Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Where is the proof that these things happened 20,000 and 23 million years ago? Especially since your post began with "This is a star which is about 20,000 light years away. In 2002 it suddenly became one of the brightest stars in the galaxy." Does not this statement alone assert than sudden and drastic changes are capable of happening anywhere and at anytime in creation? Does not this statement completely contradict the uniformianism that is the very basis of statements such as "23 million years ago". And furthermore, there is still a HUGE difference between 23 million, and 4 BILLION years.(which of course science dates the universe much older than the earth). Pel, all of this is based on a faulty starting point.

Jason, it's difficult for me to formulate an answer to your question that doesn't include the word "pinhead."

The star is 20,000 light years away. That means whatever we see NOW when we look at the star occurred 20,000 years ago. It took the light from the explosion 20,000 years to reach us. The star "became one of the brightest stars in the galaxy as observed from earth in 2002."

You do understand that light DOES NOT travel instantaneously, don't you? You do understand that the speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second, don't you? Small children can work this one out.

There IS a "HUGE difference" between 23 million and 4 billion years ago. However, YOUR interpretation of Genesis 1, says that the universe is only six THOUSAND years old! I have given you evidence that the universe is AT LEAST 23 million years old and you have fumbled and bumbled with that.

Can you imagine what those "Tithes" arguing preachers are saying about your ability to think logically now?

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Again, your arguments for the age of the earth do not come from scripture, they come from the Hubble telescope, and the such like.

What do you mean "AGAIN?"

I said, "While criticizing Obama will keep you on my good side, the comparison fails. The creation itself does testify to BILLIONS of years." Try to keep up.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

My prayers are definitely with you and yours. We can all be thankful that our doctrinal correctness is not the means by which we receive the love and grace of God.

I am extremely grateful for the men and women who work so hard to preserve human life and to make that life comfortable and fulfilling. These people are called "scientists." Most of them are also believers. They can effectively help a family in need because they follow scientific principles based upon years of observation, research and careful analysis.

They can also look at a star that is 20,000 light years away and understand how the light they see left that star 20,000 years ago. Anyone who refuses to see that isn't just at loggerheads with me over a "doctrinal difference." They are just being too dishonest with themselves and with others.

You really need to take an inward look here, bro. 2 Timothy 3:13.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Thats a pretty lame strawman. How many times are you going to accuse me of taking all scripture literally?

See you didn't really read what I posted. I didn't accuse you of taking all scripture literally. That was my point, you DON'T. But you insist it be taken literal in Gen 1.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

1)I never said "Pel is wrong, but I don't know why." I have admitted to not being on his level concerning the theories of science. I definitely have a very basic understanding of science, and haven't kept up with it up until now. However one thing I know is that true science is deomstratable, and what is being passed off continually are undemostrateable unprovable assertions.

Prax was summing up your posts in his own words. I thought he pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Go back and work on the speed of light for a bit. You will find some nonsensical "YEC" attempts at wrangling this one, but none of them can offer a single explanation as to why we see complex events occurring millions and even billions of lights years away from us.

It takes TIME for light to travel through space. AND, the light we see isn't just "starlight" traveling in straight and neat little beams that "God could have 'created' when He created the stars..." No.

The light we see reveals complex events taking place over both long and short periods of time. We even see the light being "bent" by the passage of large gravitational masses (gravitational lensing) and the light interacting with particles in space between us and the light source.

If God had intended for the heavens to declare His glory and NOT to deceive us, then He sure went to A LOT of trouble to deceive us. Psalm 89:35, is a favorite of mine when it comes down to understanding these things:

"Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David."

There. I KNOW the universe is BILLIONS of years old because God said that He would never lie to me. He called me by name and said that He would never lie to me!

... and every other guy named "David," ... but still, it's there. When I measure distances in space and calculate the time it takes light to travel those distances, I can do so confidently because I know that God isn't just jerking us all around when we observe nature.

