And my explanation allows for a literal 6 day creation just like you want and for the earth to be billions of years old like it is.
Right, I caught that. But since there isn't billions of years in Genesis 1, all you did was cram evolutionary guesswork into Genesis, and THEN accept what the Bible says.
IF God is able to speak something into existence, which by all accounts He can, then why is it so difficult for some of you guys as Christians (I'd understand why if you didn't consider yourselves Christians) to accept what the Bible very plainly says?
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
Jason Lisle was never an "atheist" - by his own account, which I'm willing to believe. And, Jason Lisle was NEVER an "evolutionist professor." He was fully converted as child. His bio almost boasts of this fact.
"Dr. Cary Parker" might be the guy you meant (a couple of videos down), except; for a "scientist" who claims to have "written five textbooks" he has left very little information of his activities behind. Searches for textbooks in any subject come up blank for a "Dr. Cary Parker" as he is identified on screen and for just plain ol' "Cary Parker."
Parker seems to be making references to DNA at one point early on (I can't hear what he's saying very clearly), so I looked for papers by a "Cary Parker" on PubMed and found none. I thought that a textbook author would surely have written some papers before being launched into such a grand career, but nada.
I did find a "Dr. Cary Parker" who was identified as a "Woods Hole oceanographer." Woods Hole is the world renown oceanic research center in Massachusetts. Is he your "Dr. Cary Parker?"
I'm not sure, but I would assume so. Again, you attack the person and ignore the material.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
Right, I caught that. But since there isn't billions of years in Genesis 1, all you did was cram evolutionary guesswork into Genesis, and THEN accept what the Bible says.
IF God is able to speak something into existence, which by all accounts He can, then why is it so difficult for some of you guys as Christians (I'd understand why if you didn't consider yourselves Christians) to accept what the Bible very plainly says?
Good observation Jason. There isn't anything about the age of the earth in Genesis 1. It simply doesn't say the earth is old nor does it say that the earth is young. So nice try in saying I'm trying to cram evolotion into it. You are the one trying to cram a 10,000 year old earth with no evolution into Genesis 1. I just pointed out that it is possible to read Genesis 1 in a way that allows for an old earth and for evolution and a young creation all at once. But you reject that possibility? Why? I can tell why you reject it. You reject the possibility for the sole reason that such a possibility doesn't allow you to cram your 10000 year old earth with no evolution into Genesis as absolute fact. You reject the possibility that my explanation could be right because that would mean you might have been wrong all this time. But heck, I'm not asking you to believe my explanation, all I am asking you to do is to consider it as a possibility and not to condemn others for as long as it remains a possibility.
By the way Jason, if God is able to speak a 4 billion year old world into existence then why is it hard for you to believe and accept what the bible AND nature very plainly tell us: that the earth is billions of years old, that God created it in 6 days and that he could have created it any number of years ago?
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
Good observation Jason. There isn't anything about the age of the earth in Genesis 1. It simply doesn't say the earth is old nor does it say that the earth is young. So nice try in saying I'm trying to cram evolotion into it. You are the one trying to cram a 10,000 year old earth with no evolution into Genesis 1. I just pointed out that it is possible to read Genesis 1 in a way that allows for an old earth and for evolution and a young creation all at once. But you reject that possibility? Why? I can tell why you reject it. You reject the possibility for the sole reason that such a possibility doesn't allow you to cram your 10000 year old earth with no evolution into Genesis as absolute fact. You reject the possibility that my explanation could be right because that would mean you might have been wrong all this time. But heck, I'm not asking you to believe my explanation, all I am asking you to do is to consider it as a possibility and not to condemn others for as long as it remains a possibility.
By the way Jason, if God is able to speak a 4 billion year old world into existence then why is it hard for you to believe and accept what the bible AND nature very plainly tell us: that the earth is billions of years old, that God created it in 6 days and that he could have created it any number of years ago?
17It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
It is easy to use biblical facts to expose deception. Jfrog can't reconcile the notion of Adam's age when he was created on the 6th day with Genesis and Exodus chapter 31.
The old earth false teachers avoid biblical interpretation
You goofy evolutionists spend more tiime accusing God of cramming than God spent creating.
You are terrified at the thought that God could do all of creation in six days and be given the Golry for having His creation stopry handed down to us in writing.
Your false gods couldn't get the multibillion year crammed into a written record for some reason.
Good observation Jason. There isn't anything about the age of the earth in Genesis 1. It simply doesn't say the earth is old nor does it say that the earth is young. So nice try in saying I'm trying to cram evolotion into it.
creationism doesnt have to cram anything, we just take Gen 1, Gen 5, Exodus 20 at its plain and simple reading.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
I just pointed out that it is possible to read Genesis 1 in a way that allows for an old earth and for evolution and a young creation all at once. But you reject that possibility? Why?
Basically what your throwing out is the old argument that the Bible can say what you want it to day. I reject that because despite the fact that 10 people may read a certain passage and come up with 10 different meanings or interpretations, there is still only one correct interpretation and meaning. You proposed a theory (lots of those going around BTW) that "allows for an old earth and for evolution and a young creation all at once" is just another way of saying it doesn't really matter what the text says we as Christians still feel we need to bow the kneee to science, so lets come up with somthing that gives us the best of both worlds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
I can tell why you reject it. You reject the possibility for the sole reason that such a possibility doesn't allow you to cram your 10000 year old earth with no evolution into Genesis as absolute fact.
