Evolution proof?

Try this:http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/dasc/EATB00.HTM

Jake:Your points put no burden upon me, one who denies the foolishness of evolution.God created man in His own image. That my friend is enough for me, as I live by faith and trust in Gods word.I will not ask some questions that came into mind to refute evolution because I'm sure you have a very non-biblical and anti-Christian explantion.I will state once again to you, that how can you, being a professing Christian believe such non-sense as demonstrated here and in your homosexual beliefs.Mike

Jake, all you have proven is adaptation. No person will reject the fact of adaptation.The problem with the theory of evolution (remember, it is just a theory -- and a poor one) is that it says that animals actually evolve into OTHER ANIMALS. What you have shown above is that dogs "evolve" into different types of dogs, not that dogs can become another species.Secondly, evolution is impossible because of the simple fact that one species cannot mate with another and produce potent offspring. (Horses and donkeys can mate, but mules are sterile, for example.) In order for evolution to be correct, there would have to be the exact same change from one species to another in several animals of the same generation, at the same time, and in the same place. Otherwise, this newly developed species would simply die out because it cannot mate with another animal -- the egg will simply not receive sperm from another species. Science has yet to demonstrate that this can even happen.Thirdly, not even humanist scientists will take a stand for gradual evolution (as opposed to gradual adaptation, which you have shown above). The theory has developed into a "punctuated equilibrium" model that essentially has animals not evolving for thousands or millions of years and then basically a "warp" in which animals suddenly become a different species all at once. This is because there is no proof for gradual evolution -- they admit this. They therefore have, in order to place the theory in hypothetical grounds that cannot be scientifically disproven, proposed a theory that is so improbable it would be much more sensible to believe the Genesis account. They also have, in the punctuated equilibrium, posited that we are now in a non-evolving period -- meaning that we will not be able to get anything to evolve in a meaningful way at this period in time. This was done because science realized that it couldn't produce evolution in a laboratory (animals have anti-evolution safeguards in their genetics -- like the egg not taking sperm from another species), and they needed a way to explain why we can't witness evolution now. Brilliant move, but it takes evolution out of the realm of believability and demonstrates all the more how it is a religion of its own.Finally, evolution is an attack against everything Christianity must take for granted in order for Christ to be anything meaningful at all. First of all, if evolution is correct, there is no such thing as "sinful behavior," because we were not created in the image of God with his own commands on our hearts. Rather, we are the descendants of beasts, meaning that whatever we do (be it homosexuality, bestiality, murder, etc.) is simply a part of our nature -- something we naturally do and not inherently wrong. What is labeled "sin" is actually simple social convention, developed to protect the species at large. God and redemption are therefore ruled out.If you are to "believe" in Christ, perhaps you should believe what he said. Remember that he cited the Genesis account as literally true in the Gospels. Paul also assumes that the Genesis account was true. If you are to disagree with them, you do not believe Jesus, after all. Take your pick: disbelieve the Son of God, his apostles, and all the prophets; or disbelieve humanist scientists who are attempting to re-write history in order to remove their responsibility for sin. If you choose the second, have fun on this earth, for animals do not have eternal souls -- at least as far as science has found. In addition, if you choose the second, you reserve the right for yourself to be called "fool," not only by men, but by the Word of God both now and at the judgment."The fool has said in his heart, "NO! God."

Jake:'Becoming' a Christian requires nothing more than acceptance of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Being a Christian requires complete trust in God, His word and His ways.1 Cor. 3:19 - For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God..Eph. 5:15-17 - Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.Gal. 3:1 - You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.Luke 24:25 - And He said to them. O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken.I am not calling you foolish. I am calling the idea of man evolving from an ape foolish.Mike

Jake, I as opposed to you and the professor must be reading a different Bible and that includes a different Genesis. Take the creation out of the Bible and you have created Darwin's god. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Joh 1:5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. Joh 3:18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil. Joh 3:20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed. Joh 3:21 But he who practices truth comes to the Light so that his works may be revealed, that they exist, having been worked in God. jouko

