Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In The Beginning God, Not Darwin, Created
Post Scripts ^ | 10/11/09 | One Vike

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 dayGenesis 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 holyExodus 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
6.) The creation of Genesis involves Jesus Himself, because He was there when it happened. Jesus even stated that Moses interpretation of the record of Genesis was correct, and who are we to claim Jesus is a liar? Consider what happened the day the Pharisees confronted Him regarding marriage and asked Him about the legality of divorce in Mark 10:4-9;
"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 Him1 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


TOPICS: Apologetics; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: amerscientifaffil; asalist; creation; gagdad; gagdadbob; gaptheory; onecosmos; scientism; theisticevolution; yec
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-221 next last
To: tacticalogic; OneVike

I’m telling you that it didn’t. That is not what the issue was.

No.

Are YOU presuming to read my mind now? Are you going to accuse me of lying?


51 posted on 10/11/2009 9:04:44 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

[[I’ll run where I please.]]

you do that spanky- We’ll just ignore your childish insults if you wish to continue


52 posted on 10/11/2009 9:05:27 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
And, just what is the point of doing so?

You said it yourself. It's tough to read.

If what is being said isn't worth the effort to write properly, it likely isn't worth reading either.

And have you noticed the handy spell check button to the left of the preview button?

53 posted on 10/11/2009 9:07:20 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; CottShop; OneVike
Science is not a religion.

The scientific method is not religious.

Modern day science as it's practiced and promoted, has become religious.

54 posted on 10/11/2009 9:08:20 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[It’s what the science says. If it’s your contention that’s a religion, then we’ve got a theological disagreement.]]

Lol- arguing ‘theological differences’ to determien what is and is not science- precious! Sorry- but assumptions are NOT science- they are theological ideology- now, if we had dating methods that were scientifically verified beyond a shadow of a doubt beyond 5000 or so years, then and only then could you argue that it is science- since however we can only assume the past, it becomes a rteligious belief, not sciecne- but whatever- you’vew got your religious belief about past events- we’ve got ours- whatever


55 posted on 10/11/2009 9:09:15 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
This was to be a discussion about the belief of creationism vs evolution inside the Christian realm.

OK. There's more to the OEC/YEC debate than just biology, but if that's the only aspect of you want to talk about, I can live with that. I think questions about aspects of those doctrines beyond evolution are "inside the Christian realm".

56 posted on 10/11/2009 9:10:01 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

You’re certainly free not to read it, humblegunner.


57 posted on 10/11/2009 9:10:10 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Here are just a few of the problems with the gap theory you believe in:

The gap theory is an unfortunate compromise position taken by those who either don't understand the implications of the theory or don't love Scripture enough to take the Bible on what it clearly says. The gap theory is unscientific, unscriptural, and absolutely unnecessary.

58 posted on 10/11/2009 9:11:37 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

[[If what is being said isn’t worth the effort to write properly, it likely isn’t worth reading either.]]

Yep- for the shallow who can’t get past clutter- nothign is ever worth the effort— content isn’t important apparently- delivery is more important than content- that’s what Ovbama banked on, and won on, and that’s why he’s able to single handedly dismantle our consitution right beneath our eyes- because shallow people are more star-struck by delivery than they are the actual content of his smooth presentation- Whatever-


59 posted on 10/11/2009 9:13:22 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
You also fail at capitalization and punctuation.

Spanky.

60 posted on 10/11/2009 9:17:05 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Lol- arguing ‘theological differences’ to determien what is and is not science- precious!

You have a theological difference of opinion with the USGS.

61 posted on 10/11/2009 9:17:33 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
First off, there is no scripture that supports the gap theory, secondly, when children grow up thinking God is not the Creator and man is not the first to sin and thus death did not enter the world through Adam’s sin, you have made Go sand Christ a liar.

Who sinned against God first, Eve or Satan???

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Is God telling us that the heavens were there first???

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Noah's flood??? Did the world perish at Noah's flood??? Or did 'much' of the life vanish during Noah's flood??? Nothing to indicate that all the sea creatures and fish died off...Doesn't sound like Noah's flood to me...