It's really there. Understanding it does take some work. But we can trust what we are dealing with.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

...

Again, the real issue is a basic denial (not re-interpetaion) of scripture. Pelathias has already came down against these portions of scripture:

1)the creation account of Genesis 1&2
2)the creation of a literal man, named Adam
3)the biblical flood as recorded in Genesis 6
4)the table of nations in Genesis 10
5)the literalness of biblical geneolgies

I am rather confused at which portions of scripture you guys believe to be literal historical events, and which ones you reject, because you reject the literal creation, but accept the ressurection. On what basis do you accept the literal bodily ressurection of Jesus Christ? Plenty of people see it as merely symbolic or spiritual.

...

You are "confused" because you are being dishonest. When did I "come down hard" on ANY "portion of Scripture?" I really want to say...

HOW DARE YOU!

You are being dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting everything I have said. The Bible is the Word of God and it is YOU who have dishonored it by demanding that everyone come and kneel before your idols.

... and you have completely failed to even show us where God or the Bible "named" the man in the garden "Adam." I tried to help you with a little bit of Hebrew and a brief Bible lesson and showed you that the KJV translates the Hebrew phrase "the man" into "Adam" when the text itself never even tells us that this was the man's "name!"

Respond to that conundrum BEFORE you falsely accuse me. I also said that China, Japan, Korea, Polynesia and all of the Native American cultures weren't listed in Genesis 10. You have to show us where they were before you say "I came down hard on a portion of Scripture."

I'm "coming down hard" on ignorance. I am "coming down hard" on false accusations. I am "coming down hard" on both yours and coadie's method of "discussion" that involves you guys tap dancing and prevaricating (look it up coadie) around without answering the tough questions.

The fact that you've made a mess of your Bible theology doesn't mean that I don't believe The Word of God. It just means that you've made a mess.

... and despite the hyperbole in our "discussion," I do appreciate your condolences and kind words. I can't describe the sound a young mother makes when her baby stops breathing in her arms, but despite the loss we are anchored to a "lively hope," 1 Peter 1:3.

[jfrog]

If the earth is only 10,000 years old then:

1) All the stars we see are within a radius of 10,000 lightyears from us, otherwise we wouldn't see the light from them.

2) There are an estimated 10^22 stars in the universe. A very rough estimation.

3) The closest star to us is alpha centauri which is around 4.3 lightyears away.

4) By 1 we know that all those 10^22 stars must be within a sphere of volume 4/3*pi*10,000^3 = 4.2*10^12 cubic light years. This means there is only 4.1887902*10^-10 cubic lightyears per star.

5) The volume around us in a 4 lightyear radius is 4/3*pi*4^3 = 268 lightyears.

6) 268 lightyears / 4.2*10^-10 lightyears per star = 6.39802871*10^11 stars. This means there should be about 600,000,000,000 stars between us and alpha centauri. Only there's not. So which of these premises are wrong? Or is the universe not just 10,000 years old? Anyone?

[Jason B]

All 3 of you guys willing dismiss my point about the stars. Taking Genesis 1 as literal (just assume it is for a moment) when the stars were created on day 4, how old did they appear to Adam on day 6? Would you say they were 2 light days old? No, according to your theories, at the very least the stars which were two days old would appear to Adam as 20,000 years old.

Because God created everything mature. Its not that complex of an argument. All your arguments are based on stars, rocks, strata, and the like. You guys are not providing scriptural support for your position, and expect me to bow the knee.

I'm not against you saying you believe the earth is billions of years old, believe anything you want. But just don't act like the Bible teaches it, when you know that it DOESN'T, which is precisely the reason you guys ignore my requests for scripture teaching an earth which is billions of years old, and why you will not take the Genesis 1 text verse by verse and show where the billions of years come into play.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

All 3 of you guys willing dismiss my point about the stars. Taking Genesis 1 as literal (just assume it is for a moment) when the stars were created on day 4, how old did they appear to Adam on day 6? Would you say they were 2 light days old? No, according to your theories, at the very least the stars which were two days old would appear to Adam as 20,000 years old.