Hi Jakeyou wrote:Here is an article based upon the book "Finding Darwin's God" (Darwin was not an atheist!) written by Kenneth Miller, a professing Christian and scientist. He answers your objections and questions far better than I ever could.I am not a scientist although I am fascinated by science. However, I am not intimidated by the experts and, although theer grasp of the details of the evidence is quite beyond my scope, I can follow their arguments and philosophical trends. I have read Miller's book and without getting into the nitty gritty I think he makes a fundamental mistake right at the beginning in his section of 'proofs'.Miller is a scientist but I wonder if he has ever thought about 'proofs' and 'rules of evidence'. He wants to make the point that science 'has proved evolution'. However there are different degrees and kinds of proof. For example, mathematical proof is the purest and most absolute. Not only can it be proved that the the square on the hypoteneuse is always equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, it can be proved, absolutely, that it can never be otherwise. In this mathematics has proved something does exist and at the same time proved that something different cannot exist. For a logical mind this is a kind of earthly heaven, where everything behaves just as it should. ;-) It is not possible to imagine a right-angled triangle in which Pythagorus does not work. However, QED eliminates any need for faith.Then there is scientific proof which begins with a 'hunch' or hypothesis which is tested. When the hypothesis cannot be disproved by calculation or experimentation you have a theory. When it can be proved you have a law, but even if it can be proved, the law cannot guarantee that it holds in every imaginable situation. Nevertheless, in a closed system science can be satisfied with its 'proofs'. Although it can never prove that the opposite or different can 'not exist'. Most mathematicians slyly feel that scientific proof is inferior to mathematical proof. Scientific proof needs a system of scientific beliefs.Then we have forensic proof which is the kind of 'proof' that the courts demand. Here you can have majority verdicts, circumstantial evidence, and much incomplete evidence which is however sufficient to 'prove' to the jury that the accused is guilty. Most scientists would think that forensic proof is inferior to scientific proof. Most mathematicians would think that forensic 'proof' is a joke. Forensic proof demands a high degree of 'faith' or confidence in the witnesses.Miller takes circumstantial liklihoods, conjectures and extrapalations and says they 'prove' evolution scientifically. He has crossed from forensic proof to scientific proof and doesn't seem to realise what he has done. (A thorough going scientist will not accept a court's verdict as 'proof'.) He then claims that science has 'proved' evolution. Science can do no such thing, unless science can prove that something different was not the case. In order to 'prove evolution' science has to disprove that God created, and the proof should take place in a laboratory where it can be monitored by other scientists. A proof that says things could have happened in a certain way is not scientific proof; it is probability and circumstance. It might satisfy a court of law but it should never satisfy a scientist. It is a betrayal of scientific method and philosophy. When science has 'proved' that 'God did not create' our cosmos then we will have a 'scientific proof'. When mathematics has proved that God could not have created the cosmos then we will have our 'mathematical proof'.Until then all we have is forensic evidence which must rest heavily on the credibilty of the witnesses. This is forensic proof. As a general rule, :-D, I have found God to be somewhat more reliable than the scientists. I'm sticking with Genesis.

Jakeyou wrote:Additionally,if you hold to a literal Genesis you have to reject things that are quite provable, such as radiological dating techniques that show animal fossils to be millions of years old.Not necessarily. Up until the 1950's most evangelicals were not 'young earthers'. They believed we have an old earth but a young human race. In addition, up until the early 1900's most evangelicals held to a 'gap theory', that it to say that Gen 1:1 is all we have revealed to us of the actual creation but that something happened in Gen 1:2. Literally it reads, and the earth became void and without formSince the writings of Whitcomb and Morris 'The Genesis Flood' many , if not most, evangelicals have settled for a young earth and have rejected the 'gap theory'.However, there are just a few of us dinosaurs left. :-D

JakeI didn't reply to your original posting but your more recent one has drawn my attention to it again.I have a reaction or two.A. your quote re 'mastiffs and chihuahuas' This shows the plasticity of morphology of animals. Or it may simply show the incalculable riches of the original gene pool in wolves/dogs.B. your quote Neoteny The picture of the juvenile chimpanzee looks just like a human. I have followed the link and seen the pictures of the juvenile chimpanzee. I am tempted to ask what part of the States you come from if the picture is exactly like the juveniles you are used to. ;-) We have some pretty odd juveniles over here too, but none that I would mistake for the juvenile chimpanzee in the illustration. ;-) In fact, the text to the link is much more moderate in its claims. You say ‘just like’ the text says ‘resembling’. Relatively rapid growth of the jaw gives juvenile chimps skull proportions resembling those of adult humans. I don’t mean to be patronising or frivolous, but if God had a good idea why shouldn’t He use it just as he wants to, in apes or humans? I understand, that we share lots of DNA characteristics with the cabbage, but I don’t know that anyone has suggested we have a common ancestor. Although, the more I think about it… ;-) Finally This may not be conclusive proof, but taken together these points put the burden on the person who denies evolution because they demonstrate that human evolution from primates is clearly possible. Surely in scientific debate the ‘burden of proof’ lies with the person who claims he has ‘proved’ something. I don’t think creationists think they have ‘proved’ creation. They believe it and regard the evidence as not incompatible with that belief. What they would like ‘evolutionists’ to do is admit that their system too is a ‘belief’ rather than a ‘scientific proof’. Evidence must be interpreted. The creationist knows that he is interpreting evidence; the evolutionist should be prepared to make the same admission.