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The heavens and earth which are now??? The heavens and earth are not the same ones that God made before Noah's flood??? The earth is the same isn't it??? It was just void of a lot of life after Noah's flood??? The heavens didn't get destroyed in Noah's flood...And the earth is the same one we had in Gen. 1:1...No way this could be Noah's flood...

I'd be interested in seeing your proof that the 'gap theory' is out of contention...

I wholehearted agree that the death of the inhabitants of our world came from the fall of Adam...And it's very clear to me that evolution is a myth...And I have no doubts whatsoever that Adam and Eve, the animals, birds, stars and the heavens we see were created just over 6 thousand years ago...

But there are so many things that don't fit into that 6 thousand year period...

So I'd appreciate you prooving that nothing existed prior to 6 thousand years ago...

62 posted on 10/11/2009 9:20:24 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The scientific method is not religious.

Modern day science as it's practiced and promoted, has become religious.

It is your contention that all scientists practice a religion called "science"?

63 posted on 10/11/2009 9:28:20 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

[[You also fail at capitalization and punctuation.]]

You’ve added so much to htis topic=- thanks for your contributions- they’ve been spellbinding- well done- I think that it’s clear that if all you’ce got to offer to the topics are complaints about spelling, that it’s not my posts that ‘aren’t worth reading’ but yours.


64 posted on 10/11/2009 9:29:07 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Imagine all you must deny to accept the idea that God used evolution instead of Christ, as in the idea of theistic evolution, OEC, or the Gap theory? The general idea of evolution is quite different then what the Bible says about creation week in the book of Genesis. Consider what you claim about Jesus saying is so. Then If Christ is wrong then how can He be God?
The Bible Evolution theory Exact opposite?
1) Earth before sun. 1) Sun before earth. Yes
2) Oceans before land. 2) Land before oceans. Yes
3) Light before sun. 3) Sun before light. Yes
4) Land plants first. 4) Marine life first. Yes
5) Fruit tree before fish. 5) Fish before fruit tree. Yes
6) Fish before insects. 6) Insects before fish. Yes
7) Plants before sun. 7) Sun before plants. Yes
8) Marine animals before land animals. 8) Land animals before marine animals. Yes
9) Bird before reptiles. 9) Reptiles before birds. Yes
10) Man brought death in the world. 10) Death brought man into the world. Yes
11) God created man. 11) Man created God (out of need). Yes
12) Atmosphere between 2 layers of water. 12) Atmosphere above water. Yes
13) All life was created by God. 13) All life just happened, and evolved. Yes
14) There is a Creator. 14) There is no Creator. Yes

There is no middle ground in exact opposites. Because you cannot accept one without totally denying the other. Because like I said in my article, when you choose evolution you also deny the trinity shown below:

Please answer my assertions before bringing more to the table, because you have yet to disprove anything I wrote.

65 posted on 10/11/2009 9:33:03 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
It is your contention that all scientists practice a religion called "science"?

"All?" No. Clearly not all. The science of "climate change" has all the hallmarks of a religion, though.

And, so does the conception of evolution, that seeks to explain the origins of life on this planet.

66 posted on 10/11/2009 9:34:13 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Thank you for the ping. But since your senseless rantings are on the religion formum I will allow you to post in peace.


67 posted on 10/11/2009 9:36:51 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
It takes more of a leap of faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God. So that make evolution a religion, because there is yet to be any provable evidence it is true. And since scientists are at the forefront of teaching evolution and they use science to do it with. That make many of today's studied sciences a form of.

68 posted on 10/11/2009 9:46:32 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"All?" No. Clearly not all. The science of "climate change" has all the hallmarks of a religion, though.

And, so does the conception of evolution, that seeks to explain the origins of life on this planet.

The hype of "climate change" has the hallmarks of a cult. The science has gotten corrupted by politics and money, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Evolution seems to be a diffent question than origins, and the age of the Earth a different question than biology.

The crux seems to be whether, within the realm of Christianity, it's blasphemy to consider them separately, or to speak of them in contradiction to the literal account of creation in Genesis.