Because God created everything mature. Its not that complex of an argument. All your arguments are based on stars, rocks, strata, and the like. You guys are not providing scriptural support for your position, and expect me to bow the knee.

I'm not against you saying you believe the earth is billions of years old, believe anything you want. But just don't act like the Bible teaches it, when you know that it DOESN'T, which is precisely the reason you guys ignore my requests for scripture teaching an earth which is billions of years old, and why you will not take the Genesis 1 text verse by verse and show where the billions of years come into play.

If the universe were just 6,000 years old and if the stars were "created to look old," then we would see activity within the stars from just the past 6,000 years.

In other words, the "Whirlpool Galaxy" (M51 - pictured in an earlier post) would just be a uniform sea of stars. Those stars would just be showing "steady light" for the next 23 million years until the light from their "real lives" reaches earth.

Instead, what we see is activity and evidence of life long, long BEFORE 6,000 years ago. It's as if Adam had been created with a scar on his knee from when he fell off his bicycle at 10 years of age.

Problem is, according to you, Adam was NEVER "10 years of age." So, how could there be a record and evidence of his earlier life?

In the case of the stars, it's as if we walked into their room and saw the soccer trophies and Bible Quizzing Awards that they had earned in their youth. We see their birth certificate and Third Grade report card. Yet, YOU say "Third Grade" never happened for these guys, but there it is.

We don't just see "the appearance of age." We see the experience of age. We see the scars, the milestones, the awards and achievements. We see the heart breaks, loss and sorrows. We see the passage of time. An immense passage of time.

[Praxeas]

It's also deceptive. The bible doesn't say he made the stars like that. Jason is now on his way to not taking Genesis 1 literally but offers an interpretation. Nobody claimed the bible says the earth is billions of years old. Rather it was said the bible does not specifically deny the age of the earth being billions of years old

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

If God had intended for the heavens to declare His glory and NOT to deceive us, then He sure went to A LOT of trouble to deceive us.

HOW did God attempt to deceive us? Its your positions refusal to accept the plain language of scripture which causes you to say that God decieved us. If God said he made everything in 6 days, then repeated it several times throughout scripture, why do you feel compelled to accept science's explanations for age fo the earth?

Originally Posted by pelathais

You are "confused" because you are being dishonest. When did I "come down hard" on ANY "portion of Scripture?" I really want to say...

HOW DARE YOU!

You are being dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting everything I have said. The Bible is the Word of God and it is YOU who have dishonored it by demanding that everyone come and kneel before your idols.

I'm being dishonest?

Which of those things did I list that you accept as literal historical accounts?

Here's the list again:
1)the creation account of Genesis 1&2
2)the creation of a literal man, named Adam3)the biblical flood as recorded in Genesis 6
4)the table of nations in Genesis 10
5)the literalness of biblical geneolgies

Pel, which of these 5 do you accept exactly as the Bible literally presents them?

Originally Posted by pelathais

... and you have completely failed to even show us where God or the Bible "named" the man in the garden "Adam." I tried to help you with a little bit of Hebrew and a brief Bible lesson and showed you that the KJV translates the Hebrew phrase "the man" into "Adam" when the text itself never even tells us that this was the man's "name!"

Respond to that conundrum BEFORE you falsely accuse me.

I already answered this:

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Was his name ADAM, I personally believe the answer to be yes. Scripture always refers to him as ADAM. It is not unusual for other writers of scripture to referr to past events and people by name. Nowhere is the first man called any other name than ADAM.

But lets say just for the sake for the sake of argument the first man was simply called "MAN". Either way the first human being was specially created by God (not evolution or evolutionary process) and that man sinned. By ONE MANS SIN death came, so that by ONE MANS SACRIFICE salvation came. You cannot do away with ADAM without doing away with the gospel. Romans 5. Whether his name was ADAM or not is irrelevant, though again, we have no reason to believe he was named anything else.