Jake wrote:Philologos wrote:"In order to 'prove evolution' science has to disprove that God created, and the proof should take place in a laboratory where it can be monitored by other scientists."This is not correct. Evolution is the means by which God has created us. More exactly, I should have said that 'atheistic evolution'. It is frequent claim of atheistic scientists that unaided evolution has proved that God does not exist. In the nature of things, other than in mathematical proofs, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The whole of 'Star Trek' is based on scientific possibility, but possibility does not prove actuality. The possibility of atheistic evolution cannot 'prove' the actuality of atheisitc evolution.

Genesis 3:8-9 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God..Then the Lord God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"Clearly God spoke directly to Adam and Eve. I don't see any need for somekind of "vision" process. God spoke to them of which trees to eat of and not to eat of. Perhaps God spoke many things to them before their disobedience.One other thought is that Moses is the one that is usually believed to have written Genesis. God spoke to Moses many things and there is no indication that they were through a "vision" process.Mike

Here is a link to an article that sets forth a good argument detailing why theistic evolution is an oxymoron. It's worth a read.Theistic EvolutionMay God's grace be with you,Ron

Thanks RonThis looks like a very useful resource.

Jake wrote:The story is told twice, once in Genesis One and again in Genesis Two. In the first telling, mankind was given "every seed bearing plant for food." Animals are not to be eaten.In the second telling the two trees are introduced, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good an evil. (Nowhere does the command in 1:28-9 get altered.)These are not actual trees but represent the choice given to mankind.This is not a second telling but a recursive to a point in the first chapter. Ancient historians, Herodotus and Thucidides, did not tell linear history. Linear history is a relatively recent style. We see this very clearly in the accounts of Kings and Chronicles where the writer loops back to an earlier point in the story and amplifies it.Secondly, Jake, this hermeneutic (interpretation) is chaotic. Why is the 'seed' real seed in Chapter 1, but the 'tree of Life' is not a real tree? We have been here before, I know, but what you are doing is fitting Genesis into your pre-set evolutionary schedule. There are really so many leaps in the hermeneutics that that it is like the suit of clothes that 'fits where it touches'. I counted 10 speculations in your biblical analysis which have absolutely no warrant from the scripture itself. (I am not qualified to comment on the evolutionary hypothesis but I suspect that no evolutionist would accept your speculations either.)This particular suit of clothes hardly touches anywhere and yet you say the interpretation fits. I fear you have started with your conclusion and reverse-engineered. I respect your choice to be a vegetarian but to blame man's consequent delinquency on a change in diet is totally without evidence of any kind, biblical or fossil.

Jake wrote:Philologos wrote:"to blame man's consequent delinquency on a change in diet is totally without evidence of any kind, biblical or fossil."Wrong. Evolutionary biologists agree that A. Afarensis was an herbivore. They also agree that the change to meat diet is linked to the development of stone tools for cutting and hunting. They also would agree that the tools of the hunt are the tools of war. Thus the transition to eating meat underpinned the development of war.and these evolutionists believe that this 'development' is the cause of our 'fall'? I would like the evolutionists to clarify whether or not we 'fell' upwards or downwards. Jake clearly believes that we fell 'downwards' as a result of a change in diet. I would like to know of other evolutionists who believe evolution was 'downwards' and that mankind's sinful behaviour is its result. As regards the footprints, this is not my area of expertise but we are in the territory of prodigious calculation of the ages of the earth. One of the problems about these earth ages that the 'young earthers' have drawn attention to is that we date the strata by the fossils and then date the fossils be the strata. It may be significant that all agree that the Laetoli footprints would have been regarded as completely human (homo sapiens) if they had not been in such an old strata. As it is life gets a little complicated in that apparently these footprints are much more 'modern' than those of 'Lucy' although they are calculated to be 500,000 older. Lucy's 'ancestors' are now more modern than she is.

