Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

These pictures show events that happened 20,000 years ago.

This next picture is of the galaxy known as M51 - "The Whirlpool Galaxy." M51 is about 23 MILLION light years away.
This event took place 23 MILLION years ago.

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.

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

Originally Posted by pelathais

I could go on but I just got a call to get to the hospital. Please remember my family in prayer. I anticipate seeing something more wonderful than m51 this evening.

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.

[Praxeas]

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.

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

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.

You don't think they have a way to measure distances? Do you think we can measure the distance between the sun and earth? The earth and Jupiter?

As for "suddenly" you might misunderstand what he said. It suddenly became the brightest not because it just now exploded, but because just not the events are being apparent to us.

Something that is 20,000 light years from us is a distance it takes light to travel in a year. Though light travels fast, a star that is way way way out in another galaxy will take time to reach us. When you look up at the stars you are seeing light that was emitted many many years ago.

Light is measurable. Our Galaxy is very large as it is and there are galaxies that are still many many many many many many many many MANY miles from us...which is probably why it's easier to just say "light year"

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Pel hasn't just been saying it. You have. Pel has presented scientific arguments based on facts and evidence. You've said "Pel is wrong, but I don't know why" essentially. Pel has made assertions with evidence. You've made assertions without.,

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.

Again, evolution is something accepted by faith, not by proof.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

See, you mentioned hermeneutics earlier right?

Right.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Hermeneutics is a "scientific" way of examining what the bible has to say.

Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the broader field of hermeneutics which involves not just the study of principles for the text, but includes all forms of communication: verbal, nonverbal and written.~WIKI

Anyway, even if we call it "science", it is still in fact deomonstratable. If someone asks us what and why we believe, we should have an answer, according to Peter, right?

The issue here isn't only that you guys try to force billions of years into creation that aren't there. If we were all muslims, or hindus or some religion that didn't have a clear creation account, maybe you would have grounds to attempt to line your religion up with science. But since we're all Christians, and the Holy Bible very specifically tells us how and when God created the earth and everything therein, you guys are doing violence to the scripture. There is no real heremeutic here, its presupposition, and there is a difference. I would like some good biblical exegesis on Genesis 1 from a theistic evolutionist on this board to show how you guys are interpreting the whole of Genesis 1, and what principles of interpretation you guys are using to arrive at the conclusions your arriving at. Give us fools who believe that God can and did create all things in 6 literal days a good schooling verse by verse of Genesis 1. Then lets apply that same logic to all other areas of scripture which are said to contradict science.

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.

Furthermore, I'd be interested to know if you guys accept the above miracles/events as well as these, I will number them for your convience, I know Pel's views on a couple of these, but not most of them, and haven't heard whether you (Prax) accept or deny these events as literal history:

1)the introduction of death into the world by sin
2)a talking sperpent in Genesis 3
3)a lteral Garden of Eden
4)that humans lived to be over 900 years old
5)a literal global flood
6)the origin of languages (Genesis 11)
7)Baalams donkey spoke
8)a literal man named Abraham, existed
9)that Abraham fathered Issac at the age of 100
10)Abraham lived to be 175 years old
11)that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah
12)that Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt
13)God spoke to Moses from a burning bush
14)all of the plagues of Egypt
15)the crossing of the Red Sea on dry land
16)God spoke to Moses, and gave him tables of stone with the ten commandments on them
17)the earth opening up and destroying Korah and his
18)the seprant in the wilderness
19)water from a rock
20)a cluster of grapes that had to be carried on the shoulders of men
21)the sun stood still
22)the walls of Jericho fell flat at a shout
23)Samson took on the Philistine army with the jawbone of a donkey
24)David killed a bear and lion with his hands
25)all the miracles of Elijah and Elisha (including fire coming down from heaven, and an ax head floating on top of the water)
26)Naaman was literally healed of his leprosy
27)Nebuchadneezer literally grazed like cattle
28)Daniel was thrown into a lions den, and not eaten
29)3 Hebrews were throw into a furnace hot enough to kill those who tossed them in, but emerged alive without even smelling like smoke

That not an exhaustive list, but I'm curious where you guys stand on those things.

