference. E.g. weather.

Really? Have a read of these articles then.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/672293/posts
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970414a.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

There is plenty of proof in any one of those articles

As for the whole C-14 thing here is an answer to that

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/2.html

Genesis is true. The Bible is true, what God says is true.
God did not lie or deceive in that the earth is 6000yrs old, he tells the truth. Men lie. So who am I going to believe? A bunch of humans who lie and have admitted that they would deny ANY evidence that contradicts evolution. Or the God who only speaks truth? HMMMMMMM

First of you are assuming that all scientists who assert than evolution happened don't believe in God. Why would they lie if they believe in God? That would be incredibly stupid of them. On top of that there are many more scientists who are genuinely out there looking for the truth what ever that may be. Only a very small percentage of people would be that close-minded.

Second of all it is fair to say that you would never ever ever believe in an old earth no matter how rock solid the evidence would be. You are just as close-minded as the few scientists who would never change their views.

Third of all, I have given examples as to why God did not want us to know how the Universe was created. If Genesis was a metaphor, it does not change one thing at all.

Fourth of all it doesn't matter how long your HMMMMMMMMM is, it doesn't add anything to your argument at all ;)

u do not have faith that the sun will rise you KNOW it will rise! Same for flushing the toilet. you KNOW it will happen. HUGE difference.

No we do not know it will Rise! Not untill it happens do we know it for 100% sure. For all I know the entire earth could be vaporised by a giant coment while I sleep.

You practice it by being naturalistic, materialistic and athiest.

Evolution is a naturalistic religion. They deny God because he is NOT naturalistic, he is super-natural. any reason that isn't natural they write-off despite ANY evidence for it.

Evolution is not a religion, i'm sorry it just isn't. I could ellaborate but the following article is more than adequete.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_relig_religion.htm

Second of all, just because you believe in Evolution doesn't make you an atheist. Here are just a few people/organizations.

Darwin: Thats right, the man who was responsible for the theroy of evolution himself was not an atheist! There is some debate between wether he was a Deist or an Agnostic however he never said there was no God. Therefore he was not an Atheist.

Albert Enistien: While I believe he was against Organized Religion and a personal God, he was definitely not against the idea of a God. Once again not an Atheist. Indeed he has many quotes on religion such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

Lorence G. Collins: Not as famous as the last two but I link to his website further on. This guy says that he is a Christian and devouts his life to Jesus. You can read this here:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bible.htm

The Catholic Church: Say what you like against these guys but they are not at all Athiests. The Pope has made it known that evolution could have been the way God operated.

The Presbyterian Church: They also say there is no conflict between Evolution and God.

So to sum up

Evolution != Atheism, never has been, never will be!
Evolution != Religon, never has been, never will be!

All the parables I can think of DO have a special meaning for every single verse and line. It ALL meant something.

Okay how about this verse from the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew Chapter 20 verse 2)

"He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vinyard."

Now on its own, are you really going to say it means something!?! You wouldn't even know it was from a parable if I didn't tell you! I will say this again, it is impossible for you to bisect something like Genesis line for line. It needs to be viewed as a whole.


[i]What evidence is there for evolution?
I have asked this question MANY times here. NOT ONCE has my question been acknowledged. I want you to say some hard solid evidence for evolution. If u can...[i]

I am not willing to type up evidence for Evolution. Why should I? You have shown no willingness to debate the topic, whatever I write you will go "nope, that can't be true, God said it wasn't."

However just to amuse you here are several websites dedicated to the topic of Evolution.


http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://sciboard.louisville.edu/evol.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

And here are some websites that argue against Creationism

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/index.html
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/creation.html

Have fun, Chill out and God Bless.

Proverbs 30
5Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Colossians 2
8Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

This is what you are doing when you say that the earth was created over millions of years ~ putting the knowledge of men before God's Word!

2 Corinthians 10
4For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,

Ephesians 4
14that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,

Genesis 1

(1) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[1] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
9Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[2] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
29And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. 31Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The Hebrew word yom and its plural form yamim are used over 1900 times in the Old Testament. . . . Outside of the Genesis 1 case in question, the two-hundred plus occurrences of yom preceded by ordinals all refer to a normal twenty-four hour day. Furthermore, the seven-hundred plus appearances of yamim always refer to a regular day. Thus, it is argued that the Exodus 20:11 reference to the six yamim of creation must also refer to six regular days.

God was very specific in using such words to preclude any such misunderstanding. For example, He defined the word "day" the very first time He used it. "God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5). The word "day" in Genesis does not mean a geological period!

If Genesis doesn't mean what it says, then why accept its historicity at all? If God did not mean what He said in the very first chapter of His book, then why should we take the rest of it seriously?

In any case, the only way we can know anything about the date of creation (and remember that the word "science" means knowledge!) is for God—who was there—to tell us when He did it. And, of course, He has told us, in His inspired Word. The question is, do we really believe what He says?

Christians who go along with the standard "old–earth" model of the evolutionists need to realize that they are going against the strong testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, for He clearly affirmed the truth of recent creation. Jesus Christ was the Creator of all things (note John 1:1-3,10; Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2,10; etc.) and so knows far more about when He created the world than all the modern evolutionary geologists and Big Bang astronomers combined. Christ says there have been people on the earth since the very beginning of the world–and He ought to know, for He was there!

Christians have to realize that if they accept an old age for the earth, this view did not come from the Bible; it comes from outside the Bible. Thus, when they insist that we accept the "billions of years" theory, they really are telling us to accept the fallible words of fallible scientists, whose theories change, who were not there, who don't know everything—to tell God what He means! Thus they have put man in judgment of God. Man becomes the authority.

Later studies, using the very expansion that Hubble discovered, arrived at an estimate of about nine billion years for the universe age. This created a paradox for astronomers because some stars were known to be more ancient and it is impossible for stellar bodies to be older than the universe where they formed.

the Freedman group arrived at the estimate of 13 to 14 billion years.

-----------------------

These studies clearly show that the Earth is at least 3.9 Billion years old, because that is the age of the oldest rocks. The oldest meteorites are about 5 Billion years old.

-----------------------

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

-----------------------

This implies an age for the Universe of about 13-14 Gyr.

-----------------------

phil1984 those sites you gave links to to prove the Universe is billions of years old ALL had a different ages....even scientist cant agree on one specific age of the earth! The ages they give for stars and planets and even the Earth are constantly changing from 4 billion years way up to 14 billions years old! this proves nothing as to how old the Universe is because they cant even decide for themselves!!!


here are some sites for you to have a look at......

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm
Fossil Record Overview - Missing Transitional Forms

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/events.htm
Why Not Genesis? - the Creation Events

I have to go to bed right now (nearly 1 pm here!) but I'll quickly answer the first part of your last post.