Beyond that, the question seems to be whether science becomes a religion if it commits that blasphemy.

69 posted on 10/11/2009 9:47:23 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

What?


70 posted on 10/11/2009 9:47:33 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
e ALL know I’m a lazt tyypist- this is common knowledge- so your johnny come lately ‘observations’ are a tad outdated- but thanks for playing- now run along

Understood and accepted. I promise to never point out your typing skills if you promise to never - for the millionth time - make some lame joke about my screename reflecting upon my intellect. Truce?
71 posted on 10/11/2009 9:52:35 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
It takes more of a leap of faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God.

That people believe in theistic evolution is evidence that those are not mutually exclusive.

The argument seems to be over belief in the doctrine of YEC.

72 posted on 10/11/2009 9:54:29 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The hype of "climate change" has the hallmarks of a cult. The science has gotten corrupted by politics and money, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Oh, now. "Climate change" has sin. "Climate change" has redemption. "Climate change" even has an apocalypse.

Evolution seems to be a diffent question than origins, and the age of the Earth a different question than biology.

Tell that to the Primordial Soup-Nazis, who promulgate the notion that all life originated in pond scum, zapped to life by lightning or some such.

As far as the concept of "deep time," necessitated by the truly astounding lengths of time posited, for life to have arisen from nothing and self-organized into the sentient beings posting on this FR Religion Forum today, it was originally conceptualized by an atheist, James Hutton. As it would have to have been. Christians in the late 18th century accepted a catastrophic, global flood and a six-day Creation.

73 posted on 10/11/2009 9:57:11 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: OneVike; tacticalogic
So unless you want to partake in the debate between YEC and OEC, which by the way is a Christian in house debate, then go find another thread to disrupt.

OneVike - May I offer my two cents on your thread? Disclosure: I accept the theory of evolution as fact. But that isn't my point at all.

I applaud this thread and encourage what you are trying to do here. For years I've been interested in the factions of creationists - both in the real world and on Free Republic. The top creationist thread starter here posts articles touting "Intelligent Design" on a daily basis and yet, he himself is a YEC. Many times I've asked him how he can support ID, which clearly states such things as "God is not part of this paradigm," and the "top" IDer, Michael Behe, accepts modification through common descent and an old earth among other things. He admitted under oath that ID is equal to astrology in terms of scientific merit.

We have geocentrists here. We have OECs and YECs. All point to the bible as their guide in such things - but none have the temerity to debate among themselves. They prefer to just write how stupid evolution is.

I think the internal debate (YEC vs OEC, geo vs heliocentrists, Flood vs. Not really a worldwide flood, etc) is great. It doesn't happen enough... and I wish this thread would really delve into it.
74 posted on 10/11/2009 10:00:19 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Yes, and my point works both ways as to why someone would believe in God yet not have enough faith to believe He did what He claims to do, yet they have more faith in science that has been proved to be flawed. Why would any one who says God is God think him less smart then scientists who do not believe in Hem.

So I say again those who believe in evolution have more faith, just misdirected, kind of like those who believe in Islam, or Buddhism. If you want to stick around and debate the logic of this thread then I must assume you come from religious argument or you would not still be debating whether or not the logic I put forth in the article is true.


75 posted on 10/11/2009 10:03:14 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; tacticalogic

What RC said...

When it becomes an ideology that replaces religion in people’s life, those who adhere to it do.


76 posted on 10/11/2009 10:08:54 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So why are you here?

I was pinged by the author of the thread. You too?

77 posted on 10/11/2009 10:10:29 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; OneVike
I think the internal debate (YEC vs OEC, geo vs heliocentrists, Flood vs. Not really a worldwide flood, etc) is great. It doesn't happen enough... and I wish this thread would really delve into it.

Why?

78 posted on 10/11/2009 10:11:54 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
I remind everyone of one important fact: It has to be created before it can evolve.
79 posted on 10/11/2009 10:12:28 AM PDT by reg45 (Be calm everyone. The idiot children are in charge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; OneVike

Did I ask you?

Or did I really ask you and you’re just confused?