Also, on these New Testament miracles:
1)the virgin birth
2)Jesus raising the dead to life, healing the blind
3)Peter walking on the water
4)Jesus walking on the water ( a much further distance than peter)
5)Jesus speaking to the storm and calming it
6)the ressurection
7)the literal speaking of tongues (languages) in Acts 2
8)that Peter escaped from prison
9)Jesus appeared to Paul on Damascus road
10)Paul & Silas sang hyms and the prison doors were opened
11)this earth will be burned up by fire and God will create a new heaven and earth

Originally Posted by Praxeas

One of those principles is the cultural/historical method. It considers the culture and history of the time it was written. To whom and where and when. Those things can affect HOW the text is to be interpreted

Right, and those things are particularly important in the epsitles. To try to explain away the creation account of Genesis by saying essentially that the human race was dumb and just accepted cultural myths that the earth was young is foolish. The high view of scripture says that the scriptural account is accurate because God is the author.
It isn't based on ideas of primitive pagan humanity. In fact many times in scripture God gives scientific fact long before its ever discoverd (especially seen in the book of Job).

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im just curious if you really do follow the principles of hermeneutics then because it has implications here. You're "method" seems to be "I have a literalist reading of Gen 1 and therefore I reject the scientific data though Im not able to explain scientifically how it's wrong".

No, my method is, "I accept what the Bible is says" therefore I am unwilling to accept any other position without hard irrefutable proof. All that evolution can offer is theories, and all that science can offer is dating based upon presuppositions, thus assumptions.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

However if you tried to defeat the scientific data and facts you might have to come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 needs to be interpreted in light of the historical data same way we do with the hermeneutic principle of the historical/cultural method

EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. You interpret Genesis 1, not using the tried and true method of "scripture interprets scripture" but "scientific theory interprets scripture". You interpret Genesis 1 through what science has said, not through what God has said. Why don't you do the same with the ressurection? Has not scientific FACT (not theory, but demonstratable science) proved that dead people don't come back to life? Hasn't scientific FACT (not theory, but demonstratable science) proved that virgins don't have babies?

If you try to interpret the Bible by scinece, your going to end up rejecting the Bible.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No more direct involvement in creating the modern human race. Remember God's creative acts ended with man

In fact, think about this. Despite God ceasing to create, He has continued to this day to form a new human being in the wombs of all the pregnant women around the globe

Which isn't an original creation. And strange enough everytime a woman has a baby, its human. No half man, half elephants. Everytime a dog has a baby, its a dog. Everything reproduces after its kind, just like Genesis said has always happened, since the very first week of creation. Nothing evolved from one kind to another, the whole theory is unprovable nonsense.

[Praxeas]

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.

I was giving the conclusion of your position. I know you did not say those words specifically.

Dating techniques are demonstrable. Fossil records are demonstrable. But again you are repeating exactly what I said you are doing, making baseless assertions. You can't demonstrate your assertions to be true

Again, evolution is something accepted by faith, not by proof.

Another baseless, empty assertion. Evolution is not a faith based religion. It is a scientific observation that looks at the fossil records and data from radio dating among other things

Anyway, even if we call it "science", it is still in fact deomonstratable. If someone asks us what and why we believe, we should have an answer, according to Peter, right?

You are obfuscating the point, a red herring. The point I made has nothing to do with this response. We use historical data to interpret scriptures is one of those principles

The issue here isn't only that you guys try to force billions of years into creation that aren't there.

That's not an issue because nobody is trying to force billions of years into creation. Rather there is objective data that shows the earth and the universe is way older than 10k years

If we were all muslims, or hindus or some religion that didn't have a clear creation account, maybe you would have grounds to attempt to line your religion up with science.

Again the principle of hermeneutics says we examine the bible in light of historical/cultural data.

But since we're all Christians, and the Holy Bible very specifically tells us how and when God created the earth and everything therein, you guys are doing violence to the scripture.

Again that is debatable, that it specifically tells us how and when and in particular I already made the point that even literalists have to do some interpreting of the text due to the fact that the sun and moon were not even created yet.

Your entire argument lacks scientific rebuttle and therefore my first conclusion is the point Im making. You reject the scientific data because of your literal view of the creation account and rejection that is can't be anything but literal yet there are many other scriptures that are not even symbolic like Revelation that YEC interpret because otherwise it does make sense. Christians look at scriptures in light of historical data you seem to be saying a blanket statement that evolution is wrong because the bible says so and therefore you don't even need any scientific proof that refutes radio dating or the fossil records

There is no real heremeutic here, its presupposition, and there is a difference.

That doesn't make sense. Do you get my point? If we look at the rest of the bible based on a historical/cultural method why not then take a hard look at the scientific data? Pel has offered to give you a primer on radio dating and why it's a lot more reliable than you think. Why not study it first hand instead of listening just to the YECs and drawing a conclusion. If the data is right and the earth is older than you think, hermeneutics would say you need to view the literal 6 day creation a little less literal

I would like some good biblical exegesis on Genesis 1 from a theistic evolutionist on this board to show how you guys are interpreting the whole of Genesis 1, and what principles of interpretation you guys are using to arrive at the conclusions your arriving at.

Red Herring. Again my point about the historical/cultural method?

Give us fools who believe that God can and did create all things in 6 literal days a good schooling verse by verse of Genesis 1. Then lets apply that same logic to all other areas of scripture which are said to contradict science.

Again you obfuscate the issue. The issue is not about what God can do..apparently Coadie has a hard time believing God CAN beat the odds that evolution can even occur.

Look at the geologic data, not just evolution but the formation of the planet and plate movement. Look at how many many years it would take just for something like the grand canyon to form. There is just so much out there. Geology is not a faith. Forensics is not a faith.

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

No the real issue is that we have hard scientific data and the YECers want to play "hear no evil, see no evil" rather than objectively look at the data. The data does not magically disappear because you want a literal 6 day creation

I have already shown the hebrew word for Day can mean simply a period of time not specific.

And Pel made a good point regarding the table of nations...where is China? China has been around as a culture for a long long LONG time.

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.

Again hermeneutics says we have to consider history and culture when examining the bible. There is scientific historical data that suggests Genesis 1 is not a literal 24 hour/6 day account. The Sun and Moon were not even created until days after the 1st "day"

[Praxeas]

Furthermore, I'd be interested to know if you guys accept the above miracles/events as well as these, I will number them for your convience, I know Pel's views on a couple of these, but not most of them, and haven't heard whether you (Prax) accept or deny these events as literal history:

1)the introduction of death into the world by sin
2)a talking sperpent in Genesis 3
3)a lteral Garden of Eden
4)that humans lived to be over 900 years old
5)a literal global flood
6)the origin of languages (Genesis 11)
7)Baalams donkey spoke
8)a literal man named Abraham, existed
9)that Abraham fathered Issac at the age of 100
10)Abraham lived to be 175 years old
11)that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah
12)that Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt
13)God spoke to Moses from a burning bush
14)all of the plagues of Egypt
15)the crossing of the Red Sea on dry land
16)God spoke to Moses, and gave him tables of stone with the ten commandments on them
17)the earth opening up and destroying Korah and his
18)the seprant in the wilderness
19)water from a rock
20)a cluster of grapes that had to be carried on the shoulders of men
21)the sun stood still
22)the walls of Jericho fell flat at a shout
23)Samson took on the Philistine army with the jawbone of a donkey
24)David killed a bear and lion with his hands
25)all the miracles of Elijah and Elisha (including fire coming down from heaven, and an ax head floating on top of the water)
26)Naaman was literally healed of his leprosy
27)Nebuchadneezer literally grazed like cattle
28)Daniel was thrown into a lions den, and not eaten
29)3 Hebrews were throw into a furnace hot enough to kill those who tossed them in, but emerged alive without even smelling like smoke

What you are doing is introducing a red herring. The issue is we have scientific data that sheds light on creation, that the earth and the universe is much older than the YECs claim it is.

Your assertion and assumption is that someone like Pel rejected the bible first some time ago and then put their faith in a religion called Evolution. That is untrue. The reverse is what happened. He was confronted with indisputable scientific data,facts and he had to be honest with. It was hard to do but eventually he realized it had no bearing on his faith in God or the bible. Put the idea of Evolution aside, as I said before, there are still tons of scientific data to go through that you have no answer for other than to make assertions then admit you can't even begin to prove your assertions

Right, and those things are particularly important in the epsitles. To try to explain away the creation account of Genesis by saying essentially that the human race was dumb and just accepted cultural myths that the earth was young is foolish. The high view of scripture says that the scriptural account is accurate because God is the author.
It isn't based on ideas of primitive pagan humanity. In fact many times in scripture God gives scientific fact long before its ever discoverd (especially seen in the book of Job).

No those things are important to ALL the word of God. For example when we look at the region of Sodom and Gomorrah we get a better geological idea of what happened, what the biblical data was speaking of.

No, my method is, "I accept what the Bible is says" therefore I am unwilling to accept any other position without hard irrefutable proof. All that evolution can offer is theories, and all that science can offer is dating based upon presuppositions, thus assumptions.

Then you don't have a method of biblical interpretation other than "this is what I believe and so it is"...because there are TONS of scriptures that Christians every day don't take LITERALLY but have to interpret based on their theological views or other scriptures. No Christian ever takes all scriptures really literal at face value. They might say so but when you question them as to what a certain verse says and then question how that contradicts their doctrine, they will offer an INTERPRETATION.

EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. You interpret Genesis 1, not using the tried and true method of "scripture interprets scripture" but "scientific theory interprets scripture".

No I use the method of historical/cultural. Further we are talking about scientific data not theories. Theories are conjectures. There are tons of data that says the earth is much much older than you claim. That is not theory but scientific testing and observations

You interpret Genesis 1 through what science has said, not through what God has said. Why don't you do the same with the ressurection? Has not scientific FACT (not theory, but demonstratable science) proved that dead people don't come back to life? Hasn't scientific FACT (not theory, but demonstratable science) proved that virgins don't have babies?

I have pulled my head out of the proverbial sand and stopped being dishonest with the data. I have stopped lying to myself and trying to find excuses for denying the data. It's there and you can't refute it and one day when you stop trying to make excuses you'll have to be confronted with the overwhealming data and realize that not everything in the bible is meant to be literal.

Let me ask you a question: Has anyone seen God at any time? Moses saw Him...but someone interprets that and says he saw God's backside referring to the book of genisis. But that's not literal. They say no man can see his face...but Jacob saw him face to face...again someone has to interpret that too

The bible is written in such a way that it includes a lot of Idiomatic expressions and other things we have to consider that we know it's not all to be taken literal

If you try to interpret the Bible by scinece, your going to end up rejecting the Bible.

Is that your fear? That if you accept the data you'll lose your faith in God and the bible?

[Jason B]

I will respond to the two newest posts of Praxeas, however, as a genreal rule, I notice these reoccouring themes.


1)You are attempting to interpret scripture through science. You are not and have not posted any SCRIPTURAL evidence for an earth and creation that is billions of years old.

2)I asked for an exegesis of Genesis 1 from a theistic evolutionist, and was told that was a red herring. No, what that is called is a cop out.

3)You posts on this subject are full of assumptions. You speak of dating methods as if they are fact, when in reality they cannot be proven.

When God created Adam (if you accept there was a literal Adam, since when I asked about Him, and 28 other Old Testament events, you claimed it was aRed Herring)-- He didn't create Him as a single cell who evolved, he didn't create him as a child or a teenager, but as a fully matured man capable of logic, language, and procreation. Yet if we showed up on day 9 Adam would appear to us to be perhaps a 30 year old man, yet in reality, only 3 days old. When God created the stars on day 4, no doubt if measured on day 5 they would measure thousands of light years, yet they were only 1 day old. If we saw a tree on day 6 with fruit on it, we would assume its been there many years. If we cut it down we would likely find many rings in it, however the tree itself would only be 3 days old. Again, the theories that you have decided to accept are not fact, they don't take into account the power of God or catastrophic events, and are largely based on uniformitarianism.


All in all its is TE's whose arguments revolve around science, and not scripture. Perhaps you all should call yourselves Rossites?

PS- why did coadie get banned?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I was giving the conclusion of your position. I know you did not say those words specifically.

Dating techniques are demonstrable. Fossil records are demonstrable. But again you are repeating exactly what I said you are doing, making baseless assertions. You can't demonstrate your assertions to be true

Wrong. Which of your assertions or dating techniches have proved to be undisputable fact that the earth is billions of years old. Pel's post that a star is 23 million years old isn't proof, no one can measure that. Again, when the stars were created on day 4, no one would look at a star on day five and call its age 1 day. When God created, he created a fully mature creation.

Furthermore which fossil(s) prove evolution? I have a video posted on page 19 of this thread in a creationist/evolutionist debate in which the evolutionist says "Fossils don't mean anything to evolution. Forget fossils, they just aren't important."

And dating techniques don't prove much, since the half life of C-14 is thought to be 5700 years, but that is still based on assumption of enviroment, how much C-14 the organizm had upon death and such. All variables that cannot be known for sure. Furthermore there is real questions as to equilibrium and C-14 dating.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Another baseless, empty assertion. Evolution is not a faith based religion. It is a scientific observation that looks at the fossil records and data from radio dating among other things

I didn't say it was a religion. I said its accepted by faith. For some people it is a religion, I wouldn't say that for you or Pel, I would say that you both have mixed naturalistic philosphy into your Christian religion.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's not an issue because nobody is trying to force billions of years into creation. Rather there is objective data that shows the earth and the universe is way older than 10k years

I don't know how to quote me, then quote you quoting me, without going through a prolonged cut an paste using multiple windows open to AFF on my computer. But this is a response to my comment "The issue here isn't only that you guys try to force billions of years into creation that aren't there. "

1)Its not the issue, the issue is biblical inerrancy, though you deny this, you affirm it is the issue by refusing to address Genesis 1, or the multitude of old and New testament miracles I asked for ocmment on. And I've already pointed out several areas that Pel has deviated from a high view of scripture, in which according to your comment on China, you seem to follow his footsteps.
2)You claim the earth is way older than 10K years, but again, have no proof. And what exactly is way older? 100K years, 500K years? That's much older, but thats not even close to what you guys are peddling, you guys are going for billions of years, all the while offering the comical remark "no one is trying to force billions of years into creation".

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again the principle of hermeneutics says we examine the bible in light of historical/cultural data.

Yet when I asked for an exegesis of Genesis 1 you said it was a red herring. I tend to think you cannot do anything but violence to scripture by disregarding the 6 day creation. And when asked to explain the argument for an old earth verse by verse uning Genesis 1 you refuse.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again that is debatable, that it specifically tells us how and when and in particular I already made the point that even literalists have to do some interpreting of the text due to the fact that the sun and moon were not even created yet.

Actually, thats not a problem at all for YEC. There was no sun or moon until day 4, big deal. In eternity there will not be a sun or moon present, but God himself will be the light for ever.

On the other hand, if we try to compromise an old eath or day age theory with Genesis 1 then we have thousands, if not millions or billions of years WITHOUT THE SUN, so hows that work out?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Your entire argument lacks scientific rebuttle and therefore my first conclusion is the point Im making.

I guess it depends on what source you draw authority from. Your entire argument is based on "science" but you disregard the fact that it is not true demonstratable science, but scientific theory. Thus science is your authority. My authority is the Word of God. If you want to convince me of an old earth, you will have to convince me that is what the SCRIPTURE teaches. You can post all the "science" you want, it doesn't mean a thing to me. You refusal to make your argument for an old earth from Genesis 1 (or any other scripture), speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You reject the scientific data because of your literal view of the creation account and rejection that is can't be anything but literal yet there are many other scriptures that are not even symbolic like Revelation that YEC interpret because otherwise it does make sense. Christians look at scriptures in light of historical data you seem to be saying a blanket statement that evolution is wrong because the bible says so and therefore you don't even need any scientific proof that refutes radio dating or the fossil records

Do you agree that the Bible does not teach evolution? I

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That doesn't make sense. Do you get my point? If we look at the rest of the bible based on a historical/cultural method why not then take a hard look at the scientific data? Pel has offered to give you a primer on radio dating and why it's a lot more reliable than you think. Why not study it first hand instead of listening just to the YECs and drawing a conclusion. If the data is right and the earth is older than you think, hermeneutics would say you need to view the literal 6 day creation a little less literal

Thats a big IF

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Red Herring. Again my point about the historical/cultural method?

This in response to my request:
"I would like some good biblical exegesis on Genesis 1 from a theistic evolutionist on this board to show how you guys are interpreting the whole of Genesis 1, and what principles of interpretation you guys are using to arrive at the conclusions your arriving at."
Prax, thats no red herring. We are discussing Genesis 1. You are asserting that I am not interpreting the scripture correctly so I am requesting a first hand exegetical study of Genesis 1 that shows me where I am wrong. Can you do this from scripture (not science) yes or no?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again you obfuscate the issue. The issue is not about what God can do..apparently Coadie has a hard time believing God CAN beat the odds that evolution can even occur.

This in response to my repeated request:
"Give us fools who believe that God can and did create all things in 6 literal days a good schooling verse by verse of Genesis 1. Then lets apply that same logic to all other areas of scripture which are said to contradict science."

How is that obfuscating the issue? Isn't Genesis 1 the topic of this thread? Your response to my request was an Obama-like deflection of the question.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Look at the geologic data, not just evolution but the formation of the planet and plate movement. Look at how many many years it would take just for something like the grand canyon to form. There is just so much out there. Geology is not a faith. Forensics is not a faith.

How long would it take the Grand canyon to form? Well if we accept what the Bible says, not very long if a catostrophic event, such as the flood were to happen.

Furthermore how long did it take Providence Canyon in Georgia to form? It was farmland in the 1800's, not is a 1000 acre national park.

"Providence Canyon State Park is a 1,001 acre (4.06 km2) state park located in Stewart County in west central Georgia. The park contains Providence Canyon, which is sometimes called Georgia's "Little Grand Canyon". It is considered to be one of the Seven Natural Wonders of Georgia. Providence Canyon actually is not a purely natural feature — the massive gullies (the deepest being 150 feet) were caused by erosion due to poor farming in the 1800s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provide...yon_State_Park

And the floods which caused Providence canyon were nothing like the flood described in Genesis .

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No the real issue is that we have hard scientific data and the YECers want to play "hear no evil, see no evil" rather than objectively look at the data. The data does not magically disappear because you want a literal 6 day creation

This was in response to five areas I noted that Pel denies the plain literal reading of scripture, and note that the real issue isn't merely years of creation, but biblical inerrancy. You say its not the real issue, all the while appearently endorsing the same views that Pelathias has concerning scripture.

[Jason B]

CONTINUED....

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I have already shown the hebrew word for Day can mean simply a period of time not specific.

Divorced from all context in Genesis. The only place that I can think of where a number and a day appear together and are not literal days in in Hosea (2 days he cast us off, the third day he will gather us). Everywhere the days of creation are referred to in scripture, cheifly in the 10 commandments of Exodus 20:11, the days are set out as literal days.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

And Pel made a good point regarding the table of nations...where is China? China has been around as a culture for a long long LONG time.

I don't know I'd have to study it more. Thats what I do when I don't know the answer. Admit it, and go study it. I'm confident there is a reasonable explanation, and I am confident of that because I believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant. I don't have all knowledge, but I don't use my imperfect knowledge on a subject as a means of tearing down the scripture. IOW because an argument is presented I'm not familiar with I don't take the attitude of "nope, no china, obviously the Bible missed it on this one". You admission about China and Genesis 10 seems to indicate you are not only questioning the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but are INDEED doubting the reliability of other scriptures. Again, the issue isn't the years of creation, it is Biblical inerrancy, authority, reliability, and inspiration.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again hermeneutics says we have to consider history and culture when examining the bible. There is scientific historical data that suggests Genesis 1 is not a literal 24 hour/6 day account. The Sun and Moon were not even created until days after the 1st "day"

Again "science" not scripture.

And again, I say then you have to harmonize your theory with the fact that if the days are long ages of time you have 3 "days" without any sun, thus translating into thousands, or more accurately millions or billons of years without a sun.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What you are doing is introducing a red herring.

This in response to the 29 Old Testament miracles I asked if you believed. Its no red herring at all. You continuosly assert how your position is NOT against the inerrancy of scripture, so I asked if you believed all the things I listed and appearently the answer is NO, at least to some of them.

It is not a red herring because if you affirm the total inerrancy of scripture, you could easily accept the scriptural claims of all 29. Thus you would prove your hermenutic for Genesis 1 is inconsitent. -OR- you could apply the scientific data to all 29, as you have with Genesis 1, and you are left with no choice but to deny at least some of them (probably basically all of them, except #8). Your very smart, and I think you realize this, which is why your not dealing with that issue.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I have already shown the hebrew word for Day can mean simply a period of time not specific.

Divorced from all context in Genesis. The only place that I can think of where a number and a day appear together and are not literal days in in Hosea (2 days he cast us off, the third day he will gather us). Everywhere the days of creation are referred to in scripture, cheifly in the 10 commandments of Exodus 20:11, the days are set out as literal days.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

And Pel made a good point regarding the table of nations...where is China? China has been around as a culture for a long long LONG time.