A difference of a few Billion years is NOTHING when you are looking at a figure that is 10 Billion+. The one thing that these scientists can all agree on is that the Universe is very very old. How old is still up for debate.

[i]What evidence is there for evolution?
I have asked this question MANY times here. NOT ONCE has my question been acknowledged. I want you to say some hard solid evidence for evolution. If u can...[i]

I am not willing to type up evidence for Evolution. Why should I? You have shown no willingness to debate the topic, whatever I write you will go "nope, that can't be true, God said it wasn't."


i'd really like you to type up some evidence and i'll use sound proof to debate it, and if i don't have sound proof i won't debate it, how's that??

A difference of a few Billion years is NOTHING when you are looking at a figure that is 10 Billion+. The one thing that these scientists can all agree on is that the Universe is very very old. How old is still up for debate.


Maybe those scientists can all agree? Well here's a list of those who don't.
Robert Boyle, Micheal Faraday, James Joule, William Thompson aka Lord Kelvin, Johannes Kepler, Carl Linnaeus, Mathew Maury, James Clerk Maxwell, Samuel Morse, Issac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Sir Henry Rawlinson, George Stokes, Joseph Lister, Albert Einstein, and the list goes on. I only scratched the surface.

Putting all that aside what is bothering me phil is that when we point out what the bible says about God and his nature you tell us that doesn't hold water, we have faulty thinking, or are totally wrong in our thinking. When we call for you to point out where the possible symbolism, parable, or metaphore is in Genesis 1 you say it can't be done verse by verse. Fine look at the whole passage and try. Guess what you still can't because it's not there.

Do you believe the bible when it says that God is just and true; and that his word is true? From your posts it doesn't sound as if you do at all. When you say it's possible for God to tell an untruth, it's the equivalent of saying "hey God it's possible that you lie and that would make you a liar". Which goes against what God says about Himself in His word. I think your debate/arguement is with God and His word The Bible. So take it to God then.

I still don't see why God would tell something that is not true to his children only to change it later. What basis do we have to trust him as the beginning of all truth, then?

One simple, humble question, though, and I'll do my best to pull myself away from my other arguments. phil, others who believe in an evolutionistic view of creation (no, I'm not insisting that one cancels out the other, though I think logically they do), can you start presenting Biblical evidence at least in addition to evidence from science sites and such? That's why we want you to show us Genesis 1 verse-by-verse -- we trust Biblical evidence first. Or me, at least.

So while the scientific evidence is all fine and good -- I'm not saying science is bad or that it can't be used to prove anything -- I just truly want to reconcile scientific evidence with my knowledge of the Bible before I believe it over the Bible. If I've passed over stuff you've offered in the past, point it out to me. I'd just like to see the science sites put aside for a bit and the Bible brought out to back up your beliefs.

^ Thats why I disagree with what ppl have said using my so called "nope, that can't be true, God said it wasn't." argument.

When something in science or church or the world contradicts the bible it is WRONG end of story.
I don't care how much money or time is invested in it.
I don't care what it has done for ppl
I don't care what authorities or denominations back it up.

If it goes against scripture - It is wrong.

And from my studies of evolution and the scriptures the two cannot be mixed. They teach contradictory things.
-----------------

One thought I had today.

Anyone here know about frames of reference? It's basing times and events on a point fo view (sorta)

like the way for me the time is 6:00pm. But for America its only about 1pm right?

Well since God is "hovering over those waters" He is on earth. So time will be relative to the earth since that is where Genesis takes place. Since the earth is the frame of reference, dates, times and events will be based on earth. So the 'days' in genesis must actually be days, because it is the earth that Genesis is talking about?

What do u think of that?

^ Thats why I disagree with what ppl have said using my so called "nope, that can't be true, God said it wasn't." argument.

When something in science or church or the world contradicts the bible it is WRONG end of story.
I don't care how much money or time is invested in it.
I don't care what it has done for ppl
I don't care what authorities or denominations back it up.

If it goes against scripture - It is wrong.

And from my studies of evolution and the scriptures the two cannot be mixed. They teach contradictory things.

While I agree with you if it goes against the Bible, it's wrong, I'm not ruling out quite yet that evolution goes against the Bible. I already feel bad for being a little harsh in this thread, and I'd like to make up for it -- I honestly want to have Biblical evidence for evolution presented, or at least pointed out to me if I read over it and forgot about it. I wasn't trying to make an accusation.

thanks :)

All right, here goes...
Before I say anything else, I want to say that I think what everyone else here has said- every point of view and every angle to that point of view- has been valid and worth its own merit.
This will be my first and ONLY really really long post, I SWEAR.
In case you don't wanna read all the details, I put numbers by my basic opinions and statements so you can just skim over and casually see what points I'm trying to make.
And finally, this is just my OPINION, which can be subject to change-

Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days
excerpts taken from The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross

To start, here are some early church scholars who believed in long creation days in order to prove that this isn't just a modern, secularized opinion-

St. Irenaeus - "The Glory of God is man fully alive". (2nd century)
Augustine(5th century)
Aquinas(13th century
Basil(4th century)

1)A long period of time is acceptable with the Hebrew definitions of yowm, 'ereb, and boqer.
-The Hebrew word YOWM, translated "Day", is used in four ways in the bible- Sunrise to sunset, sunset to sunset, a segment of time with no clear reference to solar days (including years), and an age or epoch of time. 'EREB and BOQER transalte respectively to "Evening" and "Morning". The latter has possible metaphoric usage in the Hebrew language.
Many of you have said that because Yowm is used elswhere in the bible to state a 24 hour period, it must thus be translated the same in Genesis. This is inconclusive. The Bible, after all, has no other occasion to ennumerate long periods or epochs of time. Furthermore, no Hebrew rule of grammer states that Yowm, when attached to an ordinal, MUST be used only to explain a 24 hour period.

2.) The unusual syntax of sentences enumerating specific creation days suggests indefinite time periods.
-Looking at the word for word Hebrew text, one finds this phrasology- "and was evening and was morning day Xth." The NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION renders the time markers in this way- "And there was evening and there was morning- the Xth day." The word arrangement, in both cases, is a departure from the simple and ordinary. It creates an AMBIGUITY. If "day Xth" were intended as the noun complement for the one evening and morning together, the linking verb should just appear once, in plural form- As the KING JAMES VERSION renders it- "And the evening and the morning were the Xth day". We would expect the literal Hebrew to say, "and were evening and morning day Xth". But, this is not the case- the syntactic ambiguity does not constitute a proof. But this does suggest an indefinite period of time for each phase of creation.

3.) The Seventh day in Genesis 1 and 2 is not closed out.
-'On the seventh day God rested from all his work.'...it still remains that some will enter that rest. ... there remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from His. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest (Hebrews 4:4-10 NIV)
He indicates here that the seventh day of creation carries on through the centuries.