Originally Posted by pelathais

I also said that China, Japan, Korea, Polynesia and all of the Native American cultures weren't listed in Genesis 10. You have to show us where they were before you say "I came down hard on a portion of Scripture."

To question the accuracy of scripture, (whether Genesis1,6, 10, Matthew 1,etc) is the tactic the seprant used with Eve in Genesis 3. He didn't "come down hard" against the Word of God, just introduced doubt. But you probably wholly reject that as a literal account also.

My point throughout the thread is that a rejection of Genesis 1 is not merely a rejection of a single chapter of the Bible, but is an assualt on scripture itself. And has been shown in this thread, the questioning of scripture only BEGINS with Genesis 1, its far from ending there.

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'm "coming down hard" on ignorance.

Call it what you want to Pel. I derive my beliefs from scripture, as I've said before if you want me to consider your position, prove it to me from scripture, not "science".

Originally Posted by pelathais

The fact that you've made a mess of your Bible theology doesn't mean that I don't believe The Word of God. It just means that you've made a mess.

You say you believe the Word of God, yet you out and out reject Genesis 1. You reject that the first human being was a male called Adam. You reject that there was a global flood. I listed 29 Old Testament items for you guys to affirm, which neither you nor prax has touched.

Do you believe the Red Sea parted and all of the Israelites crossed on dry land? Do you believe Balaams donkey spoke to him? Do you believe the walls of Jericho fell down flat at a shout? I am under the impression there are several portions of scripture that you don't accept as literal historical and miraculous accounts, and your (and Praxeas') silence on those issues only seems to confirm my assumptions.

Your telling me I've made a mess of my theology, when you don't even accept what the Bible says in selevted portions. Which, to no suprise, you make yourself the authority of which portions of the Bible are true and to be taken as they read, and which ones need a little reinterpretaion. The way you express your views of scripture reminds me of the Jesus Seminar panel, or Thomas Jefferson.

Originally Posted by pelathais

... and despite the hyperbole in our "discussion," I do appreciate your condolences and kind words. I can't describe the sound a young mother makes when her baby stops breathing in her arms, but despite the loss we are anchored to a "lively hope," 1 Peter 1:3.

Pel, I have respect for you. I do believe that your a christian man. I don't wish bad on anyone. I always consider "how would I feel if I were in that position?" And I can't even fathom if one of my children were to pass. I did take time to pray for you and your family yesterday, and I truly prayed in sincerity, not just some token prayer.

I'm not against you, and I don't think your against me. However we have two radically different viewpoints on this topic, which we both feel are critical to Christianity. I feel it is critical, because I see your position as an attack on scripture, even though you yourself may not be hostile t scripture, if someone else comes along and uses your reasoning and applies your logic for Genesis 1 consitently throughout the Bible, there is alot of material that simply won't make the cut. Thus I conclude your decision to accept science as an authority can have no other result than to logically reject the Bible as the divinely inspired and authoratative word of God.

Whereas, you feel like Biblical literalism keeps christianity in the provebial "stone age" and is a stumbling block to people coming to Christ, and destroys the credibility of Christianity.

I understand your viewpoint, I just think it is completely incorrect.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

All 3 of you guys willing dismiss my point about the stars. Taking Genesis 1 as literal (just assume it is for a moment) when the stars were created on day 4, how old did they appear to Adam on day 6? Would you say they were 2 light days old? No, according to your theories, at the very least the stars which were two days old would appear to Adam as 20,000 years old.

Actually, what we are saying is that the stars further away than 2 light days wouldn't even be visible to Adam. In fact the first star wouldn't have appeared in the sky till 4 years after Adam's creation because it's 4 light years away. There wouldn't have been any stars in the sky at all for 4 years. Yet, the bible gives a different account... The bible says that on the 4th day of creation ALL the stars were visible. How does your literalist approach handle that?