Umm, no, thats not why I reject it. I reject it because its an extra biblical theory with ZERO support in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
You reject the possibility that my explanation could be right because that would mean you might have been wrong all this time.
Come on Jfrog, as if being wrong meant something to me. I don't have some puffed up view of myself, I'm nothing and nobody, saved by grace. No one is concerned with my viewpoints, and I don't have any books in print, you tube videos or anything that I need to defend. I'm willing to listen and consider any doctrine based on its scriptural merits, regardless of how popular or unpopular (see my stances on tithing, justification by faith, etc).
I don't have any reason to believe in young earth creationism except that the Bible plainly supports that view. If God had been silent, or perhaps more vauge, I would entertain another viewpoint, but since He is pretty plain about creation, how, when, how long, and the method, and then repeats Himself throughout His Word, and then Jesus puts His stamp of approval on Genesis and the entire old testament, I think it is foolish for anyone to deny it.
I can imagine God asking them the question "Where were YOU when I laid the foundations of the earth, tell me, if you have understanding."
Theistic evolutionists are attempting to force their view of creation on God, essentially telling God what He did and did not do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
But heck, I'm not asking you to believe my explanation, all I am asking you to do is to consider it as a possibility and not to condemn others for as long as it remains a possibility.
Like I said, I'm not against considering anything, but I haven't seen anything that makes me reconsider my position. If you or Pelathias or Praxeas wants to give me something to consider, give me support for evolution from SCRIPTURE. The assertions from theisitc evolutionists is grounded in science (theory, not demonstratable science) not scripture. If the argument DOES go to scripture, its about geneologies, or some assumed biblical problem. Which has been my point throughout the thread, the whole position of theistic evolution is actually a round about attack on the inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of scripture, this is no more plainly seen when instead of giving SCRIPTURE for an earth that is supposedly BILLIONS of years old, they attack the scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
By the way Jason, if God is able to speak a 4 billion year old world into existence then why is it hard for you to believe and accept what the bible AND nature very plainly tell us: that the earth is billions of years old,
OK, OK I'll accept it, just give me that scripture that tells us the earth is billions of years old one more time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog
that God created it in 6 days and that he could have created it any number of years ago?
only problem with this is that the BIBLE does tell us when He did it, how long He took, and then give us a record of Adam to the flood so we can go back and get a general idea of how much time had passed.
__________________
"Resolved: That all men should live to the glory of God. Resolved, secondly: That whether or not anyone else does, I will." ~Jonathan Edwards
"The only man who has the right to say he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ." ~Dietrich Bonheoffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"Preachers who should be fishing for men are now too often fishing for compliments from men." ~Leonard Ravenhill
You working on that primer for radio dating for Jason to go through?
I've been at the hospital a lot recently. There's a lot going on here. I was kind of looking for Jason to respond with an "affirmative" before I spent a lot of time on it.
Quote:
Did evolution just stop?" Beck asked rhetorically. "I haven't seen the half-monkey/half-person yet. ... There's no other species that's developing into half-people."
"I don't know how God creates. I don't know how we got here," he continued, wondering what God might tell him after he dies. "If God's like, 'Yup, you were a monkey once,' I'll be shocked, but I'll be cool with it."
Beck explained, "If God didn't create, if things evolve, then your rights evolve. You're not endowed by your Creator.
Even Glenn Becks religion has space to consider a Creator.
Even though I like him in many ways, in many other ways Beck's a meathead. His "religion" says very emphatically that an Iron Age civilization flourished in theOhio River Valley region over 2,000 years ago. This civilization had large cities with fortified stone walls and towers. The warring sides were able to field armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands. The soldiers all wore armor and carried iron swords.
Yet we find no cities - and Joseph Smith pointed out the exact locations where many of these cities supposedly stood. No stone walls. No foundations for buildings, towers or walls. No Iron artifacts have ever been found in the Ohio River Valley dating to any time before the arrival of Europeans. In fact, no bronze, tin or copper either. Copper bells have been found much further south, but these were trade goods received from Meso-America.
Much of Glenn Beck's "faith" is in things that clearly never happened.
The "your rights evolved..." argument is specious. Perhaps the "rights" of some line of hominids "evolved" - but just try and tell that to the leopards and lions. Also, these "rights" are NOT something that the Bible teaches us:
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."
You confound your own position every time you stray from the Word of God.
From a purely historical viewpoint, our rights DID EVOLVE. In the days of the Bible the rights of many persons were severely restricted or even nonexistent. The Bible clearly reports that fact.
Today, things are different. Things are generally a bit better - in large part because the message of the Bible took root in the hearts of many slave owners.
The concept of being "endowed with certain unalienable rights" was a product of the English Enlightenment and its affect upon the American colonists from England. I suppose both coadie and Glenn Beck use the Jefferson Bible in their devotions, don't they? No "miracles." No "resurrection from the dead;" just "certain unalienable rights." It was Thomas Jefferson who penned those words, "unalienable rights" - quoting the English humanist John Locke.
Yep. Human rights have "evolved." Actually reading the Bible will be a big help when you start talking about the Bible.
Linear Mode