80 posted on 10/11/2009 10:13:18 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
Yes, and my point works both ways as to why someone would believe in God yet not have enough faith to believe He did what He claims to do, yet they have more faith in science that has been proved to be flawed. Why would any one who says God is God think him less smart then scientists who do not believe in Hem.

Then your basic argument is that no creation doctrine other than YEC should be acceptable within the realm of Christian theology. Is that correct?

81 posted on 10/11/2009 10:14:31 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

All your arguments rely on Biblical quotes. Amen.


82 posted on 10/11/2009 10:17:17 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Did I ask you?

I didn't say that you did. Just pointing out that a lots of people were pinged. Maybe that was the case for the other.

83 posted on 10/11/2009 10:18:39 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"Climate change" has sin. "Climate change" has redemption. "Climate change" even has an apocalypse.

It also has priests, a messiah, and a holy scripture.

84 posted on 10/11/2009 10:19:22 AM PDT by reg45 (Be calm everyone. The idiot children are in charge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
As far as the concept of "deep time," necessitated by the truly astounding lengths of time posited, for life to have arisen from nothing and self-organized into the sentient beings posting on this FR Religion Forum today, it was originally conceptualized by an atheist, James Hutton. As it would have to have been. Christians in the late 18th century accepted a catastrophic, global flood and a six-day Creation.

Hutton was the first to posit an age in the billion year range. Kelvin and other posited ages well beyond the 7000 year mark and in contradiction to the 6-day account of Genesis well before that.

The premise of the article is that YEC doctrine is an all or nothing proposition. If you depart from it at all, you depart from Christianity completely. The blasphemy did not originate with Hutton.

85 posted on 10/11/2009 10:22:31 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

And that is why I wrote the article to draw those who wish to discuss it. So far I have yet to get many takers, a few, but not what i was hoping for.

This is an argument that needs to take place, however I feel it may have been a practice in futility seeings how those who are pure evolutionists and not Christian would rather come by and discuss other matters while the Christians are too worried about offending eachother to get into a serious debate about the particulars of my points.

Notice how I attacked the problem purely from a Scriptural basis, not scientific, because being an in-house debate it needs to be debated upon the merits of the Scriptures.

This is not a criticism of my fellow Christians, but it does show how we as Christians find it difficult to come to the table and properly discuss matters of such importance. Remember, even Western and Eastern Christendom permanently divided, never to have councils to hash out problems again. Christians sometimes are most stubborn when it comes to discussing differences withing the realm of our own faith.

I find this as important as the discussion of the merits and of the Trinity, others do not. In the long run it is our children who will suffer because we as Christians have compromised with the Devil.

As for the ID crowd, some agree with me and others disagree with me. I do find their investigative work to be very helpful, but I do with all honest scientific study. I have no problem with the ID label, as long as they claim the the only intelligent Designer is God. There are those debates that i will be standing with those who do not look to God as the designer, but that would only be in a debate that is discussing the merits of the studies and science, not theology.

Just as I can stand with a godless evolutionist when the debate is about Liberal Democrats and the laws they wish to pass. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine. We must know when and where to pick our battles.

Today, my battle is with those who profess a belief in Christianity, but give deference to Darwin’s theory of evolution instead of God through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit for Creation.


86 posted on 10/11/2009 10:23:38 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: metmom
When it becomes an ideology that replaces religion in people’s life, those who adhere to it do.

And it is your assertion that it has done that - that they practice a religion called "science"?

87 posted on 10/11/2009 10:25:13 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Then your basic argument is that no creation doctrine other than YEC should be acceptable within the realm of Christian theology. Is that correct?

On a word,,,,,,,,,YES
88 posted on 10/11/2009 10:28:15 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
Imagine all you must deny to accept the idea that God used evolution instead of Christ, as in the idea of theistic evolution, OEC, or the Gap theory?

I already told you I didn't buy into the evolution theory...And what's that got to do with the Gap Theory???

Please answer my assertions before bringing more to the table, because you have yet to disprove anything I wrote.

Don't know what you are talking about...YOU are the one who said YOU would disprove the Gap Theory...