Jake wrote:Additionally,if you hold to a literal Genesis you have to reject things that are quite provable, such as radiological dating techniques that show animal fossils to be millions of years old.What type of dating are you speaking of? Carbon dating has been proved unreliable time and time again. Items that have been dated historically, very acurately, have later been carbon dated and shown to be thousands of years older. The fact is that there are too many variables at stake for us to understand that. Enviromental factors at fossilization, accumulation of carbon in the atmoshpere are just a few. The fact is, given the choice to choose between the Bible and science, I will choose my Bible. It seems to be a matter of interpretation. Do I make my Bible fit science, or make my science fit my Bible? The Bible has been proving science wrong for a long time. Ancient scientists thought that the earth rested on the back of giant turtle swimming in a celestial sea, or it rested on the back of a giant. Yet Job states in 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

But you can't really believe that Noah put two of every creature on a boat.Jake, How big was the ark? And how many animals had to fit on it?May God bless you yet more,Ron

Hi Jakeyou wrote But you can't really believe that Noah put two of every creature on a boat. It is clearly a story and is allegorical.You'd be surprised at the kind of things that I can believe, if it says it in the book. :-D A careful reading of the Noah event indicates that 'two by two' were 'unclean creatures' with the 'clean' being taken by sevens. This, of course, is according to their 'kind'. 'Kind' has no modern equivalent in scientific taxonomy. e.g. the word often translated 'eagles' in our bible is certainly wider than modern taxonomy. According to scripture they are 'bald' and 'gather where the carcases are' showing that the word for eagle is probably including all large soaring birds, raptors AND scavengers. There are two many unknown variables here for anyone to say 'not possible'.Thinking in terms of the the immense riches in gene pools, and the possibility of immature specimens being taken I have no problem believing in the Noah account... just as Jesus did.

Hi Jakeyou wrote In Jesus time the evidence for evolution was unknown and so He could only speak of Noah as if the Ark story were literally true. To do otherwise in that time would have made no sense to those listening.So did Jesus know that it was not literally true? If so, how am I to believe anything He said? He also made reference to Jonah on more than one occasion. Did He believe that Jonah had spent 3 days and nights in the belly of a great fish or was He playing to the ignorence of the audience? When Jesus referred to marriage and, by implication, Adam and Eve as individuals, was this another accommodation? Where do we stop?

Hi Jakeyou wroteMoreover, his mission had nothing to do with our origins, but rather was entirely about our futures.His mission had a lot to do with our origins. He referred to Adam and Eve's partnership as 'the beginning' and said that Sinai's law had been an accommodation due to the hardness of men's hearts. But we find ourselves at the same point again.Bible-believers believe in the inerrancy of the Old Testament because Jesus believed in it. So much of His life was 'that the scripture might be fulfilled..' He referred to the first human pair, not as a group but as the beginning. but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them; [Mark 10:6] He also referred to Abel as a unique individual From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. [Luke 11:51]If He knew these things to be allegories He is not worthy of our trust. If He did not know that these things were allegories He is not worthy of our worship.

Jakeyou wrote But when you say "If He knew these things to be allegories He is not worthy of our trust. If He did not know that these things were allegories He is not worthy of our worship" you are on dangerous grounds. Jesus warned us against putting him to the test.I am comfortable about the ground on which I stand, knowing that the scriptures cannot be broken. He only ever spoke what He received from His Father. He is Truth and no lie is of the Truth. There is no shadow of turning in Him. And, with Thomas, my testimony is ever; My Lord and My God.

Jake's question If evolution could be conclusively verified to the point that there was no doubt in your mind, would this cause you to give up your faith?Darwinian evolution can never be verified. The most it could ever do would be to establish the possibility. Even for a believer in DE, the most that could be verified is probability. Scientific proof demands more certainty than probability. I would have to have observed the process, historically, from primeordial ooze to Adam as a living God-conscious soul living in fellowship with His maker. At this point I would review my understanding, but not my faith. But I speak for myself only.

Since the first modern scientific surveys of life on Earth begun by Linnaeus and his contemporaries in the mid-eighteenth century, approximately 1.7 million species have been identified and described. Estimates of undiscovered species on Earth range from 10 million to 100 million.Just so we all know your source, the above quote of yours is directly from the all-species.org FAQ page. This number includes ALL life on earth,not just animals, it even includes microbes. So, again I ask, how many "animals" had to fit on the ark and remember, fish and sea creatures were not included. Also, what what the size of the ark?Ron

My estimate is that many millions of animals would have had to be on the ark. This also present a food/waste problem. What did all of these animals eat during these 40 days?Thank you for your "estimation". There are several well known scholars who have come up with numbers far lower. Here are links to two articles with references that include some of the specifics, check the references for greater details, I especially recommend reading Henry Morris's book on Genesis;Noah's Ark1Noah's Ark2In Christ,Ron

