Posted on 10/11/2009 6:56:59 AM PDT by OneVike
special thanks to hanna548 for the artwork
There is a disturbing trend that has taken hold of the modern day Christian community, and it is my opinion that this trend is causing a schism as big as the one that was addressed at the Council of Nicea over the Trinity. Now this is not a debate for those who have no faith in Christ, for what accord has Christ with Belial? No, this is strictly a debate for those who profess Christ as their Lord and Savior. Unfortunately, those who attempt to address the problem are usually labeled as rabble-rousers who only wish to spread discontent within the ranks of Christendom. This trend I speak of, is the compromising of the Word with the idea of evolution known as theistic evolution or Old Earth Creationism. I say “compromise”, because in the 150 years since Darwin offered his theory of evolution, the only side in the argument that has offered to compromise its position has been the Christian side. I have yet to see the evolutionary camp temper it's teachings to include God anywhere in the equation of creation.
If I am wrong, then I challenge someone to prove to me that the godless Darwinists have ever compromised their position on evolution. If anything they have stiffened their resolve to convert all mankind to their atheistic system that excludes a Creator other than random chance. The evolutionary thinkers are not struggling to find a way to harmonize the events of Genesis 1-11 with the words of Darwin or Stephen J. Gould. They are beating the drum of "science" versus "religion" so loud that they cannot hear the evidence that some Christian apologists would try to get them to consider. Too often, those who present any evidence that makes a case for the Biblical account of creation are even ridiculed by Christians who believe in theistic evolution. In many cases they are ridiculed in the same way the ungodly Darwinists ridicule them. Well allow me to present a few reasons why I do not have enough faith to believe in the OEC's theistic evolutionary theory.
As I said, my article is not directed at anyone who does not claim to be a Christian, so I will not be addressing the scientific or geological particulars of evolution or of space and time. This is strictly a debate between Christians who claim to be Biblical “Young Earth Creationists”, and Christians who hold to the views of “Old Earth Creationism”, “Theistic evolutionism”, or the “Gap Theory”. However, before I present my reasons why I believe these beliefs are all wrong, I must distinguish the difference between "Macro-Evolution", and "Micro- Evolution".
Micro-evolution is not really evolution at all, it is just the simple variation within a species. What scientists describe as the prominence of genes being displayed within that species. This is what allows a family to have one child with blond hair and blue eyes, while the other has brown hair and brown eyes. The children have not evolved (they are still human), they simply differ in their dominant genes. In like manner, Christian micro-evolutionists believe that all dogs in the world today have evolved within the species from two dogs Noah brought onto the Ark, and all canines would be similar to every other animal of that species existing on the planet today.
Macro-evolution on the other hand refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes, and this is the bases for which Darwin's theory has been propagated.
Now back to my reasons for disagreeing with theistic evolutionists. I find it sad that any Christian who would claim to hold to the truths of the Scriptures, could then turn around and say that they question the most basic and foundational truths revealed in the Scriptures such as: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1. In doing so, they are not merely questioning the curious mechanics and unique events of the creation week, but they are debating the very words and message of that week. Furthermore, to deny God created everything through Christ in a normal 6-day period is to question the very character and nature of God. It attributes to Him the evil, wasteful, chaotic, random, purposeless, death-filled processes of evolutionary "creation", that would make Him (God) the very Author and Sustainer of all that the theory of evolution demands. In my opinion those who attribute to the power of Satan any miracles which Christ performed, or generally those works which are the result of the Holy Spirit, are in danger of committing Blasphemy. Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10
Another disturbing fact about having a belief in theistic evolution, would be the denial of the doctrine of Original Sin. Think about it, if suffering, death, and extinction are inevitable components of the evolutionary process, then it only follows that the doctrine of Original Sin makes no sense. Humans would had to have evolved into a world that was already filled with suffering and other forms of imperfection, such as hurricanes, floods, pain, and suffering. Ultimately, death would not be a punishment for sin because death would had to have always been a part of the cycle of life wich would have been needed for evolution to exist on earth. Taken to its inevitable conclusion, if humans are not responsible for suffering and evil, but instead death is simply a natural process rather than a punishment, what need is there for atonement and redemption? After all if man is not responsible for sin as the Bible says, then the Bible is wrong, and if the Bible is wrong why live by it's precepts?
Now I need to address the debate over the Hebrew word “Yom” or יום. Those who disagree with the literal translation of the Bible that claims God created everything in six literal earth days, use the argument that “yom” is sometimes used to describe an age or an era. I offer six reasons theistic evolutionists and OEC's are wrong in their interpretation of the record of Genesis.
1.) Moses repeats, “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” Genesis 1:5, Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:19, Genesis 1:23, Genesis 1:31.
2.) In the context of a 24 hour day, Moses again defines what he means by ”yom”, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17.
