If Evolution

[6days]

On the contrary, your denial of the plain language of the second creation story is a mangling of scripture.

as you were shown even from your preferred version, the Bible has one creation account. Your evolutionist notes are the ones that try create contradiction in God's word where none exists.

 

[Lon]

I've already explained why. When you describe dinos as prehistoric, separate from "modern" animals, you assume the truth of your Darwinism.

You have to respect the ideas of the other side to conduct a rational discussion.

"Why does the fossil record not show any of these dead with dinosaurs?" :think:

It did. From your link:
"The fossil of the mammal that ate the dinosaur is so well preserved that scientists were able to examine the teeth of the Psittacosaurus found in the mammal's belly. The fact that there were teeth, and that they showed wear, indicated that the dinosaur was not eaten as an embryo in the egg. Measurements suggest the dinosaur was about one-third the size of the R. robustus that ate it."

:up:

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is wrong.

Yeah, astronomers have difficulty with that, I'm sure you discussed that with some of them.
Your god did nothing

It is figurative. It is not literal history. Pretending it is literal history is what is wrong.

Hey, Jonah, perhaps you could give a little more than just opinion on this thread.

Saying something doesn't make it true. Prove it.

 

[2003cobra]

",Asserted the man with no substantiation or qualifier. It was all stuff and fluff in lieu of meaningful or substantial conversation..."
I'm not. You can think I'm 'fearful' as you like too :noway:

I'm not sure if you understand what baiting is or if you realize that it is what you do. I can't tell if it is purposeful, thus cheeky, or just inept.

Still no answer.

Still unwilling to say which translation you put in your shopping cart when the translation you normally use proved you wrong.

 

[2003cobra]

Evolutionists need and want the creation account to be figurative, or their belief system fails. Evolutionists are incapable of explaining why Jesus went to the cross, if Genesis is not true history.

You never commented on how Jesus forgive sins, and said He had the authority to do so, before His blood was shed.

Let me know when you start that thread.

 

[2003cobra]

as you were shown even from your preferred version, the Bible has one creation account. Your evolutionist notes are the ones that try create contradiction in God's word where none exists.

Another denial of the text.

And those five professors from Dallas Theological Seminary, the ones you called liberal and evolutionists — still waiting on you to defend the libel.

Do you still maintain that DTS is a bastion of liberal evolutionists? Or is it just the five that were chosen to translate the Torah for the NET Bible?

 

[George Affleck]

You never commented on how Jesus forgive sins, and said He had the authority to do so, before His blood was shed.

Eph 1:4KJV

 

[6days]

Cobra, like many theistic evolutionists can't answer this question. I'm curious how your answer to this lines up with what Paul teaches.

Why couldn't Jesus just forgive peoples sin without having to physically die?

(Quoting websites)
"..... "

"...."

"..."
The key to understanding is to realize that God never does a miracle because He has to. He does it to teach us something. ...

"..."

"..."

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue

Like Cobra... and like all evolutionists you are unable to answer the question since you reject the foundation of the Gospel found in Genesis.


It was interesting though that part of the 'answer you attempted, suggests that Jesus going to the cross was a 'miracle'... and He didn't have to do it. Whoever wrote that article does not seem to know Scripture. IF Jesus didn't have to go to the cross, then He wouldn't have. He prayed that if there was another way we could be redeemed, "this cup" (suffering) would be removed. "Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." Matt. 26:39


Also the author of your article must still be sacrificing animals since "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin". Heb. 9:22


The question remains, why couldn't Jesus just forgive peoples sin without having to physically die?

Hint at answer... Jesus is called last Adam...why?

 

[6days]

Another denial of the text.

I quoted the text
You quoted footnotes from evolutionists.
I can also quote footnotes from creationists.
But, the text itself is simple to understand, and supported by Jesus, and various Bible authors. God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days. The gospel and all Christian doctrine are founded on the first few books of Genesis. Evolutionists have devised various ways and 'theories' on how to make Scripture not mean what it says...thereby perverting the reason for the cross.

 

[George Affleck]

The second creation story says “the day;” why is the first creation story literal history and the second isn’t?

How can the second creation story say "the day" if there is no second creation story?

You don't make sense.

 

[Greg Jennings]

:up:

Notice how I didn't include rodents bc there were tiny mammals back then. Everybody knows that. There were small birds too.
But there has never once been any mammal that wasn't an extinct rodent found with dinosaurs.

Woolly mammoths, sabre kitties, dire wolves and so on lived alongside humans. We know this because we find their bones together.
If dinosaurs lived with people and dogs and so on, why has there never once been a Dino fossil found with a human (or dog, elk, bear, and on and on)?

 

[6days]

You never commented on how Jesus forgive sins, and said He had the authority to do so, before His blood was shed.

You skip over answers you don't like. (It was answered) But, Cobra... I would like you to work out the answer a little bit yourself to see how you understand the Gospel. Scripture tells us that there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. For all humanity, past and present what... or who's blood forgives sin? Do you think the cross was not necessary... that Jesus could forgive sin without going to Calvary?

 

[CherubRam]

*The context of the word 'day' in Genesis does not allow for anything other than what we refer to as a 24 hour day

* Epochs of time destroys the purpose of the cross. If death existed before sin, then why did Jesus go to the cross?

* If epochs of time is correct, then Jesus was wrong connecting humanity with the foundations of the world...and The beginning of creation.

