Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Ok Prax, please clarify how you believe in Biblical inerrancy, while not accepting the creation account in Genesis 1.

For years I have asked evolutionists that claim they believe the bilbe to tell us how Genesis 1 should read so it would be true and they stubbornly won't touch it.

I am not in need of an interpretor.


The same group, claims the bible was "interpreted wrong" until Darwin came along. How funny. A drooling house bound psychotic got a special revelation

Darwin is not the first to have a notion of an old earth, but gets creadit for fame regarding common ancestry as opposed to each species being created separately.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Ok Prax, please clarify how you believe in Biblical inerrancy, while not accepting the creation account in Genesis 1.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The points I made in the post you bumped are solid. The "Zerubbabel Question" is nothing more than a red herring when the topic is creation.

Do you believe there was a man literally created by God named Adam?

You never answered the question.

...Jason, the Zerubbabel question has absolutely nothing to do with the science of evolution and so if we were discussing evolution in purely scientific terms then you would be right about it being a red herring.

However, you didn't want to discuss evolution in purely scientific terms. Why? Because that discussion would be rather short seeing as you have admitted to not currently knowing any scientific evidence against evolution. Of course the problem isn't really that you don't know of any, the problem is that there isn't any. But please don't go out on some half hearted attempt to prove me wrong about that. Instead lets discuss what you feel more comfortable discussing, the scriptures.

In fact, let's discuss your literalist interpretation of the bible and your claim evolutionists do not believe in biblical inerrancy. I mean that is your biggest argument against evolutionists right? So to discuss this I want to bring forth Zerubbabel as an example of you not believing biblical inerrancy (as you have defined it) and if I'm right (actually if Pel is right) then I say you are a hypocrite for accusing others of not believing in biblical inerrancy (as you have defined it) when you don't either.

So Jason, do you care to prove that you aren't a hypocrite on this issue by addressing the Zerubbabel question?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Article on Carbon dating (I haven't read yet, but am about to), perhaps Pel will post a short rebuttal

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rove-the-bible

The article includes this quote:
When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word “day” always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase “evening and morning” further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:

Just sayin' its not as if Coadie and myself are on an island. And even if we were God's word is not defined by popular opinion, else we'd all be trinitarians.

Also:
"Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion."

Now Jason. You say that a number with the word "day" always means a literal day in the old testament. How can we know that is true. Even if it is true in every other example then how can we know that Genesis 1 isn't the 1 example we have where a number with the word "day" means a figurative day. The problem with your biblical interpretation is you are trying to extrapolate the meaning of a number with the word "day" from other scriptures. Extrapolation is the same problem you have with radiometric dating. I say that if you will not let scientists extrapolate then you shouldn't extrapolate either, especially when it comes to scripture.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Now Jason. You say that a number with the word "day" always means a literal day in the old testament. How can we know that is true. Even if it is true in every other example then how can we know that Genesis 1 isn't the 1 example we have where a number with the word "day" means a figurative day. The problem with your biblical interpretation is you are trying to extrapolate the meaning of a number with the word "day" from other scriptures. Extrapolation is the same problem you have with radiometric dating. I say that if you will not let scientists extrapolate then you shouldn't extrapolate either, especially when it comes to scripture.

Another example of your irrational head.


8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

It does take a fool to believe that the duration of a day would fluctuate with in one commandment and one sentence.

I would use Darwinian culture to interpret scripture. We use scriopture to interpret scripture.


When the old earth people want to twist Genesis 1, most aren't smart enough to know that means they would have to re write other verses so they also wouldn't clash.

Exodus 19

16And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled

How many billions of years was Moses on the mountain the previous chapter?

Final question for jfrog the bible scholar.
If Adam lived

4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Once you start twisting scripture, you can't reconcile Adams age since he was formed on the 6th day.

Dishonest people have an agenda to change scripture. If you can change the scripture, you sure don't need to obey it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Ok Prax, please clarify how you believe in Biblical inerrancy, while not accepting the creation account in Genesis 1.

sigh...Im gonna say this one last time. It's not a matter of ACCEPTING. Its not about authority or inerrency. It's about IN TER PRE TATION.

You keep taking my acceptance but different interpretation and turning that into me not accepting it.

Last time.

The issue is one of IN TER PRE TATION. I don't take Genesis as a literal account of creation. I do take to to be about creation.

And I already gave an example of the whole "evening/morning" issue. It's not meant to be taken literal. By literal I mean, "There is no room for interpretation":

Just because something is not a literal account of creation does not mean it isn't an account of creation

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Now Jason. You say that a number with the word "day" always means a literal day in the old testament. How can we know that is true. Even if it is true in every other example then how can we know that Genesis 1 isn't the 1 example we have where a number with the word "day" means a figurative day. The problem with your biblical interpretation is you are trying to extrapolate the meaning of a number with the word "day" from other scriptures. Extrapolation is the same problem you have with radiometric dating. I say that if you will not let scientists extrapolate then you shouldn't extrapolate either, especially when it comes to scripture.