3.) The Hebrew word for day, or “yom”, is used 1480 times in the Old Testament, and it is translated by some different 50 words. It can mean an indefinite time, but it is not used as an age of millions or billions of years. When "yom" is used with a numerical adjective, it always refers to a literal 24 hour day.
4.) The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the “Septuagint”, uses "hemera" or ἡμέρα, which normally means a 24 hour day such as, “And He was in the wilderness forty days”, not forty ages or eras. Mark 1:13.
5.) Furthermore, if Moses meant a period of long eons or ages, then the translators should have used the Greek word, "aion" or αἰών. which is the word Christ used when he gave His followers their marching orders for the great commission in Matthew12:20
“teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen
"Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her." And Jesus answered and said to them, "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH SO THEN THEY ARE NO LONGER TWO, BUT ONE FLESH. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
So, from this exchange you can see that Jesus obviously agreed with Moses in his interpretation of the creation story, thus rejecting macro evolution and the Old Earth theory. Jesus specifically said, “from the beginning He made them”. He did not say, “In the beginning he started the process”. Jesus believed there was a definite beginning and that Moses did not write an allegorical story because the Israelites were to primitive to understand the truth. So if Jesus said so, why would anyone want to disagree with Him?
Also, those of you who are proponents of theistic evolution are walking a very thin line, because you also must deny the very existence of the Trinity.
”For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” John 5:7
”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1
“yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him” 1 Corinthians 8:6
”He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Colossians 1:15-17
“You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the earth.” Psalm 104:30
”And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:2.
The Scriptures, and an understanding of the texts, should be enough to prove to Christians that the Bible is right. When it comes to the debate with the godless Darwinists, we Christians are living in great times. Every day we find more evidence that proves the Scriptures are historically, archeologically, and scientifically correct. Now is not the time for us Christians to compromise our faith in God, for ultimately that is how we will be judged. Do you have enough faith in God to believe He is who He says He is, and that he can do what He said He would do? The faith of a mustard seed is all you need to throw a mountain into the sea, could you imagine the trembling of the Godless if we Christians had such faith?
I pray that those who have ears to hear will hear His voice and call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Amen
“A perfect design cannot be corrupted.”
You don’t seem to understand the nature of sin. By creating beings with free will, the opportunity for sin is an unavoidable consequence. The only way God could seem to satisfy your definition of perfection, would be to create mere automatons or puppets.
And then God says He created pretty much everything except humans after it’s own kind...An indicator of two things...One, that these things existed before the creation as we know it and two, evolution is entirely out of the question...
I hadn't noticed that. If you're right about that, that'll be very unusual.
Thanks for the ping!
You’ve walked onto thin ice here.
I have pointed out on previous threads that Young Earth Creationism implies that Yahweh acts like Loki the Trickster. That is, the overwhelming evidence of the earth’s old age is either real, or God is misleading us.
Secondly, if God “doesn’t do wasteful,” then life can’t begin at conception—since many millions of zygotes are created but discarded from the womb before the mother even knows a conception has occurred.
Huh? “Thin ice”?
To understand God’s Word is getting onto thin ice?
Not only that, but to suppose that he’s “misleading” people just because certain people don’t get it, is every bit as ridiculous.
As far as wasteful eggs, they’re not fertilized yet, it takes two to tango sort o speak.
That’s like saying it’s wasteful to have created all the oxygen particles in the atmosphere merely because they’re not all consumed by oxygen consumers.
Huh?
Source?
“If a fellow “evolutionist” provides incorrect information, I will point that out”.
Really?
I’ve not seen that, not only by you of your “fellow evos”, but by ANY evo.
Well, I take that back, recently “tenacious” something or other pointed out the mischaracterization of creationists on the idea that someone will go to hell if they believe in evolution, corrected his “fellow evo” on such nonsense.
But even then, that was more about eternal religious ideas than evo-religious ideas.
It’s laughablke how all over the map evos are...from origins not having anything to do with evolution, to evolution is theory not fact, to how it’s actually taught in public screwels to how insignificant evolution is in regards to the application of biology specifically and science generally.
IN FACT that would be all time consuming in regards to or compared to this subject!
It is open to considerable interpretation. One of which was mine that you have now rejected as inaccurate. I’m fine with that; I am now simply looking for understanding of your words.
Really? You ask that with a straight face?
Much of modern science has become to mixed with ideology and is used to push agendas for one thing, as in global warming and evolution.
Global warming is obvious. I know a lot of evolutionists disagree with the evolution angle, but evolution has become the weapon of choice in the war against religion. There’s a real dearth of protest against misusing science in political and ideological gain.
It is being misused and abused by those who want to hijack it, and the lack of protest from the scientific community is alarming. That silence implies a fair degree of agreement with what’s going on.