4.) the events of Day six cover more than 24 hours.
-Genesis 1 tells us that all the land animals and BOTH Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. First, God plants the garden of Eden, making "all kinds of trees to grow out of the ground." Then Adam worked and cared for the garden of Eden. After that, he carried out his assignment from God to name ALL the animals( remember that there are thousands of them!). In the process Adam discovered that none of these creatures was a suitable helper. Next, God puts Adam to sleep, performed an operation, awakened Adam, and introduced him to the newly created Eve. Finally, Adam and Eve recieved instructions from God concerning their responsibility to manage the plants, animals, and resources of the earth. Many weeks', months', or even years' worth of activites could have taken place in this latter portion of the sixth day.

5.) The wording of Genesis 2:4 suggests a long time span for the creation week.
-In LITERAL HEBREW- "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day of their making...". Here, the word DAY refers to all six creation days. Obviously, it refers to a period longer than 24 hours.

6.) When describing the eternity of God's existence, Bible writers compare it to the longevity of the mountains or of the "foundations of the earth".
-Psalm 90: 2-6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Ecclesiastes 1:3-11, Micah 6:2. Furthermore, Habakkuk 3:6 directly declares the mountains to be "ancient", while II Peter 3:5 states that the heavens existed "long ago".

7.) The Sabbath day for man and the sabbath year for the land are based on analogy with God's work week.
-That's pretty self-explanatory. Ross does have alot to say onit, but I think it ain't necessary for me to repeat it here.

8.) (this is not in Ross's book, this is my own argument) The sun, which is the basis for our measurement of the 24 hour day period, was not created until the onset of the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19).
-This means that the first three days could have been any number of hours. Also, it is worht noting that the word day, in our universe, does not always refer to a 24 hour period anyway. Days on planets further from the sun are much, much longer, and days on planets close to the sun are shorter. (EDIT- Also, the size of the planet and the speed of its rotation on its axis are factors, not just the distance from the sun, though the latter is a factor). This is only an observation that not every reference to day necessarily means that it is 24 hour period- "day"- the time it takes for a planet to spin once on its axis as a result of the gravitational forces of the sun and other planets and moons, is not a constant.


Thanx for taking the time to read that. I hope I satisfied some of the answers asked by the literal six day creationists. :) (and a smilie for good measure!!!)

4.) the events of Day six cover more than 24 hours.
-First, God plants the garden of Eden, making "all kinds of trees to grow out of the ground." Then Adam worked and cared for the garden of Eden. After that, he carried out his assignment from God to name ALL the animals. In the process Adam discovered that none of these creatures was a suitable helper. Next, God puts Adam to sleep, performed an operation, awakened Adam, and introduced him to the newly created Eve. Finally, Adam and Eve recieved instructions from God concerning their responsibility to manage the plants, animals, and resources of the earth. Many weeks', months', or even years' worth of activites took place in this latter portion of the sixth day.

Okay, I can see how you can believe those events could take more than 24 hours... I can also see how, for me, God doesn't have to have trees grow at a normal rate of time (he is God, after all :)). So that's acceptable for either side. that's what I was looking for.

#6 is getting pedantic in a way that isn't pedantic, really -- who's going to try to define "long ago"? To me, when my mother was born was "long ago." That's not billions of years.

The rest I really don't have enough knowledge myself to either accept or argue... but good points overall. Thanks for taking it back to the Bible. :)

actually, I agree about #6, it is the weakest of the arguments, but I included it cuz it just helps to show that the bible does refer to the earth as ancient.

And I just wanted to add- Hugh Ross , I believe, is not a thiestic evolutionist. But I think it is possible for evolution to have taken place if the earth is old, but it did not have to. I'm not taking a side as far as that goes (not yet, anyway).

This thread is just getting stupid now. And frankly its pissing me off, this isn't a debate anymore, its stupidity central 101. Words are being twisted, things are being pulled out of context and my patience is running out with it.

you do not have faith that the sun will rise you KNOW it will rise! Same for flushing the toilet. you KNOW it will happen. HUGE difference.


! LOL !

actually, you don't know it will happen. I assume it will since it has in the PAST but the future is unknown to everyone but God. I have faith it will flush but I cannot know for sure.

think about it before you say something. You might actually learn a thing or two instead of trying to dissprove everything.

there's a fine line between blind faith and ignorance.

"Well since God is "hovering over those waters" He is on earth. So time will be relative to the earth since that is where Genesis takes place. Since the earth is the frame of reference, dates, times and events will be based on earth. So the 'days' in genesis must actually be days, because it is the earth that Genesis is talking about?

What do u think of that?"

This is an interesting point, but what came to mind after reading this is: Does God ( a forever-existing and ever-existing being) have a frame of reference? He's everywhere at once right?

Still though, good point skynes.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
Isaiah 11:12* And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH
Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Now if you take those Bible Verses literally then the earth is both FLAT and FIXED. You can't get around that, that is what the Bible says so it must be accurate. Nothing in those passages really indicate that it is meant to be taken metaphorically. Of course now 99.99% of the world believes that this isn't the case. You could say weebird that you are putting the knowledge of men before God's Word!

So why did God do this, well I can think of a few possible options

A) God totally lied to us
B) God doesn't know
C) The Earth really is flat and not moving God just made it so all the evidence pointed that way
D) God doesn't really care for Scientific accurary only imagery.

if you can think of any more options please add them. However with the options at hand we can totally dismiss A and B i think for just being silly ;) Option C opens up an huge moral problems (such as God going out of hiw way to decieve us) which I don't think we really want to get into! Which leaves Option D.

Sure one verse here or there isn't exactly the same as saying an entire Book was only imagery but it does sent a precedent.

You know there are still people out there today that believe the earth is flat. For example have a view with this website that tries to use scientific evidence to proove that the world is flat.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Why are you so sure that you are not being as close minded as they are?


As for the rest of those answers they have to wait. I'm off for a birthday breakfast! :D

Now if you take those Bible Verses literally then the earth is both FLAT and FIXED. You can't get around that, that is what the Bible says so it must be accurate. Nothing in those passages really indicate that it is meant to be taken metaphorically. Of course now 99.99% of the world believes that this isn't the case. You could say weebird that you are putting the knowledge of men before God's Word!


the Bible does NOT teach that the earth is flat so i am NOT taking the word of men over God's Word!

their are other verses in the Bible which state the Earth as being a circle -

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

so here we are told the Earth is a circle, circles have no corners!

this site goes through quite a lot of the verses you have stated above and explains the many ways they can be interpreted and misinterepted, why not have a read throught it.