89 posted on 10/11/2009 10:42:29 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The premise of the article is that YEC doctrine is an all or nothing proposition. If you depart from it at all, you depart from Christianity completely. The blasphemy did not originate with Hutton.

The topic and this discussion pertains to the words actually written in the Bible, their import throughout that Bible (not just in Genesis), and the faith in God that is demonstrated by taking His Word at face value, as Jesus, Moses, Peter and others quite clearly did, and the pitfalls of accomodating the Word of God to the words of man.

The only label of interest here is Christian, or not. If you want to go on about Yeckers and Oeccers and Geocentrists, Oh My! then that is your particular fixation. It's also your prerogative. But, beg your pardon if the boxes you want to put us in to study us, are not of primary concern.

Hutton's geological ages provided the foundation of modern evolution as far as linear time. It has been built upon and expanded, and continues to be built upon and expanded, now into the trillions of years. Kelvin had and has no such notoriety in this particular regard. Hutton does.

90 posted on 10/11/2009 10:42:36 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: All; metmom; ColdWater; bray; humblegunner; whattajoke; ClearCase_guy; Larry Lucido; Matchett-PI; ..

Now, I must put my notes together for my Sunday afternoon message with the Ladies of Windchime.

I wish more had delved into the debate, but alas as I have already said, we Christians find it difficult to get into deep theological discussions about internal problems.

If there are any comments to me I will address them when I get back from my Sermon later this afternoon.

God bless you all,

OV


91 posted on 10/11/2009 10:46:42 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
As for the ID crowd, some agree with me and others disagree with me. I do find their investigative work to be very helpful, but I do with all honest scientific study. I have no problem with the ID label, as long as they claim the the only intelligent Designer is God.

IDers believe in evolution.

92 posted on 10/11/2009 10:48:49 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
The only label of interest here is Christian, or not. If you want to go on about Yeckers and Oeccers and Geocentrists, Oh My! then that is your particular fixation. It's also your prerogative. But, beg your pardon if the boxes you want to put us in to study us, are not of primary concern.

Those "boxes" were the basis of the article.

93 posted on 10/11/2009 10:54:49 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; metmom; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; valkyry1; Mr. Silverback; OneVike

You, my friend have become what you wish to be... a god.

I now bestow upon you the right and honorary (if not moderately, yet significantly insignificant) title;

“GOD AND MASTER OF THE RELIGION FORUM”!

Of course I have as much authority to bestow that title upon you as you have thrusting your ego-driven supposition of all-knowing wisdom on other FR members.

Nevertheless, may you hold your title well and as usual...

whatajoke.

GG


94 posted on 10/11/2009 10:56:18 AM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Hutton's geological ages provided the foundation of modern evolution as far as linear time. It has been built upon and expanded, and continues to be built upon and expanded, now into the trillions of years. Kelvin had and has no such notoriety in this particular regard. Hutton does.

Hutton and Kelvin based their estimates of the age of the Earth on different sets of evidence. Current estimates of the age of the Earth are based on radiometric decay measurements, which is yet another set evidence that doesn't depend on Hutton's work at all.

95 posted on 10/11/2009 11:00:10 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
proved to be flawed. Why would any one who says God is God think him less smart then scientists who do not believe in Hem.

I am not sure, but it sure looks like you are calling Christain evolutionists atheists.

96 posted on 10/11/2009 11:00:41 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
I wish more had delved into the debate, but alas as I have already said, we Christians find it difficult to get into deep theological discussions about internal problems.

Particularly when you accuse those that do not believe in your 'religion' of blasphemy and condemned to eternal hell.

97 posted on 10/11/2009 11:03:04 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
The only label of interest here is Christian, or not.

And the author of this thread has declared that anyone that does not believe in the literal six days of creation is not a Christian.

98 posted on 10/11/2009 11:04:54 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

Religious viewpoint?

To the back of the bus with you.


99 posted on 10/11/2009 11:09:09 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

how about defining “old earth creationism” before bashing it


100 posted on 10/11/2009 11:23:10 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (ACORN: Absolute Criminal Organization of Reprobate Nuisances)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-221 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson