Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Just another clever attempt to marry Biblical creation to evolution. However billions of years remain missing from the Biblical creation account, because despite human philosphy, God still did it in six days, just like He said.

And my explanation allows for a literal 6 day creation just like you want and for the earth to be billions of years old like it is.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

And my explanation allows for a literal 6 day creation just like you want and for the earth to be billions of years old like it is.

And accounts for scientific data Jason knows nothing about but claims doesn't really exist

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

And accounts for scientific data Jason knows nothing about but claims doesn't really exist

Sounds like you are a know it all.
Where you an attendent at Creation?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by jfrog

And my explanation allows for a literal 6 day creation just like you want and for the earth to be billions of years old like it is.

Right, I caught that. But since there isn't billions of years in Genesis 1, all you did was cram evolutionary guesswork into Genesis, and THEN accept what the Bible says.

IF God is able to speak something into existence, which by all accounts He can, then why is it so difficult for some of you guys as Christians (I'd understand why if you didn't consider yourselves Christians) to accept what the Bible very plainly says?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Right, I caught that. But since there isn't billions of years in Genesis 1, all you did was cram evolutionary guesswork into Genesis, and THEN accept what the Bible says.

IF God is able to speak something into existence, which by all accounts He can, then why is it so difficult for some of you guys as Christians (I'd understand why if you didn't consider yourselves Christians) to accept what the Bible very plainly says?

Good observation Jason. There isn't anything about the age of the earth in Genesis 1. It simply doesn't say the earth is old nor does it say that the earth is young. So nice try in saying I'm trying to cram evolotion into it. You are the one trying to cram a 10,000 year old earth with no evolution into Genesis 1. I just pointed out that it is possible to read Genesis 1 in a way that allows for an old earth and for evolution and a young creation all at once. But you reject that possibility? Why? I can tell why you reject it. You reject the possibility for the sole reason that such a possibility doesn't allow you to cram your 10000 year old earth with no evolution into Genesis as absolute fact. You reject the possibility that my explanation could be right because that would mean you might have been wrong all this time. But heck, I'm not asking you to believe my explanation, all I am asking you to do is to consider it as a possibility and not to condemn others for as long as it remains a possibility.

By the way Jason, if God is able to speak a 4 billion year old world into existence then why is it hard for you to believe and accept what the bible AND nature very plainly tell us: that the earth is billions of years old, that God created it in 6 days and that he could have created it any number of years ago?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Good observation Jason. There isn't anything about the age of the earth in Genesis 1. It simply doesn't say the earth is old nor does it say that the earth is young. So nice try in saying I'm trying to cram evolotion into it. You are the one trying to cram a 10,000 year old earth with no evolution into Genesis 1. I just pointed out that it is possible to read Genesis 1 in a way that allows for an old earth and for evolution and a young creation all at once. But you reject that possibility? Why? I can tell why you reject it. You reject the possibility for the sole reason that such a possibility doesn't allow you to cram your 10000 year old earth with no evolution into Genesis as absolute fact. You reject the possibility that my explanation could be right because that would mean you might have been wrong all this time. But heck, I'm not asking you to believe my explanation, all I am asking you to do is to consider it as a possibility and not to condemn others for as long as it remains a possibility.

By the way Jason, if God is able to speak a 4 billion year old world into existence then why is it hard for you to believe and accept what the bible AND nature very plainly tell us: that the earth is billions of years old, that God created it in 6 days and that he could have created it any number of years ago?

17It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

It is easy to use biblical facts to expose deception. Jfrog can't reconcile the notion of Adam's age when he was created on the 6th day with Genesis and Exodus chapter 31.

The old earth false teachers avoid biblical interpretation

You goofy evolutionists spend more tiime accusing God of cramming than God spent creating.

You are terrified at the thought that God could do all of creation in six days and be given the Golry for having His creation stopry handed down to us in writing.

Your false gods couldn't get the multibillion year crammed into a written record for some reason.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Good observation Jason. There isn't anything about the age of the earth in Genesis 1. It simply doesn't say the earth is old nor does it say that the earth is young. So nice try in saying I'm trying to cram evolotion into it.

creationism doesnt have to cram anything, we just take Gen 1, Gen 5, Exodus 20 at its plain and simple reading.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

creationism doesnt have to cram anything, we just take Gen 1, Gen 5, Exodus 20 at its plain and simple reading.

And yet the entire work that the Creator performed testifies that your private interpretation is simply wrong.

How could Jesus say that the sabbath had been "created for man" when man was only a matter of a few hours old when the first sabbath came around? The man wasn't worn out from a whole week's worth of labor.

Why is there no "evening and morning" for the seventh day? Is it because, as some Young Earth Creationists have said, "God has ceased from all creative work and is now still 'resting'?" How does this line up with the words of Jesus Christ in John 5:17? Here Jesus is very clearly applying a figurative interpretation to the "seventh day" of Genesis 1.

And, yet another question that you Fundamentalist Literalism adherents won't answer: Which account of creation is literally true? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? For example, either animals were created before the man (Genesis 1) or they were created after the man (Genesis 2). Both can't be literally correct, so how do you tell which is the correct order?