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html

i thot of something that no one has stated yet. that's a feat for me. ;D

you remember Einstien's theory of relativity? well, one part of it states that a body moving at a faster rate of speed will age faster. we can all agree that the universe is spinning, right? well, what if it was spinning around the Milky Way. not exactly around it, but having the Milky Way in the whereabouts of the Universe's center.

but wait, the scientific community states that the universe has no center! the analogy that i've heard how something can expand yet not have a center is a balloon. you glue bits of stuff on the surface of a balloon, you blow it up, all the bits move apart (like the galaxies are moving apart), but not one of those pieces in in the center of the movement. so the universe must not have a center.

but if the universe expands like the balloon, then it does have a center. the center of the balloon is within the balloon, not on the surface.

so, what if the center of the universe was the Milky Way galaxy. every other galaxy would be moving away from us & spinning around us. but look at a wheel when it spins. the outer edge must spin at a faster rate of speed to keep up with the center as it spins. so they are moving at different rates of speed. so the universe could be doing. as it spins, the outer edges are moving faster, changing their age as they get older. so the outer galaxies would be older than the inner galaxies, causing a discrepancy.

i know this theory is not perfect, but neither am i. ;) i just thot i'd throw this into the discussion & see what ya'll thought.

This thread is beginning to become harmful to me. I'm becoming impatient, nasty and possibly arrogant and for that I'm sorry.

All this is beginning to make me doubt, not just Genesis but my entire faith as a whole. EVERY shred of it. Until I get all this sorted (if ever) I am out of this debate. This isn't me quitting or admitting defeat, it's just that this is no longer an intelligent conversation to me but something that is harmful to me.

I can't take part any more.

Your just right Skynes :) for all that ppl are tellin you and 'science' tells you, dont ever doubt what God's Word tells you........if something does cause you to doubt, pray about it and ask God for guidance. He is the ultimate authority on ALL things, because He created everything!

That's interesting, unshakable. Very cool. :)
That would explain the possible age of certain parts of this universe, but what about here on earth?

i don't know. like i said, it was just a theory i have. :) didn't think it all the way through.

can anyone else figure out how (if it does) my theory ties into the difference in ages of rocks on earth?

Why are you so sure that you are not being as close minded as they are?



.......because i'm trusting God's judgement, I believe He created everything so He KNOWS exactly how everything came into being and His Word is final!

People weren't there, dont know how everything was created, all they have are theories.......I prefer to trust in someone who was there - GOD!

---------------------

Hey unshakeable dat theory is very cool, would like to know more about that.........

I, personally, really like science. The problem with evolution is that the 'scientists' who believe in it adhere to it religiously - they won't accept that something else might be true. I actually wrote an eight page paper disproving evolution in high school English by taking the arguments for evolution and tearing them down one-by-one using nothing but logic and science. The fact is you don't even have to bring the Bible into the debate to prove evolution is a bad theory.

One problem that not many peole bring up is that evolution has never proven itself as it would have to in a court of law. The idea of Intelligent Design was the original theory, and in order for evolution to be accepted, it would have to give enough evidence to challenge Creation. It's like it court where the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They have to prove that the defendant is guilty, just as evolutionists should have to prove that their theory is better than Creation. This has not been done yet, but because of time the burden of proof has shifted to the Creationists when it should be on the evolutionists.

There are a lot of good books out there about the absurdity of evolution, and I suggest you read them before trying to take on your biology teacher.

Xon...that is a interesting theory...while we are on the topic of theories here is mine on dinosaurs and prehistoric man

Ok first the facts.
1 Lucifer had already fallen before the creation of Adam
2 Water had already been created and had flooded the earth which also was already created
3 Lucifer wanted to be greater then God and thought he could.
4 Adam was told to "replenish" the earth which means 'fill again"
5 Lucifer had a kingdom...which was prolly earth because he "ascended" into heaven to try to overthrow God

Ok my theory is that perhaps Lucifer in a futile attempt to be like God tried to create his own world....of animals and men...of course like everything he does it didnt match up to what God could do and he wound up with these hideous creatures we call prehistoric life....after he tried to overthrow heaven and was defeated God destroyed his(Lucifers) kingdom with a flood and the earth stood that way until the point in time that God decided to create the beautiful world that we now know...this also could explain why scientist have never found the so called "missing link"

Like Xon said about his theory...this is just my theory....and what i think and 75 cents will buy you a cup of coffee ;D

I'm new to this forum...however just noticed u said that it was a fact that lucifer had already fallen to earth b4 God made adam...making lucifers' fall b4 the creation..! This is far from factual...infact it is completely untruthful...if say lucifer had fallen to earth b4 the end of the creation...why wud God have looked at the finished product and said it was very good...how could everything be 'very good' if infact luciefer had fallen...therefore ur factual facts are far from factual..!

In response to the idea about prehistoric creatures, who's to say that they weren't part of Creation along with everything else? I mean, since the world was originally perfect, Adam wouldn't have had to worry about being eaten by dinosaurs. After the fall of Man, the creatures of the world could not coexist peacefully. The dinosaurs would then have been destroyed in the flood, which goes along with the fossil record (incomplete as it is). This is just my theory, but I feel it is as sound as any theory about dinosaurs could be.

^ I agree with that. Dinosaurs go under the 'beasts' that God created.

In Job two animals are described - Behemoth and Leviathan. Some translations put Behemoth as a hippo or elephant which is just silly. Behemoth as a tail like a cedar tree. A BIG tail. Read the descrip for urself. It's a Bracchiousaurus.


Also I agree with Ian_Mac (Is that Laura's bro?). I don't think Satan could have fallen yet. Otherwise its not a very good creation.

God made us in 6 days an rested on the 7th

I think that God created us all in 7 days. However, I somewhat believe that God created, then left to evolve. I do not believe that humans have truly evolved, but I do think that we are somewhat different than the ancient humans from when God created the Earth.
I believe that when God created us, we were a whole lot smaller, and that our brains were not as big as they are now, but only because our bodies were smaller. We also probably had flaring cheekbones. Originally, our maximum height was probably only about 4’0”, but as our environment changed over time, we also had to change in order to be superior. We got taller, our brains got larger, and we lost the flaring cheekbones over time. Eventually, we became the modern human that we are today.

I would also agree that God created us...(not in 7 days, but in 6) solely bcus this is what the Bible says...and i am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong (and refuse to believe some dumb evolution theory, which has yet to be proven right) I would have to disagree which your suggestion that God used evloution to produce the humans we now see today. Of course there is micro evolution (adaption) which is clearly visible today [NOTE this is most definitly not the same as macro evolution which is the basis of the 'evolution theory' ie an animal can produce another of a different kind] but there is no explaination what so ever why as God would us such a cruel means of getting us here. One point to note about your theory [Genesis 6:4 tells us that 'There were giants on the earth in those days' I believe it says this simply bcus THERE WERE GIANTS ON THE EARTH IN THOSE DAYS] So to say that humans at the beginning of time where much dumber and not as tall as were are now , with smaller brains would be something far from the truth and based apon no evidence what so ever. (would u have ne evidence at all to cus belief that in fact we have evolved into larger, smarter humans?) In fact evidence to date suggests that at the beginning of creation humans where infact taller and smarter (Well if you lived to be ages of 900, wouldnt u expect to be smarter than the average person nowadays living to a maximum age of 90) So in my opinion you have bought into the stupid evolution theory that we started of being small, stupid animals and have evolved (haha) into the o so smart people (note the sarcasim) where are today. Ian..!