Instead of what used to be the search for knowledge and the application of it for the betterment of mankind’s lot, science has become, for many, what they put their confidence in in looking for the answers that only religion can provide. It is being treated, mostly by the atheist/agnostic, the same way that believers treat religion and their faith in God.
The scientific method is useful for exploring our universe. It is useless for providing the answers about the meaning of life, and that is just what is happening today. The faith that some put in science equals the faith that others put in God.
Thus, for some, science has become their religion.
I’m not sure about your view that “after it’s own kind” implies that God was re-creating these creatures in the likeness of some that previously existed. I’ve never heard that position before, so I’ll have to do some research into the Hebrew when I get home and see what I can come up with.
You've GOT to be kidding me! No, ummmmm, sooooo aptly named one....that's not correcting fellow evos...that's actually attacking creationists for rightly pointing out the cult-like atmosphere of evolution and any and every examination is attacked as "religious attacks on science".
As a matter of fact, now that I'm thinking about this subject, I've seen this idea about dino soft tissue before and every liberal on FR has crawled out of the woodwork to smear and squeal and shout down debate about it.
You would be well served to carefully read #170.
And that's not at ALL how science works.
I know it's some partial IDEAL theory of how it works, but in practice it simply doesn't happen and for hundereds if not thousands of times people have provided you with the hot air cult example of your fellow liberal evo-cultist algore to illustrate just how broekn down science is on many levels.
I suppose liberals just don't want to understand they've hijacked science, and definitely don't want to hear it.
I note you did not write that they disagree about the validity of evolution.
OF COURSE they don't disagree about their evo-religion! That's not at all in contention, but yet another helpless strawman argument. Geeee, that wouldn't even be tolerated!
Or the mechanisms in a general sense. I credit you for that.
I don't know about the mechanisms, I've seen quite a bit of arguments, on both sides of the aisle btw...about micro vs. macro-evolution, etc. etc. etc.
And FWIW, I think the actual discussion and scientific communication can be both enjoyable and informative, on FR and formally speaking.
As far as your last question...ummmm why would there ever be a need?
If an evo-cultist accepts evolution as their religion outright, if they're an atheist or agnostic, it's not even an issue in play.
If one is confused and dismisses Genesis and the veracity of scripture, then I suppose they can just pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept and which to reject on the basis of their own sensisibilities.
That's not how it works, but personally I'd never condemn a person to hell for such mis-guided beliefs...
First, I'm not the ultimate judge...
second, I honestly try not to judge a person's eternal destination.
third, I'd pray for them, since this is just a senseless thing to get uptight about...origins...or the idea that people are really nothing more than soulless great apes...people will believe what they want to believe anyway...it's their choice.
But to pretend this discussion arises on here because creationists are actually doing that,
as opposed to the REALITY of evos mis-representing creationists for that...along with 'flat earth' this and 'Jesus riding dinosaurs' that...
is pretty laughable and the only people that buy into that nonsense are the FR liberals on here that don't know they stick out like sore thumbs!
The only one who apparently is permitted to challenge a *scientist* is another *scientist*.
And since evos/scientists decide that they get to define the terms, they get to decide who qualifies as a *real scientist* and is allowed to challenge another without earning a screed about religious attacks on science.
Not that you see much of scientists challenging other scientists going on. Peer review weeds them out.
Good thing science isn't done by consensus.
Blah blah blah. I just remembered that I declared that I would never post to you again. I honestly had forgotten, but you’ve refreshed my memory.
I’m eager to see all the others who frequent the religion forum to reign in your deplorable lack of decorum.
Have a lovely evening.
awwww....tat’s the other thing...besides making up rules liberals never intend to keep for themselves, they can’t take what they dish out either.
xoxo
"Don't get it" in what way??
Obviously, the earth can't be on;y a few thousand years old without (a) MAJOR changes in laws of physics (so major that they'd be bizarre...roasting anything on the earth with faster radioactive decay, which would require wood being non-flammable in the past, etc., or (b) God created it with the look and evidence of age (e.g., trapped argon gas at levels that correspond to millions of years of potassium breakdown, etc.)
I suggest that even if God didn't just make things look old, and instead changed the laws of physics so radically from how things work now, it's misdirection. Besides, if He did that, then the definition of time and "days" is meaningless. (BTW, I don't know (m)any YECs who acknowledge time as anything other than an external universal dimension. Do you acknowledge the work of Einstein and others who followed?)
As far as wasteful eggs, they’re not fertilized yet, it takes two to tango sort o speak.
I didn't write about unfertilized eggs.
Please address what I wrote instead of a red herring. Thanks.
To understand God’s Word is getting onto thin ice?
No...To base understanding of God's Word on willful disregard of the evidence.
I know your asssertion #106, but what’s your source?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.