Not to mention my earlier point about the bible even saying that 1 day is like a thousand years to God and the fact that Jesus was not literally in the grave for 3 full 24hour periods

Also consider that The first thing God created was Light, not the Sun but Light and He called the Light "day". So does that mean there were 6 different lights? But Day is defined as Light not necessarily a literal 24 hour period

According to Zodhaites lexicon Yom, the hebrew word used there, means day, time or year

here it is translated as an undetermined amount of time
Num 20:15 how our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have lived in Egypt a long time. And the Egyptians troubled us and our fathers.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The points I made in the post you bumped are solid. The "Zerubbabel Question" is nothing more than a red herring when the topic is creation.

No. It demonstrates that the genealogies CANNOT be taken literally. Moreover, since I'm hardly the first person to notice the problems in the genealogies (See the Talmud, for example) it's quite apparent that the genealogies were NEVER intended to be taken literally.

If you can't (or won't) answer the Zerubbabel question - then tear the genealogies out of your Bible. They contradict one another and couldn't possibly be literal.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Do you believe there was a man literally created by God named Adam?

You never answered the question.

Bogus Jason. You've never asked me that question. I might miss somethings along the way but just inserting a claim like that is silly.

And, can you show me where in the Bible anyone named " ˈa-dəm " is even identified? Go back and reread Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Where is anyone said to be in possession of "THE NAME" Adam? Even in Genesis 3:9 (NIV) when God Himself calls out to the man, He doesn't say that the man's "NAME" is "Adam."

Nowhere. You're just reading the Bible through your own cultural bias; or the King James translator's cultural bias. Consider the first occurrence of the word "Adam" in the KJV:

Genesis 2:19 (CLICK the link in the left and read the Bible).

Now, consider another translation:

Genesis 2:19 (NIV)

In the Hebrew, it is always "the man" - literally. Your problem here is that you aren't even asking questions about the Bible ("Do you believe there was a man literally created by God named Adam?").

You're asking questions about somebody else's Sunday School coloring book. Get back to the Book that matters - the Bible!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Article on Carbon dating (I haven't read yet, but am about to), perhaps Pel will post a short rebuttal

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rove-the-bible

The article includes this quote:
When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say,..."

Ken Ham's problem is that he doesn't pay attention when he reads the Bible.

2 Peter 1:21 - "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

There's a huge difference between what Ken Hams says about the Bible and what the Bible says about itself.

The same rules of language and meaning that we apply to the words that these holy men of God spoke, apply to the words found in any other literature. The important difference being, these men (the writers of the Bible) were "moved by the Holy Ghost."

But to understand what these men were saying, we must first of all pay attention to them. Next, we apply all of the normal conditions and meanings associated with all other literature.

It is people like Ken Ham who have "reinterpreted" the Bible.

The attempts at making a literal calculation based upon the Bible's genealogies go back to at least St. Jerome (late 4th Century-early 5th Century); but they never took hold. No one ever found a way to make them work - nor a way to iron out the contradictions.

It wasn't until the period of time known as "The British Enlightenment" when there was a great deal of open public skepticism (and printed books) that tracts like Ussher's chronology began to take hold. Instead of embracing the new scientific learning and knowledge WITH FAITH, these people simply slammed both their shutters and their minds.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible.

Our (and certainly Ken's!) understanding of His Word is also fallible! Ken ignores that fact because he thinks that his "understanding" is divine.

Jeremiah 23:36; Habakkuk 1:4; Matthew 15:3-6; Hebrews 5:11; 2 Peter 3:16

Beware of also stumbling at Matthew 22:29 and 2 Peter 2:1.

We can test the "theories" that are presented here. Time after time, Ken Ham and the Young Earth Creationists (YEC) fail.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word “day” always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase “evening and morning” further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:

Just sayin' its not as if Coadie and myself are on an island. And even if we were God's word is not defined by popular opinion, else we'd all be trinitarians.

Also:
"Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion."

You and coadie have a lot of company on that "island" - but it is still an island nonetheless. Care to do a one-on-one with the carbon 14 questions that you've found?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Evolution says no way. Mother earth had homo sapiens classified as animals that evolved from apes.

Why don't you answer the "Zerubbabel Question?" I'm just a simple fallible homo sapien, but you claim your view is "infallible."

YOU brought up the genealogies to try and support your view. I showed that they couldn't possibly be taken literally. Man up, dude.

Either that, or tear those "awful contradictions" out of your Bible.

Me? I like the Bible just the way it is. I don't need to lie to try and defend it. I don't need to avoid any embarrassing questions or duck and hide when the tough questions are asked. You guys ought to try and live a life of faith and belief. It's a whole lot better than pretending to be a "know-it-all."

[pelathais]

Prax and jfrog (with whom I certainly have some disagreements) -