Jake wrote Philologos wrote:"I would have to have observed the process, historically, from primeordial ooze to Adam as a living God-conscious soul living in fellowship with His maker."Well, I guess you can't be swayed on evolution then, no matter what evidence science presents.You noticed that did you, and I was trying keep it a secret. :-D Personally, I am not a young earther. I don't think the Genesis days are 24 hours earth rotations, but let's just look at this snippet again...no matter what evidence science presents This is my main objection to Darwinian Evolution as propounded by Dawkins and Gould, science should not be dealing with 'evidence'. Evidence requires interpretation and is in the arena of forensic proofs. Science is supposed to deal with facts. When Science deals with 'evidence' its presuppositions will determine its interpretation. Just as mine do. I cannot prove that God created the cosmos. I believe it. Heb 11 says "by faith we understand that the ages were framed by the word of God". My understanding is a handmaid to my faith, by faith I understand. I reason because I believe, not in order to believe. The Scientist too has his belief system; he also reasons because he believes.In honesty I declare that as a believer I cannot 'prove' that God created the cosmos. I only ask the Scientist to be similarly honest and to declare that he cannot 'prove' that Darwinian Evolution created our cosmos. When, in the popular expression, we hear that 'Science has proved Darwinian Evolution'that statement is dishonest, illogical and unscientific. I rest my case! :-P

Jake, here is another 'theory' which may fit the picture:When God created the earth there was one land mass.When the flood was about to come Noah gathered all the animals (since there was one land mass the buffalo would have been on the same 'island').When the people were building the tower of babel and God scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth this could have been where God also broke up the land masses into different islands/langauges/cultures etc.If Jesus used parables to make points, why can't God use allegorical stories to do so?He can!However I believe that when Jesus said "there was a man...", there was a man. :-D

The event of Seth calling on God means that Seth because of God's presence in his life responded to the call. Seth said Yes Lord. Yes Lord, are the words I use to define the action of faith of an individual responding to God's grace. Where in Scripture does it say that Adam began to call upon the name of the Lord?Jeff

jake wrote:I don't know of any scientists who would support this idea, continental drift took millions of years.How do you know this?

My interpretation is that this indicates that Seth (Neanderthals) was the first to acquire modern human speech. Archeological evidence supports this. The Neanderthal flute (45,000 years old) would have required the same fine breath control to play as would modern speech.So how did Adam 'call upon God' (as you say he did) and how did he name the animals and how did he have the conversations with God recorded in Chapter 3?In fact, the phrase 'Call upon the name of the LORD' is a technical one. LORD in upper case in the KJV is 'Jehovah'. To 'call upon the name of Jehovah' is to solicit God's help by calling Him by name. It is sometimes used in the OT as the opposite choice to idolatry or independence. [Gen 12:8, 26:25, Ps 116:13,17 Zeph 3:9] In the NT it is synonymous with depending only upon Christ for salvation. [Rom 10:13 1 Cor 1:2]There may be a further clue in that 'calling upon the name of the LORD' is put in the context of the naming of Seth's son, Enos. [Gen 4:26] Enos means 'mortal'. We easily forget that many generations of Adam's family were contemporary with Adam. It may well be that Seth began to see the outworking of death and disolution caused by the Fall. As he looked upon the frail life in his arms, he lifted his heart to God for help, 'calling upon the name of the LORD'.Our consciousness of mortality often has a similar effect. The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath. So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom

Jake wrote:My interpretation is that this indicates that Seth (Neanderthals) was the first to acquire modern human speech. Archeological evidence supports this. The Neanderthal flute (45,000 years old) would have required the same fine breath control to play as would modern speech.Jake, I write this in gentleness and an increasing affection for the 'Jake' of this correspondence but your 'interpretations' increasingly remind me of the encounter of Alice with Humpty Dumpty;`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

Jake wrote It says "at that time MAN began to call upon the Lord" not just one individual. Seth represents more than one person.The Hebrew reads And to Seth—to him also, was born a son, and he called his name Enosh,—then, was a beginning made, to call on the name of Yahweh.

