Evolution & Creationism Debate at Museum

[Bobmarine]

God is real. I am a Christian.

*runs away*

You go buddy, but don't run away or this will happen to you. I'm just kidding
We must stand up for our faith. And I won't run away. This will probably happen to me but so what. I'm not ashamed. If God wants me to die for Him than I would gladly welcome it , I would jump for joy if that were the case . And I agree with Ken Ham's Creation and biblical philosophies. With this long post I can probably say tha most of the readers are now I'm done now.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Faith in God (and by God, I am not referring exclusively to the Biblical description of God - I've already voiced my opinion regarding that entire er) does not preclude acceptance of Evolution.

[Bobmarine]

Faith in God (and by God, I am not referring exclusively to the Biblical description of God - I've already voiced my opinion regarding that entire er) does not preclude acceptance of Evolution.

But as Ken Ham says, "if you don't believe Genesis 1:1 is true, then how can you believe the rest of the Bible is true." I'm not saying that someone isn't saved because they believe in Evolution. But all I'm saying is that if the Bible is "God-breathed" (and I believe it is) why would the God-inspired author not tell the truth. What I'm really getting at and what Ken Ham is getting at is that there is alot if very strong evidence that supports Creation. And they are all scientifically accurate. The so-called "facts" that scientists come up with (literally) is not scientifically based, some defy the laws of the universe, others are just plain silly. But, despite all that, I can't prove that the world was created in 6 literal days by an all powerful being. Also evolutionists can't prove that the cosmos was created from a big bang. Sorry, SirPepsi, I feel really strongly about these things, I mean no ill will towards you or your beliefs

[Col. Hstar]

But as Ken Ham says, "if you don't believe Genesis 1:1 is true, then how can you believe the rest of the Bible is true." I'm not saying that someone isn't saved because they believe in Evolution. But all I'm saying is that if the Bible is "God-breathed" (and I believe it is) why would the God-inspired author not tell the truth. What I'm really getting at and what Ken Ham is getting at is that there is alot if very strong evidence that supports Creation. And they are all scientifically accurate. The so-called "facts" that scientists come up with (literally) is not scientifically based, some defy the laws of the universe, others are just plain silly. But, despite all that, I can't prove that the world was created in 6 literal days by an all powerful being. Also evolutionists can't prove that the cosmos was created from a big bang. Sorry, SirPepsi, I feel really strongly about these things, I mean no ill will towards you or your beliefs

The 6 creative days is meant in a figurative sense.
Psalms 90:4 says
4 For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past,
Just as a watch during the night.

So it's more likely that the creative days are creative periods. Much the way some people use expressions like "the old days" or the "back in the day". These are use to explain periods of time.

Belief in God as described in the bible does preclude any belief in evolution. The bible refers to God as the creator of all things many time over. Including a description of how man was created.

Also 1 Corinthians 15:22 says: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.”
But if there really was no “one man” named Adam, then such a man never sinned. If he did not sin and pass an inheritance of sin on to his offspring, then there was no need for Christ to give his life on behalf of mankind. If Christ really did not give his life on our behalf, then there is no prospect for life beyond our present few years. That would mean that there actually is nothing left to Christianity.

Respectively though if you believe in a different God entirely (As Pepsi mentioned) then that's your beliefs as well.

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

But as Ken Ham says, "if you don't believe Genesis 1:1 is true, then how can you believe the rest of the Bible is true." I'm not saying that someone isn't saved because they believe in Evolution. But all I'm saying is that if the Bible is "God-breathed" (and I believe it is) why would the God-inspired author not tell the truth. What I'm really getting at and what Ken Ham is getting at is that there is alot if very strong evidence that supports Creation. And they are all scientifically accurate. The so-called "facts" that scientists come up with (literally) is not scientifically based, some defy the laws of the universe, others are just plain silly. But, despite all that, I can't prove that the world was created in 6 literal days by an all powerful being. Also evolutionists can't prove that the cosmos was created from a big bang. Sorry, SirPepsi, I feel really strongly about these things, I mean no ill will towards you or your beliefs

The 6 creative days is meant in a figurative sense.
Psalms 90:4 says
4 For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past,
Just as a watch during the night.

So it's more likely that the creative days are creative periods. Much the way some people use expressions like "the old days" or the "back in the day". These are use to explain periods of time.

Belief in God as described in the bible does preclude any belief in evolution. The bible refers to God as the creator of all things many time over. Including a description of how man was created.

Also 1 Corinthians 15:22 says: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.”
But if there really was no “one man” named Adam, then such a man never sinned. If he did not sin and pass an inheritance of sin on to his offspring, then there was no need for Christ to give his life on behalf of mankind. If Christ really did not give his life on our behalf, then there is no prospect for life beyond our present few years. That would mean that there actually is nothing left to Christianity.

Respectively though if you believe in a different God entirely (As Pepsi mentioned) then that's your beliefs as well.

A thousand years => a day => a thousand years. It is talking about how God is outside time.

The 6 days are most definitely meant in a literal sense, the text really can't do much more to indicate that. You have yom used with a cardinal number, which is almost never (if ever) used to describe an indefinite period of time. You have a context that a Hebraist did a statistical study on and which is emphatically meant as a historical narrative. It is actually not statistically defensible to view this as being figurative or poetic. Also, how do you have evening and morning of an indefinite period? What you say sounds good until you actually start working with the text. It does not allow you to bend the meaning to that extreme.

(see http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1)

Also, if you accept evolution and the Bible, you have many issues:

1) The Biblical chronology and the evolutionary chronology conflict, you have dinosaurs after birds for example.
2) You have God calling His creation "very good." Evolution involves mass death and conflict, do you really think he meant to call all that death "very good." Oh, and He describes the new Creation in similar terms, do you think there will be evolution and death there? And why would He only allow people to eat meat after the Flood if their predecessors had been eating it already? What's special about it if all creatures were doing it already?
3) You also have the issue of efficiency. Why would God bother with a complicated process of evolution when He is omnipotent and can create by fiat, which, by the way, is how the text describes the creative process (bara is an unusual word in Hebrew meaning create, it's somewhat special and generally reserved for talking about the creation event IIRC).
4) As far as the fossil record goes, you have no need of evolution to explain this if you accept the theory that the Flood created the strata we see today.

What does it say about God when he views death as very good and yet utilizes it as a punishment? This is quite a blasphemous assertion.

Evolution (macroevolution of course) and the Bible are completely and totally incompatible, those who try to harmonize them must either twist one or the other out of all recognition to what it is supposed to be.

Now let me extrapolate from this. Why stop here? Why just reinterprete Genesis? Isn't the Bible supposed to be inspired from beginning to end? Why not reinterpret the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ? Scientists would deny those are possible as well, so why pick and chose what you are comfortable conceding? Why not just stand up for the whole thing and take God at his Word? To the Christians out there, be warned that this is exactly what is desired of you. The assault on Genesis 1 is an assault on the historicity and inspired nature of the entire Bible, and the opposition knows this well. They will not be satisfied until you are entirely ineffective so you might as well draw the the line right here. You either accept the entire Bible as being the inspired Word of God as it claims to be, or you reject the whole thing. You do not get to pick and chose what you will accept unless you want to deny that the Word is inspired.

[Col. Hstar]

A thousand years => a day => a thousand years. It is talking about how God is outside time.

The 6 days are most definitely meant in a literal sense, the text really can't do much more to indicate that. You have yom used with a cardinal number, which is almost never (if ever) used to describe an indefinite period of time. You have a context that a Hebraist did a statistical study on and which is emphatically meant as a historical narrative. It is actually not statistically defensible to view this as being figurative or poetic. Also, how do you have evening and morning of an indefinite period? What you say sounds good until you actually start working with the text. It does not allow you to bend the meaning to that extreme.
(see http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1)

Then please explain Genesis 2:4
4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

Here, just one chapter over, if you take it literally it says that everything was done in a day. Common sense tells you this is meant as a period of time. Otherwise you're saying that the bible contradicts itself, because in one chapter it takes 6 days and in the next it takes 1.

The book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. In that language, “day” refers to a period of time. It can be either a lengthy one or a literal day of 24 hours.

The King James Bible says
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

It says "generations". How can generations (plural) be 1 or even 6 literal 24 hour days.




Also I do not believe God created man by means of evolution. I was stating that evolution is incompatible with the theme of the Bible, and the basis of Christianity.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Faith in God (and by God, I am not referring exclusively to the Biblical description of God - I've already voiced my opinion regarding that entire er) does not preclude acceptance of Evolution.

But as Ken Ham says, "if you don't believe Genesis 1:1 is true, then how can you believe the rest of the Bible is true." I'm not saying that someone isn't saved because they believe in Evolution. But all I'm saying is that if the Bible is "God-breathed" (and I believe it is) why would the God-inspired author not tell the truth. What I'm really getting at and what Ken Ham is getting at is that there is alot if very strong evidence that supports Creation. And they are all scientifically accurate. The so-called "facts" that scientists come up with (literally) is not scientifically based, some defy the laws of the universe, others are just plain silly. But, despite all that, I can't prove that the world was created in 6 literal days by an all powerful being. Also evolutionists can't prove that the cosmos was created from a big bang. Sorry, SirPepsi, I feel really strongly about these things, I mean no ill will towards you or your beliefs

My friend, I urge you to research the history of Biblical Composition. You'll discover that many of the texts currently found in the Bible are dated from vastly different time periods, some are attributed to authors that could not have composed them, and others were removed because they violated beliefs held by the Papacy and leaders of the Roman Empire. Try studying Biblical history objectively for a second - you'll see that whether or not you have faith in God (I'm going to assume you do), you cannot accept the Bible as absolute truth. There are numerous inconsistencies, overt contradictions, and scientific impossibilities: namely the myth concerning the Tower of Babel and the myth concerning Noah's Ark. Time and time again, we've discredited this and other "evidence" in support of creationism, and others push back because they have vested so much in a literal interpretation of book that is flawed by nature that they can't stand to question it.

I'm not here to draw you away from your faith, nor am I here to proclaim the virtues of evolutionary thought or prove to you the fact that is evolution (if you're interested, there are numerous articles I can recommend, however), and my sole purpose in posting is to implore you to approach a subject devoid of your entrenched biases. I'll share something with you not many people here know: I attended a Jewish School (the JCC) for 3 years, prior to Elementary School - from there, I attended a Christian School (St. Clement's) for the next eight. I have committed much time to individual study of the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagvad Gita, etc. and I have emerged with my own views.

You can continue to call yourself a Christian without supporting each tenet of a church hierarchy that may or may not be acting in the best interest of adherents to the faith it leads. My grandmother is Catholic - she supports marriage equality. Many of my friends are Protestant, and they don't believe in Hell. My point is that you can call yourself a Christian and believe in the beautiful message of Christ without supporting much of the nonsense that the church has spouted over the years.

At one point, the Pope (~600 years ago) proclaimed that the Kings of Spain and Portugal were free to capture all Muslims, Pagans, and Nonbelievers ans subsequently conscript them into slavery. Many Catholics believe that the Pope is a divine interpreter of the will of God, so what he said then must have been true, right? No! No (mentally sane) Catholic you talk to today would announce their support of slavery. It's an horrible institution that has no place in modern society, and modern Catholics (as well as the modern Popes) would agree!

Not 500 years ago the Church made official its position that the planets revolved around the Earth, and they burned anyone who dared to disagree. Copernicus was Christian, and he published, on his deathbed, a refutation of that nonsense. Kepler(?) then put forth the Theory on Planetary Orbits, that described the elliptical path they take around the sun. You can be an incredibly religious individual and still disagree with some Church doctrine - many people do.

Secondly, before you dismiss scientific claims as "ridiculous," I urge you to study them in depth. Many discoveries that are now accepted as fact were demeaned and denounced as "crazy" and "impossible" by people of the time.

I'd like to reiterate, I have no desire to offend you, my friend - any decision you make with respect to your belief is ultimately yours - I'd just like it to be an informed one

[Bobmarine]

Faith in God (and by God, I am not referring exclusively to the Biblical description of God - I've already voiced my opinion regarding that entire er) does not preclude acceptance of Evolution.

But as Ken Ham says, "if you don't believe Genesis 1:1 is true, then how can you believe the rest of the Bible is true." I'm not saying that someone isn't saved because they believe in Evolution. But all I'm saying is that if the Bible is "God-breathed" (and I believe it is) why would the God-inspired author not tell the truth. What I'm really getting at and what Ken Ham is getting at is that there is alot if very strong evidence that supports Creation. And they are all scientifically accurate. The so-called "facts" that scientists come up with (literally) is not scientifically based, some defy the laws of the universe, others are just plain silly. But, despite all that, I can't prove that the world was created in 6 literal days by an all powerful being. Also evolutionists can't prove that the cosmos was created from a big bang. Sorry, SirPepsi, I feel really strongly about these things, I mean no ill will towards you or your beliefs

My friend, I urge you to research the history of Biblical Composition. You'll discover that many of the texts currently found in the Bible are dated from vastly different time periods, some are attributed to authors that could not have composed them, and others were removed because they violated beliefs held by the Papacy and leaders of the Roman Empire. Try studying Biblical history objectively for a second - you'll see that whether or not you have faith in God (I'm going to assume you do), you cannot accept the Bible as absolute truth. There are numerous inconsistencies, overt contradictions, and scientific impossibilities: namely the myth concerning the Tower of Babel and the myth concerning Noah's Ark. Time and time again, we've discredited this and other "evidence" in support of creationism, and others push back because they have vested so much in a literal interpretation of book that is flawed by nature that they can't stand to question it.

I'm not here to draw you away from your faith, nor am I here to proclaim the virtues of evolutionary thought or prove to you the fact that is evolution (if you're interested, there are numerous articles I can recommend, however), and my sole purpose in posting is to implore you to approach a subject devoid of your entrenched biases. I'll share something with you not many people here know: I attended a Jewish School (the JCC) for 3 years, prior to Elementary School - from there, I attended a Christian School (St. Clement's) for the next eight. I have committed much time to individual study of the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagvad Gita, etc. and I have emerged with my own views.