YAY!!! ian IS my bro :D how'd you guess Scott :P heehee

hey slu do you still have the paper. I would love to read it.

"If your god used evolution to get us here then you've got a dumb God...My God did it right first time and didn't have to play around and use death, misfits, and sufffering to do it..!"

I have noticed some people here would believe that the Bible produces no such evidence that would disprove the theory of evolution could take place..? Am I right..? infact they would even go as far as to say there is no reason to deny the possibilty that God could have used evolution to create man... Well here's a few points to consider..!

1) The Lord Jesus tells us in Matthew 19:4 "Have you not read that He who made them at the BEGINNING made them male and female" This clearly tells us that man was made in the BEGINNING, not a few billions years afterwards.

2) The Bible tells us man brought death into the world (Romans 5:12, 1Corinthians 15:21)...Evolution says death brought man into the world..!

3) At the end of the sixth day God looked at the earth and said it was 'very good' However if God used evolution to get us here then tell me...how could everything be 'very good' if infact God would have had to use suffering and death to create man..!

4)The Bible tells us that death is an enemy [1Corinthians 15:26] (...However if God used evolution to get us here then death was part of the original plan of God...

[People im sorry but this doesn't add up...Those who say that the Bible does not disprove the use of evolution really should read their Bible abit more. This are just a small few of the Bible verses which clearly contradict evolution and any chance of God using it to create man]

Ian..!

Ian I don't know if you have yet but if you haven't I advise you to read as much of what's already been said as possible. A lot of what you've said in ur last posts has already came up one way or another. :afro: ooo an Afro smilie :grin:

ok forgive me. i have recently found out that my "friend" was on here yesterday saying stuff in here. I belive that God lierally created the world in 6 days and I also belive what Ian says.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep02.html#run


http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan04.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-usnews.htm

This is a link to a site where 2 PhDs refute evolution, especially pertaining to an article in US News and World Report.

next they'll be saying we came from flying mashmellows that would explain our soft center stomach though lol jk......

wait nevermind no it wouldn't or organs would.

who's to say that they weren't part of Creation along with everything else?

It makes sense- We had this guy in our school last year talking about creation/evolution and apparently most dinosaurs were vegetarians, not the man-eating monsters they're made out to be! Dinos and humans could very well have co-inhabitaed the earth...

Another thing to say is that saying to someone who believes in evolution that you don't believe it because the Bible says so, while being very true, simply will make you look as closed-minded as them. There are soooo many things which logically don't add up in the theory of evolution that it would be muchmore effective to quote them! For example, steam from volcanoes condensing to cover 70% of the earth's surface....? Bit of a poor example, but u catch my drift..

Off topic: Something about scientists that confuses me is this.

They're willing to believe that a global, worldwide flood, once covered all of Mars. Mars has 0% water.

They refuse to believe that earth once has a global worldwide flood.
Earth is over 70% water and shellfish, clams, oysters etc. Are found at the tops of mountains...

yah sometimes scientist come up with this lame evidence. i personally am shocked that people actually believe in evolution.

think for a second guys. think of all the evidence supporting evolution that scientist have said either through tv or newspapaers or whatever. now after you have all of it in your heads think about how FAR FETCHED and IMPOSSIBLE it all sounds and IS.

i think that when people believe in evolution it is just themselves denigning god and trying to escape him.

the simple conclusion that i can see is that evolution is just to far fetched of a theory for any one to truly believe

Aw heck ya! We're all monkeys!!! yeah... ahem sure... ::]

i think that when people believe in evolution it is just themselves denigning god and trying to escape him.

Romans 1 20-23 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."

That kinda sums up what you said :P

if thats what i said then why is there a need to repeat it :P :P

evolution and its big bang theory has a lot of holes in it , one thing y have the monkeys stop evolving? and they found out that the so called missing link "Lucy" was a fake.

one thing y have the monkeys stop evolving?

according to the evolution theory. the monkeys didn't stop evolving because accoding to scientists monkeys took about 100 million years to evolve to the next stage.

if evolution is right(which it's not) i wouldn't expect to see any changes in monkeys anytime soon

^ That's what produces the 'blind' faith required to believe in evolution - Millions of years. We CANNOT observe evolution (in the microbe to man sense), it cannot be tested or experimented with. It cannot be proven through standard scientific methods of testing. It must be accepted upon by faith.

We CAN see Micro-Evolution. Small changes within a KIND (a kind is a group of animals that can interbreed, e.g. Dogs, Cats etc). But a thousand small changes do not add up to big changes... For every small change there is - genetic info gets lost. No genetic information being added to a living being has ever been observed - PERIOD.


God created a group of basic KINDs of animals. These KINDS had the genetic information to live in virtually ANY climate. It was from the original Dog KIND that every kind of dog today is descended from - jack russells, bulldogs, labradors, jackals, huskies, wolves. They are all descended from the original dogs.

Excactly. thats what i hate about scientists and their stupid evolution theory. ooh yes evolution is positively right and christianity is wrong because we said so and we have absolutely no evidence to back it up. thats what it's like. just because they are big scientitst, people believe them and refuse to think for themselves on the complicated stuff. on stuff like evolution all scientists have are theories. how can it be a theory when it's 99.99999% impossible.

good point ned. :)

What good point was that? That scientists and evolution are 'stupid'?
Did any of you witness the creation?
Can you say for certain that God did not use evolution, in any way, shape, or form?
I'm not saying evolution is true, but what I AM saying is that we shouldn't be so quick to jump to any conclusion that a particular belief is 'false' or 'stupid', especially when it involves the physical creation of the world. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but what really matters is if you believe that God sent His son to die for our sins. Everything else is secondary.

What good point was that? That scientists and evolution are 'stupid'?
Did any of you witness the creation?
Can you say for certain that God did not use evolution, in any way, shape, or form?
I'm not saying evolution is true, but what I AM saying is that we shouldn't be so quick to jump to any conclusion that a particular belief is 'false' or 'stupid', especially when it involves the physical creation of the world. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but what really matters is if you believe that God sent His son to die for our sins. Everything else is secondary.