* if epochs of time is correct, then the majority of early church fathers and Christians did not understand the Bible correctly.


God's word tells us that in 6 days God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them.

Until the 1800's it was taught that the creation days were epoch,s of time.

 

[marhig]

You skip over answers you don't like. (It was answered) But, Cobra... I would like you to work out the answer a little bit yourself to see how you understand the Gospel. Scripture tells us that there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. For all humanity, past and present what... or who's blood forgives sin? Do you think the cross was not necessary... that Jesus could forgive sin without going to Calvary?

He did forgive sins before he was crucified, he was forgiving sins in his lifetime!

 

[iouae]

We can do so intellectually. We 'extrapolate' a good many science distances and years. How long does it 'actually' take for light to get to us? Was Einstein correct that light speed doesn't change? Or was Newton correct that gravity affects it?

Come on Lon! All mainstream science knows that light travels through the vacuum of space, in any direction, at c. This is not a question of Global Warming where the jury might still be out.

But what it 'cannot' do is tell us if our expectation of the way gravity works here on earth, is the same in space in effecting orbits (I've seen professors use examples, well, in Australia, such would spin the opposite way as their gravity constrained models).

Gravity does not affect the answer to this question since gravity is weak in most of the universe. Again, all mainstream science knows that large dense objects can bend light slightly, or that at a black hole, gravity can suck light into it. But most of space is a vacuum, and is unaffected by anything but minor gravity. Therefore c stands.

All that religious folks have to accept is that Genesis 1 is a recreation, and that the universe IS old. By translating the one word "was" to "became" in Gen 2 (a perfectly legal translation) we don't have to fight mainstream science, and go squirrelling around in the hedges and furrows of fringe science. Then cosmology and palaeontology is not a fight.

Does it take light from an exploding star billions of years to reach us?

Yes!!!

I've seen some speculation but I'm not convinced.

It is only on fringe sites that there is speculation. No astronomer feels there is a smidgeon of speculation.

An evolutionist believes that life all evolved from the same pool and branched out toward more complex organisms and began to morph differently, some to plants, others to animals and other microorganisms. God could have done it any way He wanted. The Bible says He fashioned a man from the ground and breathed life into him as well as created him in His image. The Genesis account clearly demarks a morning/evening day (yom). There are better terms for longer periods of time which Moses could have used.

I agree totally with you there.

How long does it take for light from an exploding star to reach the earth? I don't know,

Mainstream science knows the answer. If the exploding star is 1 billion light years away, then it takes 1 billion light years to get here.

God is not a physical being. If He were, He'd be constrained by, instead of above His creation. I can sail to Hawaii by conventional means, or I can speed up that process and fly. God is not constrained by our expectations nor is He limited by them. I've heard 'God is lying if that is so.' Not when He has given Genesis 1 and 2 clearly, He has not.

God does not lie. We just have faulty exegesis of "was" in Gen 1:2 which should be translated "became".

Even before the first day of creation, we had an earth, without form and void, water covering it, and dense vapour enshrouding it. Thus we have something before God spoke "let there be light" on Day 1.

Thus there was an earth before Day 1.

 

[Stripe]

Then how about this, why are dinosaurs not found alongside wolves, cows, humans, horses, rhinos, elephants, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, leopards, hippos, apes, monkeys, lemurs, weasels, wolverines, deer, moose, antelope, musk ox, bison, coyotes, bats, platypi or echidnas, kangaroos, wallabies, seals, sea lions, bears, whales/dolphins, and so on? Why does the fossil record not show any of these dead with dinosaurs?

Thanks for the rewording. :up:

Simple answer: They are found together.

 

[Jonahdog]

Evolutionists have devised various ways and 'theories' on how to make Scripture not mean what it says...thereby perverting the reason for the cross.

You mean scientists. And yes science has discovered and been able to understand the real world which clearly indicates that special creation did not take place in a week a few thousand years ago. If that perverts the reason for the cross---well, that is your problem

 

[6days]

He did forgive sins before he was crucified, he was forgiving sins in his lifetime!

He forgave sins based on what? Are you suggesting that the cross was meaningless? Why couldn't Jesus skip the cross and tell people to just keep sacrificing animals?

 

[6days]

Until the 1800's it was taught that the creation days were epoch,s of time.

That isn't really true my friend. Although there have always been some people trying to insert vast periods of time into scripture we see the early church fathers arguing against 'epochs of time'. We can see Paul arguing against the Epicureans (old earth beliefs). We can see Irenaeus in the 2nd century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th. The vast majority of Christian leaders in the past argued against compromising God's Word by adding deep time.

In Martin Luthers day, many Christians were arguing that God created in an instant less than 6,000 years ago, based on teachings of Augustine. (Augustine rejected 'epochs of time too) Luther said "When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.”

 

[JudgeRightly]

That isn't really true my friend. Although there have always been some people trying to insert vast periods of time into scripture we see the early church fathers arguing against 'epochs of time'. We can see Paul arguing against the Epicureans (old earth beliefs). We can see Irenaeus in the 2nd century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th. The vast majority of Christian leaders in the past argued against compromising God's Word by adding deep time.

In Martin Luthers day, many Christians were arguing that God created in an instant less than 6,000 years ago, based on teachings of Augustine. (Augustine rejected 'epochs of time too) Luther said "When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.”

What an excellent quote from Luther.