Because God created everything mature. Its not that complex of an argument. All your arguments are based on stars, rocks, strata, and the like. You guys are not providing scriptural support for your position, and expect me to bow the knee.

God created everything actually mature? Or did God create everything to appear mature? There is a difference. Pel pointed out the biggest problem with the difference. The universe idoesn't just appear mature. The universe has scars and evidence of many past experiences. When you look up at the stars you are seeing things that at that moment are thousands and millions if not billions of years in the past. The thing is we don't just see them as some static object. We see explosions and supernova's and many other things occuring thousands and millions if not billions of years in the past. How can that be if the universe is only 10,000 years old Jason?

I'm not against you saying you believe the earth is billions of years old, believe anything you want. But just don't act like the Bible teaches it, when you know that it DOESN'T, which is precisely the reason you guys ignore my requests for scripture teaching an earth which is billions of years old, and why you will not take the Genesis 1 text verse by verse and show where the billions of years come into play.

You're right that the bible doesn't teach anything about the earth being billions of years old. The bible doesn't teach anything about the earth being 10,000 years old either. The bible just doesn't teach us anything about the age of the earth. So we have to look to other sources.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

HOW did God attempt to deceive us? Its your positions refusal to accept the plain language of scripture which causes you to say that God decieved us. If God said he made everything in 6 days, then repeated it several times throughout scripture, why do you feel compelled to accept science's explanations for age fo the earth?

No, it's reality that makes me say that your methodology is flawed. Your approach to the Bible gives a "world" that isn't real. Meanwhile, I'm living in a real world. A world filled with pain and hurts and sorrows. I want some answers, so where do I go?

If I go down your path I find an illusion. I find something that isn't real. I find a "god" who is just messing with my head every time I turn a pair of binoculars up to the planet Jupiter and watch the moons go 'round.

(See "Measuring the Speed of Light with Jupiter’s Moons")

If I follow a more ancient path, however, I find a message of hope that actually resonates with reality. Fundamentalist Literalism is an invention of the 17th Century and has no real witnesses going back into antiquity, though it was kicked around from time to time.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I'm being dishonest?

I feel that you are not being completely honest with yourself. You have not wronged me in this manner so I bear no grudge. I am a simple observer watching someone harm himself.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Which of those things did I list that you accept as literal historical accounts?

Here's the list again:
1)the creation account of Genesis 1&2
2)the creation of a literal man, named Adam3)the biblical flood as recorded in Genesis 6
4)the table of nations in Genesis 10
5)the literalness of biblical geneolgies

Can't you see what you are doing here? You are slipping in and switching definitions and explanations around. What you said about these passages earlier was, "Pelathias has already came down against these portions of scripture:"

But, now you throttle back and imply that it's really just a hermeneutical difference, no harm intended. Yet in this matter you did seek to harm me with the accusation that I was "against these portions of Scripture..."

Passive/aggressive. That's the tool of the one who doesn't really have solid footing. You must dance around a bit.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Pel, which of these 5 do you accept exactly as the Bible literally presents them?

I have already answered this. That answer is what has prompted your false accusation.

You still fail to read the Bible as it was written. "The man" is the phrase that is used repeatedly to refer to "the man" described as being created by God in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (Genesis 2, is the chapter that YOU interpret allegorically for some arbitrary reason that you refuse to disclose). "The man" is simply called "the man" throughout the context here. Much later, about five or six hundred years later, the phrase "the man" is repeated by NT writers and the phrase is used as a label in a manner much as a name would be used.

There's a HUGE difference between that and saying, "God created a man named Adam!" and then demanding that everyone line up and pay obeisance to your private interpretation. The "name" Adam wasn't really applied until centuries after Genesis was written, and Genesis itself wasn't even written until thousands of years (by YOUR own count) after the first humans appeared on this planet.

... more!