Just from my observation, you guys seem to have chosen the account that follows the same chronology as biological evolution (Genesis 1). Are you guys closet evolutionists?

[Jason B]

Pel, first off hope all is well, i see the comment that you've been at the hospital alot lately.

Originally Posted by pelathais

And yet the entire work that the Creator performed testifies that your private interpretation is simply wrong.

Keep saying it Pel, it woun't make it true. Obama keeps telling us how everything is Bush's fault, repetition of an assertion doesn't add to its truthfulness. There is no private interpretation here.

Originally Posted by pelathais

How could Jesus say that the sabbath had been "created for man" when man was only a matter of a few hours old when the first sabbath came around? The man wasn't worn out from a whole week's worth of labor.

This is a nonsensical argument. A complete disregard for the context of the scripture, and the obvious place that principle played out throughout history.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Why is there no "evening and morning" for the seventh day?

Is it because, as some Young Earth Creationists have said, "God has ceased from all creative work and is now still 'resting'?"

Perhaps because human history is started, there is nothing said of the eighth day, ninth day, or any other day thereafter. Is that the stength of your argument, because the seveth day is not specified to have amorning and evening, it must not have had one? What kind of hermenutic are you using to arrive at that conclusion? Seeing how Genesis 1 plainly defines a day as having both a morning and evening 6 straight times, what make you say the 7th day was any different from the first 6, EXCEPT that nothing new was created.

In fact, using your theories, that wouldn't make sense at all, for then for billions of years everything is evolving (under God's guidance) and then the 7th day comes, and nothing else happens, no more evolution, no more mutations, no more anything.

As far as the explaination of "God rested from his work" I think the obvious paralell is found in hebrews 4, where we cease from our own works, and enter into his rest. I think the most simple explaination is that God didn't create anything new on the 7th day, but completed creation in the first 6. Obviously God wasn't tired, obviously God doesn't sleep or slumber, and obviously God has continously been involved in His creation every since. I think your trying to take a non issue and champion it as proof for your theories attempting to line the Bible up with what you are convinced is true, instead of accepting what the Bible so plainly says.

Originally Posted by pelathais

How does this line up with the words of Jesus Christ in John 5:17? Here Jesus is very clearly applying a figurative interpretation to the "seventh day" of Genesis 1.

I don't see your point, like I said God's never been tired, sleepy, or univolved in creation. Maybe you can clarify how Jesus statement in John 5:17 in some mystical way teaches an earth billions of years old.

Originally Posted by pelathais

And, yet another question that you Fundamentalist Literalism adherents won't answer: Which account of creation is literally true? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? For example, either animals were created before the man (Genesis 1) or they were created after the man (Genesis 2). Both can't be literally correct, so how do you tell which is the correct order?

I've answered this before, there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2. Genesis 2 concludes the creation week, then reverses and spends more time on the creation and duty of man. You have to really reach to make it a contradition. But lets just fool around for a minute, and lets assume your correct, and just for arguments sake lets say Genesis 1 & 2 do contradict. How exactly does that confirm your theory the earth is billions of years old?

It doesn't, again, your whole TACTIC is to ATTACK the scripture. Instead of giving arguments based on scripture, your give arguments based on science. When I ask you for scripture, you don't give affirmative answers from scripture, you attempt to discredit the scripture. You attempt to make the scripture full of errors, inconsitencies, and fables.

This is why Genesis 1 isn't simply about interpretation, its not interpretation where the problem comes in. You not offering any evidence or exegesis for Genesis 1. You continually attack the scripture itself, and essentially call anyone who accepts the plain reading and meaning of scripture foolish.

The Theistic evolutionist position must make a strawman argument, as though all young earth creationists take EVERYTHING in the Bible literal. Not so. CONTEXT should define how we take something in the scripture. Obviously God doens't have phyiscal wings. Obviously the parables are not historic events. There is plenty of figurative language and scripture in the Bible. The problem is there is basically NO figurative/symbolic/poetic/allegorical language in Genesis 1, NOR is it treated as anything EXCEPT a literal historical account anywhere else in scripture.

You once made a statement that you switched to your view because you couldn't answer the arguments presetned to you. You then followed with something along the lines of "when I realized I couldn't defend my position, I rejected my fundamentalism, not the Bible." But pel, I'm telling you, what you are doing isn't rejecting fundamentalism based on scriptural issues (ex. 1-step vs. 3 step), but your in essence rejecting the Bible (not fundamentalism) in favor of skepticism and naturalism.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

...
Keep saying it Pel, it woun't make it true. Obama keeps telling us how everything is Bush's fault, repetition of an assertion doesn't add to its truthfulness. There is no private interpretation here.

While criticizing Obama will keep you on my good side, the comparison fails. The creation itself does testify to BILLIONS of years.



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. The Hubble Space Telescope was turned and focused on this star.

Over a period of months these pictures were taken. The pictures show the star exploding and the light illuminating material that had been sloughed off by this star for many, many thousands of years prior to the explosion. Astronomers call this an "light echo."

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 next pic is of the same galaxy taken in 2005. Here we see a star within this galaxy has gone supernova. This event took place 23 MILLION years ago.



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.