I agree. People shouldn't hold opinions about things they don't understand.

but what really matters is if you believe that God sent His son to die for our sins. Everything else is secondary.
Hmmm sin... now WHERE did sin originate? Oh yeah in the Garden of Eden... What did sin do to the world? It brought death into the world, it brought the curse of pain, death and weeds.

If Evolution be true, millions of years of death occured before sin ever existed. So sin must have done nothing... if sin did nothing, we are not sinners, we do not need a saviour and the entire foundation of Christianity is a lie.

If you start saying that God used evolution, you've destroyed the foundation to your faith. Evolution and Christianity are 100% incompatible.

Exodus 20:11 "For in 6 days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh. therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath and hallowed it"
This is what God himself carved on stone with his own finger. He said that he made the entire planet and everything on the planet (birds, fish, lizards, mammals, man) in 6 days.
To say anything other than this is to call God a liar.

Creation is very much primary.

I think you make some very good points, Skynes. You've clearly thought over this very well.
But what about this- must evolution always include death? Isn't evolution about change? One species' physical makeup may alter to adapt, but does that mean death was involved? What you are talking about isn't necessarily evolution, but Survival of the Fittest- a partial aspect of evolution accepted by many, but if you took SotF out of the equation, evolution can (or may) still exist on its own.

What good point was that? That scientists and evolution are 'stupid'?
Did any of you witness the creation?
Can you say for certain that God did not use evolution, in any way, shape, or form?

i realize that but honestly. the evolution theory says that the earth was formed by two astriods colliding and forming the earth. now thats stupid. sure maybe the lord did use evolution. i accept that but alot of theories taht go along with evolution are very idiotic.

MICRO-Evolution is about tiny change. Sure a specie can change to adapt to its climate. However it's still the same kind. A dog will always be a dog. Dogs do not suddenly produce cats. They produce dogs. Despite their many differences (compare a great dane to a poodle) they are still dogs.

Evolution in the other sense requires death. One generation slightly changed, then died. The enxt generation had slight more changes, then died. Benefecial changes stay around longer andf are inherited by their kids. Weak changes get killed before they can do anything.

I have no problem with speciation or micro-evolution. It just shows that God's amazing creation can adapt. He provided all life with what is required to live. It doesn't show that fish can become rabbits.

---------------------------------------

I cannot believe that a loving grace filled God would use a painful death ridden method to bring life. I do not deny that he COULD have. I deny that he DID. God's Word is a creative Word. When He speaks, things happen immediately. He said "Let there be light" and light came into existence. He did not say "Let there be light" and 5 or 6 million years later light came into existence.
---------------

DEFINE MY TERMS

Many ppl use the words about Creation and Evolution differently. This is how I use them.

evolution - I take this to mean the atheistic humanistic materialistic religion. That life came out of nothing on its own and evolved over billions of years with no supernatural help to create everything on this earth.

Micro-Evoultion - The process by which tiny changes/adaptation occurs within a KIND.

Kind - An entire group of animals. Dogs, Cats etc. Animals that can reproduce amongst themselves.

Macro-Evolution - the process that one KIND of animal can become a completely different KIND

there's more, but I'll need to post em later.

It makes sense- We had this guy in our school last year talking about creation/evolution and apparently most dinosaurs were vegetarians, not the man-eating monsters they're made out to be! Dinos and humans could very well have co-inhabitaed the earth...

There were many plant eating dinousaurs but there was also many meat eating dinosaurs. The T-Rex and Velociraptor are not figments of scientists imaginations you know.

Another thing to say is that saying to someone who believes in evolution that you don't believe it because the Bible says so, while being very true, simply will make you look as closed-minded as them. There are soooo many things which logically don't add up in the theory of evolution that it would be muchmore effective to quote them! For example, steam from volcanoes condensing to cover 70% of the earth's surface....? Bit of a poor example, but u catch my drift..

Just out of interest what does the steamfrom volcanoes have to do with evolution? Do you know what evolution actually is?

They're willing to believe that a global, worldwide flood, once covered all of Mars. Mars has 0% water.

Thats news to me, I knew that scientists believe that once upon a time there was quite a bit of water on the surface of mars but definitly not enough to cause a global worldwide flood. By the way, Mars still does have some water, it is just buried underneath the planets surface in the form of ice.

They refuse to believe that earth once has a global worldwide flood.
Earth is over 70% water and shellfish, clams, oysters etc. Are found at the tops of mountains...

Please, read up on plate tectonics.

yah sometimes scientist come up with this lame evidence. i personally am shocked that people actually believe in evolution.

Just because you can't understand the evidence behind evolution doesn't mean it didn't happen. Please just try to read a book on it, it will make sense if you are open minded. Also, if you have any REAL objections against the evidence for evolution pleast, present it.

think for a second guys. think of all the evidence supporting evolution that scientist have said either through tv or newspapaers or whatever. now after you have all of it in your heads think about how FAR FETCHED and IMPOSSIBLE it all sounds and IS.

Actually why don't you think with you head and actually try to understand it rather than dismissing it out of hand because it goes against your own interpretaion of the Bible?

i think that when people believe in evolution it is just themselves denigning god and trying to escape him.

Really, then why was the guy who actually discovered evolution a Chirstian at the time? Was he trying to deny the very thing he believed in?

the simple conclusion that i can see is that evolution is just to far fetched of a theory for any one to truly believe

So just because you can't understand something it means that it can't be true? I bet you don't understand the finer points of the gravity theroy and yet I very much doubt that you are free of the effects of gravity.

Aw heck ya! We're all monkeys!!! yeah... ahem sure...

Evolution doesn't say we are monkeys. Science says that we are Homo Sapiens. Monkeys have a totally different Genus to us. Do you understand evolution at all?

evolution and its big bang theory has a lot of holes in it , one thing y have the monkeys stop evolving? and they found out that the so called missing link "Lucy" was a fake.

1st of all the big bang therory and evolution are totally differnet theories which work independently of each other. Second of all it was "Evolutiony Scientists" who discovered that Lucy was fake, this was mainly because Lucy didn't "fit in" with all the other "missing links" that they had found. Third of all maybe you would like to point out a few holes in the evolution theroy!?!

That's what produces the 'blind' faith required to believe in evolution - Millions of years. We CANNOT observe evolution (in the microbe to man sense), it cannot be tested or experimented with. It cannot be proven through standard scientific methods of testing. It must be accepted upon by faith.

Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process. There is plenty of evidence for evolution out there if you were just willing to look at it with an open mind.

We CAN see Micro-Evolution. Small changes within a KIND (a kind is a group of animals that can interbreed, e.g. Dogs, Cats etc). But a thousand small changes do not add up to big changes... For every small change there is - genetic info gets lost. No genetic information being added to a living being has ever been observed - PERIOD.

