Did God use evolution to create life

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Reconcile the contradiction between Genesis 1:24-27 and Genesis 2:18-20 concerning just who was created first, the man or the animals? Give a literal explanation for that problem. Remember, both accounts have to be LITERAL.

Where is the contradiction? Genesis 2:1-3 basically cap off the first chapter of Genesis 1. (of course we are aware chapter divisions are not necessarily divinely appointed).

Genesis 2:4-17 seems to lay out the garden of Eden, and the conditons that man was given to live in it.

Genesis 2:18-20 seem to be recap chapter 1 while emphasizing the obvious, that amongst the animal kingdom there was not a helpmeet for Adam. The remainder of the chapter tells how God HIMSELF created Eve from Adam (which account you reject).

I don't see the issue here.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Lets see, the Bible says 6 days, I believe it to be just that. 6 days to you means approximately 4.23 billion years. Hermeneutics?

The Bible also says "the day" singular (Genesis 2:4). Literally, which is it?

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No, not a taunt, a warning. You are trading the widsom of God for the foolishness of the world.

Why do you think "the wisdom of God" is limited to a method of interpretation that only gained traction in 1648? How did the church get along before this great "illumination" of Fundamentalism?

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I haven't called you a non christian.

No, but you have insulted me.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I have not insulted you.

Wait a minute... what? "Ridiculous?"

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I have not taunted you, and I have not attacked you.

Denial is more than a river in Egypt, as they say. Because you have now chosen to ignore the reality of your own comments does not change that reality. It's sort of like listening to you say that the stars are not tens of thousand and millions of light years away. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I have said you are doing violence to the scripture with your doctrine which is based on Darwin, and that you are erring in following wordly "wisdom" and rejecting the clear testimony of scripture.

Can you show me an example of anything Darwin even wrote on the subject of Bible hermeneutics or the "proper" interpretation of Genesis? I've actually looked and found nothing.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I have a problem with the doctrine you are promoting, not necessarily with you. But your sharpness is indeed disappointing.

I went out of my way to say nice things about you after you launched one of your acerbic salvos two nights ago. The rejoinder I received from you wasn't the words of a friend. It was mocking in tone and offered nothing to the overall discussion.


Really? What is the comment in reference to.

AFF has its typical liberals. They want freedom of speech, but then when someone states their more conservative opinion, all of a sudden they're a pontificating fool.[/QUOTE]

By adopting a very ancient outlook and applying it to a very ancient book I am a "liberal?" Yet when you adopt a novel teaching that popped up a mere 350 years ago you think you're a "conservative?" Not so my friend. You have adopted the "new ways."

You might as well wear a wig and high heeled shoes (like the Fundamentalists of 1648). Meanwhile, I will shave my head and grow my beard, don my loin cloth (okay, the wife says I have to at least wear the cargo shorts) and sit as a student of the ancient scribes, and listen to their voices.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Where is the contradiction? Genesis 2:1-3 basically cap off the first chapter of Genesis 1. (of course we are aware chapter divisions are not necessarily divinely appointed).

Genesis 2:4-17 seems to lay out the garden of Eden, and the conditons that man was given to live in it.

Genesis 2:18-20 seem to be recap chapter 1 while emphasizing the obvious, that amongst the animal kingdom there was not a helpmeet for Adam. The remainder of the chapter tells how God HIMSELF created Eve from Adam (which account you reject).

I don't see the issue here.

There is no issue. It is a presupposition by the sceptics that it must be chronological and that they do not match.
The bible doesn't have internal contradictions. The canned lists from the sceptics are what they use and have failed them in the past.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

The dismiss reality strawman!


What is fundamentalism? Darwin fundies?

Open a window, dude. The smoke from your crack pipe is the only "air" you appear to be breathing.

[coadie]

pelathais

I suppose we now know who coadie's god is:

[/QUOTE]

This is what we expect from non Christians.

You sure seem nasty today. Does it make you feel better and superior?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Randy how do we KNOW it has been moving for millions of years. All of this stuff is simply based on what people THINK but not what people KNOW.

The Hawaiian Islands are crumbling, being worn down by the sea and as their own weight slowly sinks into the silt of the sea floor.

The magma that is erupting on the Big Island of Hawaii has a particular make up of silica and basalts that indicates it comes from rather deep beneath the crust. It's markedly different than the lava that erupts from other volcanoes around the Pacific Rim.



Tracing back from The Big Island - we see the Hawaiian Islands get increasingly smaller. This is due to the measurable rates of erosion. Moving even further back (toward the Northwest) we are soon underwater and tracking a string of undersea sea mounts that also get generally smaller due to settlement in the silt of the sea floor (erosion caused by waves drops off as you go deeper so the sea mounts themselves remain as relics of what used to be islands).

The lava in these underwater sea mounts is identical to the lava that is erupting right now hundreds, even thousands of miles away on the Big Island of Hawaii. It has the same composition as the lava on the Hawaiian Islands. Because we can see the progression in size due to erosion we know that the crust is moving slowly over the hot spot and not thousands miles in a single year as some YECs claim.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Open a window, dude. The smoke from your crack pipe is the only "air" you appear to be breathing.

You have an extremely ungodly attitude. Do you know what causes this?
It appears you are claiming I am smokling crack using a pipe.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

This is what we expect from non Christians.

You sure seem nasty today. Does it make you feel better and superior?

"Nasty?" From you?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The Hawaiian Islands are crumbling, being worn down by the sea and as their own weight slowly sinks into the silt of the sea floor.

The magma that is erupting on the Big Island of Hawaii has a particular make up of silica and basalts that indicates it comes from rather deep beneath the crust. It's markedly different than the lava that erupts from other volcanoes around the Pacific Rim.



Tracing back from The Big Island - we see the Hawaiian Islands get increasingly smaller. This is due to the measurable rates of erosion. Moving even further back (toward the Northwest) we are soon underwater and tracking a string of undersea sea mounts that also get generally smaller due to settlement in the silt of the sea floor (erosion caused by waves drops off as you go deeper).

The lava in these underwater sea mounts is identical to the lava that is erupting right now hundreds, even thousands of miles away on the Big Island of Hawaii.

He asked for proof of Millions of years. You went off on some other wild topic. We know you don't have proof. You are a good wiki scholar and google scholar.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Open a window, dude. The smoke from your crack pipe is the only "air" you appear to be breathing.

This is a Freudian defense mechanism called projection