Replies

You are talking strict evolution. They are not irreconciable.

No, I'm talking evolution as the theory we all know. Evolution can't play cybil and put a mask on for everyone that approaches it as you and others attempt to portray. It doesn't work like that. And the plain fact is that if you say dark and I say light, then, yes, the two stances are irreconcilable as light and darkness cannot occupy the same space. When Genesis states matter of factly that events played out in a specific order and in a specific way and you call that to task because evolution says it happened another way, you're calling it to task because you yourself understand that it can't be both ways - and you prefer the evolution story or you wouldn't be calling God's version the lie. You aren't seeking, when you call God's version false, to bring the two things together. You're trying to supplant God's word with something else - taking that something else preferentially as true. And Evolution does not need to have an outright denial of God to make it unreconcilable. Look at the liberal playbook. Liberals are good at destroying people and rendering them ineffectual over time by slander. They don't have to deny Newt Gingerich, they label him till they find a label with a smidge of truth that gains traction then he's done and they can shake there heads in mock and say "what a shame".

What would make it irreconciable is a denial of God.

A denial of God. You mean like what Satan did in the Garden when he denied God. How did he do it? He attacked God's word and lied while playing to Eve's ego. Once he had labeled God a liar and offered a motive for the lie, Eve was on the hook. Satan didn't outright call God a liar though. He let Eve put that together on her own by calling God's word into question. And that is precisely what you've done with your Evolution approach. You call God's word into question. And you start with things like, 'Did God really mean a literal "day" when he said day. No, day can mean many things..' Except when God means day, uses it and attaches to it in non-poetic language references that belong to a day - like morning and evening. The concept of the day is defined in these passages as well as concepts like seasons etc.. The meaning couldn't be more clear if it tried and the language disallows the leaps of trying to make 'day' mean something other than 24 hours. Had the evolutionists bothered to actually consult proper authority on the concept, they might have learned that this was a bad ground on which to craft a lie. But they didn't need to deny God to do the appropriate damage anymore than you yourself needed to in attempting to duplicate that damage amongst others. Evolution and the Genesis account cannot be reconciled.

They both acknowledge that a form of evolution exists by saying yeah animals and humans do adapt to there situation

Wrong. Adaptation existed long before the theory of evolution was ever thought of. Calling adaptation evolution, then calling your theory 'evolution' then trying to beg one is a part of the other because 'look at the words' etc is dishonest. Adaptation is not evolution. Micro and macro are not the same and you don't get one by mentioning the other.

You see I believe my God to be so intelligent as to have created within every litle thing on earth the ability to evolve overr time to adapt and overcome or need be perish.

Saying God is capable of anything is a nice ploy. But when God has spoken on the subject and stated what he HAS done, your belief to the contrary doesn't Change anything. Satan's begging of reason in the garden is no different in approach than your own. Adaptation to environment doesn't require single celled organisms to change into multicelled, into fish, grow legs walk onto dry land, climb a tree, grow a tail hang from a limb, tail falls off and stands upright - almost there... God did design us with brains enough to adapt to different environs and with a diverse enough defined set of DNA options for man to be man in all kinds of settings. That doesn't mean man came from monkies. You are again discussing micro - not macro. And the two are not the same.

I realize you need to play semantics games to sell the story. I realize you want to be warm and fuzzy. So did satan. I'm sure you'll take that for insult. But I really don't care what someone's reasons are for compromising God's word and calling God a liar. Whatever good intentions may lay there are unimportant and the road is paved with that intent as well. God is so great he spoke the universe into existance and created things just as he said, in the order he said them, in six days and rested on the seventh.. not for a million or x years as it were. And he commanded us to do the same. If it was millions of years and he commanded us to rest a million years once a week, what kind of nonsense do you think that amounts to when he also stated that we will only live physically in the old covenant language, x number of years be it 70, 120, etc - that's vast multiples less than millions and billions of years that you'd have us believe he meant by a day. It defies common sense. And the hope is that people don't look too deeply before buying the nonsense. The aim isn't reconciling the two. The aim is selling evolution instead.

Otherwise, I believe if you dont see the obvious examples of evolution, you deny a part of Gods creation.

You believe. Right. Not you have factual evidence to show it so - you believe. I already have a faith, I don't need another. And what you 'believe' outside of scripture and per the apostles requires consistency as a first requirement for consideration as to whether it's inspired or should be listened to. Evolution fails on that point. So you can believe it all you want. You can believe the sky is purple and lime green with little m&m logos all over it, that doesn't make it so, to say nothing of being worthy of canon and referenceable as gospel.

No far from denying God, I am giving him his due where strict big E evolutionists do not.

How are you doing that when your arguments are no different than theirs?