I don't know I'd have to study it more. Thats what I do when I don't know the answer. Admit it, and go study it. I'm confident there is a reasonable explanation, and I am confident of that because I believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant. I don't have all knowledge, but I don't use my imperfect knowledge on a subject as a means of tearing down the scripture. IOW because an argument is presented I'm not familiar with I don't take the attitude of "nope, no china, obviously the Bible missed it on this one". You admission about China and Genesis 10 seems to indicate you are not only questioning the literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but are INDEED doubting the reliability of other scriptures. Again, the issue isn't the years of creation, it is Biblical inerrancy, authority, reliability, and inspiration.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again hermeneutics says we have to consider history and culture when examining the bible. There is scientific historical data that suggests Genesis 1 is not a literal 24 hour/6 day account. The Sun and Moon were not even created until days after the 1st "day"

Again "science" not scripture.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The issue is we have scientific data that sheds light on creation, that the earth and the universe is much older than the YECs claim it is.

Again, your guilty of allowing "scientific" data to shed light on your interpretation of scripture. Your not interpeting scripture with scripture, but rather intepreting scripture by science, as you have plainly admitted.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Your assertion and assumption is that someone like Pel rejected the bible first some time ago and then put their faith in a religion called Evolution. That is untrue.

Pel told me that he rejected fundamentalism, not the Bible. The effect is that he is now a theistic evolutionist, who in a round about (and I think, unintetional way) denies at least parts of the Bible. I don't think evolution is a religion (though for some it is) but just bad philosphy, which attacks the scripture.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The reverse is what happened. He was confronted with indisputable scientific data,facts and he had to be honest with.

The "facts" for evolution are hardly indisputable. To even claim there are "facts" which affirm evolution is relative in and of itself, because no such FACTS exist.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It was hard to do but eventually he realized it had no bearing on his faith in God or the bible.

Right, he says that, and you say that. Then goes on to appearently deny the literalness of Adam, the flood, the story of Babel (which resulted in the origin of nations, the whole china issue, right) and other parts of scripture. So I understand the CLAIM that is had "no bearing on his faith...in the Bible" but in reality I observe just the opposite.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Put the idea of Evolution aside, as I said before, there are still tons of scientific data to go through that you have no answer for other than to make assertions then admit you can't even begin to prove your assertions

Broken record. Data, data, data. If you want to convince me, give me scripture, scripture, scripture.

Concerning my interpretation of the text I said my method is, "I accept what the Bible is says" therefore I am unwilling to accept any other position without hard irrefutable proof. All that evolution can offer is theories, and all that science can offer is dating based upon presuppositions, thus assumptions.

To which you replied:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Then you don't have a method of biblical interpretation other than "this is what I believe and so it is"...because there are TONS of scriptures that Christians every day don't take LITERALLY but have to interpret based on their theological views or other scriptures. No Christian ever takes all scriptures really literal at face value. They might say so but when you question them as to what a certain verse says and then question how that contradicts their doctrine, they will offer an INTERPRETATION.

Thats a pretty lame strawman. How many times are you going to accuse me of taking all scripture literally? The question isn't the whole of scripture, obviously there are alot of scriptures which are symbolic, especially in poetry, prophets, and parables. Genesis 1 is neither symbolic, poetic, allegorical, or figurative. You are claiming that I'm wrong for accepting a literal reading of Genesis 1, but refused to explain Genesis 1 verse by verse from an old earth perspective.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I have pulled my head out of the proverbial sand and stopped being dishonest with the data. I have stopped lying to myself and trying to find excuses for denying the data. It's there and you can't refute it and one day when you stop trying to make excuses you'll have to be confronted with the overwhealming data and realize that not everything in the bible is meant to be literal.

So what your saying is that as long as someone accepts a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 they have their head in the sand and are lying to themselves. You are also admitting that you have abandoned some form of faith.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Is that your fear? That if you accept the data you'll lose your faith in God and the bible?

No, thats not my "fear", but I will admit, I'm not comfortable with the skepticism that Pel and others approach scripture with, which seems to decrease, rather than increase faith. I think it ends up where Not4Sale is, sketical of everything, rejecting of large portions of scripture, and basically unsure of anything, not to mention when scripture is finally rejected, the only think left is relativism, and we make ourselves become the authority, rather than the word of God.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

1)You are attempting to interpret scripture through science. You are not and have not posted any SCRIPTURAL evidence for an earth and creation that is billions of years old.

There is no scriptural evidence for any specific age of the earth

2)I asked for an exegesis of Genesis 1 from a theistic evolutionist, and was told that was a red herring. No, what that is called is a cop out.

I am not a theistic evolutionist. I am an honest person who has to admit there is a lot of factual data for the universe being much much much older than 10,000 years. Many of your responses to what I posted were red herrings.

3)You posts on this subject are full of assumptions. You speak of dating methods as if they are fact, when in reality they cannot be proven.

You have said, over and over "when in reality they can not be proven" and the fact is it is very easy to prove dating methods. Just date something we already know the age of.

My posts are usually in response to yours. In fact that was where I jumped in, when you made the assumption that an evolutionist can't believe in the bible or the genesis account. I argued an evolutionist can believe in God and in the bible and infact Christian evolutionists see God as the cause of evolution and merely see Genesis 1 interpretationally different than you do.

So Im usually responding to your assertions, like the one above that says dating methods "in reality they cannot be proven" and yet not one shred of data to back that assertion up.

As I pointed out before, biblical archeologist use these dating methods to date biblical finds

It's very easy to see that a certain dig dates to the bronze age by what they find in those digs. But to compound matters for you, they also radio date the things they find TO the bronze age.

Forensic pathologists use dating methods too and our legal system recognizes the validity of these sciences

Other issues is, in those digs there are no fossil records of dinosaurs nor is there a biblical accounting of them. You believe in the flood...I don't know if that is global or local, but do you really think there was enough room on the ark for all animals including dinosaurs?

And if so, why did all the dinosaurs die out and why don't we find them all in the same layers we find remains of early man from Noah's time on up?

What does the bible say about that?

Dating methods. Just how far do you think those stars are? See that's the problem, your view means the furthest star has to be no more than 10k light years away. The furthest star! There are billions of stars. If they are all that close the solar systems would probably collapse due to their gravitational pull and the close proximity. We would see a lot more stars in the night sky....it would be light up very brightly.

Here is a page that gives several methods for determining the distance of stars. Many involve Trig

So, here was my point I made once before. Astronomers and mathematicians have all scientifically, mathematically calculated many starts to be much further than a mere 10k light years away...the more and more further away you get from that point the less and less a literal day view of Genesis makes sense

And as I have already done, with no rebuttle, I have proven that the hebrew word for day used there can mean an unspecified period of time and that our system of time, literal days, are based on the rotation of the earth as it orbits the Sun and that did not happen till a few days after the text says "the first day"

When God created Adam (if you accept there was a literal Adam, since when I asked about Him, and 28 other Old Testament events, you claimed it was aRed Herring)

Do you know what a red herring is? It means we are on an issue, I made a point on that issue and you ignored my point and redirected the topic to something that is totally irrelevant to the discussion of Evolution or even the thread topic of it being a religion

-- He didn't create Him as a single cell who evolved, he didn't create him as a child or a teenager, but as a fully matured man capable of logic, language, and procreation.

Im sure Pel would say Adam represents mankind or some such but let's assume God created Adam in one day and literally took a rib to make a woman after a period of time that is unspecified. Adam could have been living for many many years according to most Christian accounts, because he would not have died had he not sinned. He could have lived for a long long time, then him and Eve could have lived even longer.

Do you know what Neanderthal is? We have fossil records of modern man (Adam) and they lived along side Neanderthal for quite some time in Europe. Can you explain all the man like fossils that predate modern man?

Anyways, maybe God made Adam that does not mean He could not have also made other humanoid like beings or even those that evolved into modern man outside of the garden.

It would also answer the question as to who the females where that the sons of Adam procreated with

Yet if we showed up on day 9 Adam would appear to us to be perhaps a 30 year old man, yet in reality, only 3 days old. When God created the stars on day 4, no doubt if measured on day 5 they would measure thousands of light years, yet they were only 1 day old.

The problem is that light is still hitting the earth today and needs to travel thousands and hundred of thousands of light years before doing so.

So the fact that the distance of a star is calculated to be 20k light years from us means the light we are seeing from that star left that star 20 thousand years ago. Next week the light we see from the same start left that start 20 thousand years ago. etc etc

If we saw a tree on day 6 with fruit on it, we would assume its been there many years. If we cut it down we would likely find many rings in it, however the tree itself would only be 3 days old. Again, the theories that you have decided to accept are not fact, they don't take into account the power of God or catastrophic events, and are largely based on uniformitarianism.

There would be no rings because rings are growth rings. They represent years of bark shedding and production. It would be a tree with no rings.

Second, I have accepted no theories. I'm discussing dates, history. Pel and Coadie are discussing speciation. Evolution is what you keep calling a theory. Dating methods are not theories

Definition of a theory:
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Half life decay of radio isotopes is not a theory. It's an observable event. Trigonometry is not a theory either.