There really is no diffence between micro-evolution and macro-evolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. Before replying to your "no genetic information" claim can you please define what you believe "genetic information" is?

And before I argue about your defenition of "Kind" can you please clarify these things for me?

1) Do the rabbit and fox belong to the same Kind? How bout the Horse and Donkey?

2) Are Norwegian rats and Black rats of the rat 'kind'? They produce offspring that die just after birth, does this mean that they are a "semi-kind"?

3) What about tiger/lion crosses which produce fertile females but infertile males. Is this a semi-kind?

Excactly. thats what i hate about scientists and their stupid evolution theory. ooh yes evolution is positively right and christianity is wrong because we said so and we have absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Please, go to http://www.talkorigins.org/, spend the many many hours required to get through all that material. Then go out to the library and pick up some books on evolution and read through them and then come back here and tell me that there is no evidence for evolution.

thats what it's like. just because they are big scientitst, people believe them and refuse to think for themselves on the complicated stuff. on stuff like evolution all scientists have are theories. how can it be a theory when it's 99.99999% impossible.

Just because you can't understand something doesn't make it true. Please read books.

p.s Evolution is not 99.9999999% impossible.


I'll reply to the rest tommorow...

this thread keeps going in circles, never going anywhere, sigh, i wish some ppl would make a valid point that hasn't been said. instead of saying "read up on __________" post what you need to on a subject or direct to a site. thank you

There were many plant eating dinousaurs but there was also many meat eating dinosaurs. The T-Rex and Velociraptor are not figments of scientists imaginations you know.

And this proves... If you're just going by their teeth or claws many vegetarian animals have sharp teeth and claws.

Anyway the vegetarian animals were pre-fall. Before sin entered the world EVERYTHING was vegetarian. After the fall they weren't. Although man wasn't allowed to eat animals until they got off the ark.

And before I argue about your defenition of "Kind" can you please clarify these things for me?

1) Do the rabbit and fox belong to the same Kind? How bout the Horse and Donkey?

2) Are Norwegian rats and Black rats of the rat 'kind'? They produce offspring that die just after birth, does this mean that they are a "semi-kind"?

3) What about tiger/lion crosses which produce fertile females but infertile males. Is this a semi-kind?

If two animals can mate and give birth to offspring, they are the same kind. thousands of years of a sinful earth has degraded most of life hence the non-fertile/dead offspring. Its years of degeneration and devolution has screwed up the world.

They refuse to believe that earth once has a global worldwide flood.
Earth is over 70% water and shellfish, clams, oysters etc. Are found at the tops of mountains...

Please, read up on plate tectonics

2 points to make. Plate Tectonics SUPPORTS my point, doesnt counter it. If the mountains were much flatter and lower(which I believe they were) then the possibility of a world-wide flood increases exponentially. Raise the sea beds, lower the mountains. You got enough water for a world-wide flood. Which by the way would also rip apart any evidence of billions of years.

this thread keeps going in circles, never going anywhere, sigh, i wish some ppl would make a valid point that hasn't been said. instead of saying "read up on __________" post what you need to on a subject or direct to a site. thank you

it goes in a loop because we all have said all that there is saying. there are no more view points or new information. this thread has pretty much gone to it's limit. all we need to do now is go through the info we have and make sense of it.

Hmmm sin... now WHERE did sin originate? Oh yeah in the Garden of Eden... What did sin do to the world? It brought death into the world, it brought the curse of pain, death and weeds.

I'll answer this later when I have more time, the answer does tend to get complex and I simply don't have the time to answer this at the moment.

If Evolution be true, millions of years of death occured before sin ever existed. So sin must have done nothing... if sin did nothing, we are not sinners, we do not need a saviour and the entire foundation of Christianity is a lie.

Sin did kill "Adam", but not in a biological death as you presume.

Genesis 2 verse 17 "17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Note the key words "for in the day" Yet the Bible says that after Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge he lived for another 900 years! How is this possible? Because God wasn't reffering to bioligcal death he was reffering to spiritual death, in other words, we lost contact with God. By Jesus dying on the cross he paid for our sins so that we may become in contact with God again. Jesus died so that we may have life, spiritual life.

By the way the tree of life represents transcendance...spiritual eternal life. When it is removed we have spiritual death.

Could you please point out to me the passage in Genesis that says there was no death before the fall?

If you start saying that God used evolution, you've destroyed the foundation to your faith. Evolution and Christianity are 100% incompatible.

Not really. Evolution and Young Earth Christianity is 100% incompatible but Christianity is more than just YEC. Indeed evolution doesn't say anything about a God at all, one way or another, it is agnostic like any true Science. Christianity is only in conflict with any worldview that starts without a creator. The most important thing about Genesis is not the process of creation, it is the origion of creation. This world is not a product of blind chance and probability; God created it.

Exodus 20:11 "For in 6 days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh. therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath and hallowed it"
This is what God himself carved on stone with his own finger. He said that he made the entire planet and everything on the planet (birds, fish, lizards, mammals, man) in 6 days.
To say anything other than this is to call God a liar.

Not at all! I do not personally think that the purpose of the inspired author who wrote Geneis is to provide us with a scientific account of the origins of biological diversity in general, nor of human origins in particular. Rather the inspired author explains the spiritual meaning and purpose of human existence, including teaching about the nature of God, human fellowship with God, the Sabbath and the stewardly relationship of humans with the good earth with its wild animals that God had made. I am not saying that God is a liar, I am saying that you have mis-interpreted what Genesis was actually trying to say. Does the Bible mention gravity theroy!?! Doe the Bible mention germ theroy!?! Then why do you expect that the Bible would mention evolutionary theroy?

When you teach children they're nothing but overgrown monkeys, how can you expect them to act like anything other than overgrown monkeys!?

When you teach adults that they come from children how can you expect them to act like anything other than children

Couldn't resist sorry ;)

Sin did kill "Adam", but not in a biological death as you presume.

Genesis 2 verse 17 "17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Note the key words "for in the day" Yet the Bible says that after Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge he lived for another 900 years! How is this possible?

Sacrifice.

Genesis 3:21
The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

God put an animal in place of Adam. The price was death, but God had mercy and paid for Adam's Sin with the death of another (the animal). Just as the skin of the animal covered their nakedness, the blood of the animal covered their sin.

Not to be splitting hairs, but Gen 2:17 did not say he would die that day, but that he would certainly taste death. Either way, that sin had the penlty of death, but God paid a life (the animal) so that Adam could live.


Could you please point out to me the passage in Genesis that says there was no death before the fall?


I would also challenge you to show me where the Bible says that there was death before the fall. But the Bible did say Death entered the world through Adam...

1 Corinthians 15:21-22
21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

... "but that's talking about spiritual death, not physical" WRONG!!! 1 Corinthians 15 is talking about PHYSICAL death and resurrection. If you don't believe me, read it for yourself.