You can continue to call yourself a Christian without supporting each tenet of a church hierarchy that may or may not be acting in the best interest of adherents to the faith it leads. My grandmother is Catholic - she supports marriage equality. Many of my friends are Protestant, and they don't believe in Hell. My point is that you can call yourself a Christian and believe in the beautiful message of Christ without supporting much of the nonsense that the church has spouted over the years.

At one point, the Pope (~600 years ago) proclaimed that the Kings of Spain and Portugal were free to capture all Muslims, Pagans, and Nonbelievers ans subsequently conscript them into slavery. Many Catholics believe that the Pope is a divine interpreter of the will of God, so what he said then must have been true, right? No! No (mentally sane) Catholic you talk to today would announce their support of slavery. It's an horrible institution that has no place in modern society, and modern Catholics (as well as the modern Popes) would agree!

Not 500 years ago the Church made official its position that the planets revolved around the Earth, and they burned anyone who dared to disagree. Copernicus was Christian, and he published, on his deathbed, a refutation of that nonsense. Kepler(?) then put forth the Theory on Planetary Orbits, that described the elliptical path they take around the sun. You can be an incredibly religious individual and still disagree with some Church doctrine - many people do.

Secondly, before you dismiss scientific claims as "ridiculous," I urge you to study them in depth. Many discoveries that are now accepted as fact were demeaned and denounced as "crazy" and "impossible" by people of the time.

I'd like to reiterate, I have no desire to offend you, my friend - any decision you make with respect to your belief is ultimately yours - I'd just like it to be an informed one

I'm sorry, SirPepsi, if you got the impression that I think all science is "ridiculous" then that was not my intent, I personally think some of the advances in modern science today is great. The science I was saying is ridiculous is the science surrounding the creation of the cosmos that evolutionists come up with, i.e. what is dark er and where did it come from? How can asteroids, by crashing into the Earth, create a moon that has no similar composition to the earth? if some of the moons of Jupiter are billions of years old, how can they act so young? How can a spinning vortex created by the Big Bang (which by the laws of physics should go outward from the center) suddenly just decide to come together? I suggest you look up a man named Spike Psaris, He was a couple of videos that deal with the creation of the solar system and it should be very enlightening. Secondly, it doesn't er who did and who didn't author the various books of the Bible, the whole crux of it is that everything (and I mean everything) in the Bible was put there because God wanted it to be there. I'm not disputing the fact that some of the versions of the Bible are contradictory. But if you study the writers of the different versions of the Bible, you'll find that why they are the way they are (contradictory to one another) is because of the time periods in which they were written, and because of the beliefs that were prevalent during those times (and I'm referring to the King James Version). At the time it was written, the king the England didn't want to be under ANY authority, including God, and he didn't want his authority disputed, so he told the writer of the King James Version to omit the passages regarding to the sovereignty of God over kings. Also, if God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-powerful, then why not create the cosmos in six literal days, it would just give us an excuse to worship Him less if He didn't. Again, I mean no disrespect you your beliefs, SirPepsi. Also I am in complete agreement with what DesertEagle said. I'm just adding to what he said.

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

A thousand years => a day => a thousand years. It is talking about how God is outside time.

The 6 days are most definitely meant in a literal sense, the text really can't do much more to indicate that. You have yom used with a cardinal number, which is almost never (if ever) used to describe an indefinite period of time. You have a context that a Hebraist did a statistical study on and which is emphatically meant as a historical narrative. It is actually not statistically defensible to view this as being figurative or poetic. Also, how do you have evening and morning of an indefinite period? What you say sounds good until you actually start working with the text. It does not allow you to bend the meaning to that extreme.
(see http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1)

Then please explain Genesis 2:4
4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

Here, just one chapter over, if you take it literally it says that everything was done in a day. Common sense tells you this is meant as a period of time. Otherwise you're saying that the bible contradicts itself, because in one chapter it takes 6 days and in the next it takes 1.

The book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. In that language, “day” refers to a period of time. It can be either a lengthy one or a literal day of 24 hours.

The King James Bible says
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

It says "generations". How can generations (plural) be 1 or even 6 literal 24 hour days.




Also I do not believe God created man by means of evolution. I was stating that evolution is incompatible with the theme of the Bible, and the basis of Christianity.

It does not say that everything was done in a day. You now have day meaning "back in the day." Notice that there is no cardinal number in front of it to restrict it to being a literal day or the "evening and morning" phrase. This section of Genesis is talking about the creation of the garden of eden, so it naturally starts by summarizing a bit.

The word generations (toledoth) means "account." It does not have anything to do with time. It is a major feature of the book of Genesis and is used to denote the various sections (i.e. the generations of Abraham, the generations of Noah, etc). They are accounts of their respective subjects.

[Mandalore]

lol religion