I am not saying that God is a liar, I am saying that you have mis-interpreted what Genesis was actually trying to say. Does the Bible mention gravity theroy!?! Doe the Bible mention germ theroy!?! Then why do you expect that the Bible would mention evolutionary theroy?

The scripture I used there was from EXODUS. NOT Genesis!
It was Exodus 20:11. the 10 Commandments. God said that because He made the world in 6 days, we should work 6 days. Suuure if he was wrong there maybe He was wrong about muderdering.... maybe we should disobey our parents, maybe we should commit adultery with as many girls as we can. All to do with interpretation right?

I do hope you realise that I was being sarcastic. The 10 commandments and it's contents really can't be interpreted any other way. God wrote on stone that He created the world in 6 days. Not 6 billion years. 6 days. 6 regular days He createdt he earth and all that's in it.

Not really. Evolution and Young Earth Christianity is 100% incompatible but Christianity is more than just YEC. Indeed evolution doesn't say anything about a God at all, one way or another, it is agnostic like any true Science.
God put an animal in place of Adam. The price was death, but God had mercy and paid for Adam's Sin with the death of another (the animal). Just as the skin of the animal covered their nakedness, the blood of the animal covered their sin.

I don't mean to counter anything you've said but this ^ I don't agree with. Surei t says God clothed Adam and Eve with skin, but it says nothing about killing an animal to do it. Just says He clothed them.

Indeed evolution doesn't say anything about a God at all, one way or another, it is agnostic like any true Science.

I'm sorry but I cannot accept that. Evolution teaches that the world was created through random chance and that no supernatural force intervened. It's a way of being an athiest yet still retaining intelligence. I've done posts before with information from top evolutionists stating that they won't allow God into science because He's not materialistic. I'm certain there are exceptions to this, it's not a generalisation of all evolutionists, but it does apply to quite alot of them.

I don't mean to counter anything you've said but this ^ I don't agree with. Surei t says God clothed Adam and Eve with skin, but it says nothing about killing an animal to do it. Just says He clothed them.

I'm not trying to argue, but think about this... How do you get the skin to make a garment? YOu cannot get skins without the death of an animal.

I'm not trying to argue, but think about this... How do you get the skin to make a garment? YOu cannot get skins without the death of an animal.

ok first I just would like to know where that verse is. Just because I still haven't unpacked my concordance. It's entirely possible that an all powerful God can and would miraculously produce the clothing by his words just as He said "let there be light". If the verse is post-sin then either He did it miraculously or with a dead animal skin. I could say more but without knowing exactly where the verse is, is pointless for me...

Genesis 3:21...Unto Adam and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them.(JKV)

to help out with a past discussion here i dont think god used evolution while creating the earth. phil made many many good reasons but there still is a simple one.

evolution is just a theory that some people made up over time. i could make up a far fetched theory right now in my head and it WILL have just as much of a chanve being right as any other theory.

why should we be so protective of keeping evolution in the creation loop because man thought it up. i'm sure that if man kind had thoguth of a different theory then we would be hasty to protect that one in the same way.

for the reason above i dont think god used evolution because there are a billion theories out there and it is VERY unlikely that evolution was the one god used just because man thought it up.

as far as i'm concerned evolution is showing the world's wisdom, not God's

1Cor 3


18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness";[1] 20and again, "The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."[2] 21Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come--all are yours. 23And you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.

I see your point, ned. But remember- mankind used to think that the universe was geocentric, because there are verses in the Bible that claim that God holds the Earth in His hands and that the Earth does not move. Obviously, that is false- it was a man made theory based loosely off of some Biblical verses that obviously were not meant to be interpreted in that way.
How did we prove it to be false? Through scientific investigation. A theory that is formulated based off of truths we find in nature are not man made- they were made by God at the beginning of time to give the world order.

^ Actually the Bible supports a round earth, it was verses taken out of context that supports geocenctricity.

A theory that is formulated based off of truths we find in nature are not man made- they were made by God at the beginning of time to give the world order.

The truths that are in nature go like this:

1. The world we have today is not the same as it once was.
2. Dinosaurs roamed the earth but were somehow wiped out along with that entire world.
3. Man can be traced back to ONE place of origin.
4. Man used to speak ONE language.
5. Animals and humans can adapt to their climates and environment.
6. Only animals within the same kind can interbreed.
7. Animals give birth after their own kind.
8. Most old cultures (aborigines, native american indians etc.) All have stories of a massive flood that wiped out the world and only 8 ppl were saved in a giant boat. Some cultures even have creation stories of how a woman was deceived into eating fobidden food by a dragon/serpent/snake.

This is just a small sample of what nature shows us and it ALL supports the Bible!

Dinosaurs and their world were wiped out. - Noah's Flood
Ppl all came from ONE place and spoke ONE language then spread out(ever heard of mitochondria Eve?)- Adam and Eve, Tower of Babel.

Animals give birth according to their ow kind. If this is a lie - Why does all the evidence support it? Dogs give birth to Dogs, Cats give birth to Cats. what was special about these 'ancient' animals that they could do something today's animals cannot?
---------------------------------------------------

Death is referred to in the Bible as an 'enemy' an intruder. Something that was not part of a perfect 'very good' world. Is ppl's pets dying leaving the family sad a 'Good' thing? Is a relative being snatched away by Cancer a 'good' thing? NO! It's not! The Creation was made to give glory to God, death does not give glory to God. Death is the opposite of what God stands for - Life.

God using Death to bring Life in a sinless world is an oxymoron.

Genesis 3:21...Unto Adam and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them.(JKV)

thanks J3... then I would just stick with what I said in my previous post...

God using Death to bring Life in a sinless world is an oxymoron.
it's funny you mention that. have you heard of my friend Jesus? ;)

while i don't believe that God originally intended for death to be in this world, He did give us free will. so in order for us to not be automotons who were forced to love God & live forever with Him, He gave us the choice of death. God can & will use anything at His disposal (read, anything & everything) to reach mankind. even death, as is evident on that tree 2000 years ago.

Freewill and education may gain us **through technology** an extremely long life span, but I have thought about it and the cost of this long lifespan will be the loss of our abilities to have alot of kids in a short time. More likely we could have kids, just in a longer braoder span of time, thats if we keep investing our knowledge and freewill into technology and prolonging our lives.

God using Death to bring Life in a sinless world is an oxymoron.[/QUOTE]


The important word in this is "sinless". Of course we needed Jesus death because of the fall; which is what started both spiritual as well as physical death. I think what the point of what skynes is saying is that God didn't use death in the original creation. Death didn't occur till after the fall and so it would be an impossibility for the evolutionary theory to be anything other than mans idea.

very true. i read it too fast & didn't catch that. :) you are right. thanks. :)