The thought of Seth and all those who would follow that are of the genealogy of Christ have the testimony that God's grace effect their lives. The law of faith was at work in these lives. Some of the saints were more obedient than others, but nevertheless there is always a remnant that God has established by His grace through faith. Thus man began to call on the name of the Lord. Those who call on Jesus Christ will be saved from the wrath of God.in ChristJeff

The ability is not in the physical realm, it is in the spiritual.Read my postings, if you will, on original sin.In ChristJeff

Man in the fall lost the righteousness of God. To know God's will for ones life is the only source of true joy. We are at one with our Creator. Man was seperated from God when He cursed the world of man.In clear language, man must be approached by God. Man cannot reach out to his Creator unless the Creator enables him through grace. By faith, we can respond to His effect in our life. So this is what I mean when I say that Seth and the remnant throughout history have been nurtured by God and that they call out for their Savior. They were born from above!In ChristJeff

I can only say what I believe. Abel was a prophet of the Lord. Cain killed him. So Seth was the next man to say "Yes Lord." The Law of Faith is evident throughout Scripture. It is just that most of the time we only look for it in the New Testament. But chapter 11 of Hebrews gives us the evidence of grace that is not seen. If for every time one would replace the words "by faith" with the words "by saying yes Lord," one would see the evidence of God's grace that comes by faith. All the examples are of old testament saints. We are encouraged to find for ourselves the God that they know. In Christ Jeff

In Genesis where man began to call on the name of the Lord around the birth of Enosh, something sad is taking place. The key is in the meaning of Enosh's name. It means "mortal man". The judgement of God, "You shall surely die" began to sink in the the minds and hearts of men about the time of his birth. God was correct and man began to die and experience to loss of loved ones. The result was a shortlived wave of repentence.How often must God bring pain into our lives to bring repentence and healing. I like to call them "healing afflictions."As far as evolution is concerned; until you can show me a dog giving birth to a turtle, or a bird, I'll tell you that it's a totally absurd concept. It's totally acceptable that you can get so many different breeds from one family. The reason is.........the information was already there in the genes of the animal. No new information was gained, some was lost(I guess you can call that de-evolution if you want.) but none was gained. And new genome information is required for evolution to be evolution (Macro). But that's like trying to make a square circle.:-DIn Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

jake wrote:I don't know of any scientists who would support this idea, continental drift took millions of years.Nasher wrote:How do you know this?jake wrote:www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/Contdrift.shtmlI have read this and cannot see any 'proof', can you please explain it to me.Yes a beginning was made. The operative word here is "call" and suggests that previously we were not capable of "calling". The new beginning is that we are capable of calling the name of Yahweh.The word here for call is qara’ and is used before Genesis 4:26 in regards to man:Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.Therefore this was not the first time man had called anything, man was able to 'call' since God created him, unlike you say.The verse in question ""then, was a beginning made, to call on the name of Yahweh." contains three things which mark the beginning - "to call", "on the name of" and "Yahweh".As we have seen, man already "called" and he already "named" animals & people, therefore what is left is "Yahweh", the beginning here is that Seth began to call on the name of "Yahweh".It was not that before this he was unable to call upon the name of Yahweh, it's that he had not previously chosen to do so.

There may be no scientific "proof" but there is certainly plenty of solid evidence presented. Enough to make a very good case that the land masses have been drifting from millions of years.There is no real evidence (i.e. that would stand up in a court of law) that this drift took millions of years to accomplish (As I have previously said God may have done this at Babel). If we are talking about radioisotope dating being this evidence then this method would not stand up in a court of law because it uses assumptions:Assumption 1: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past. We know that some elements decay over time into another element, i.e., uranium (parent) changes into lead (daughter). Since these decay rates are now very stable, this has seemed to be a reasonable assumption. However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated.Assumption 2: No parent or daughter material has been added to or taken from the specimen. We know of many ways in which the materials can be made mobile, most particularly through ground water leaching. But even when questionable specimens are rejected, many results are still unusable, and explained away by contamination.Assumption 3: No daughter material was present at the start. Only rocks and minerals which formerly were in a hot molten condition (like lava) can be dated. But what if the original melt already had some radiogenic lead? The resulting rock would inherit a deceivingly "old" date. In recent years, the "isochron" method has been derived to differentiate between inherited material and true daughter material. Unfortunately, even this has now come into disfavor. Many "pseudo-isochrons" have now been published which yield bizarre, useless dates.Regarding Seth and speech. What is begining is actually spoken language. Adam has the ability to name things with utterances, but did not have a true language."Adam has the ability to name things with utterances" - Where is the evidence for that!?

Jake wrote These assumptions cannot be wrong all of the time.and half a million lemmings can't be wrong? ;-) I recall the famous comment of Churchill you can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I can't remember how many times we have come to this point. The issue is the final court of appeal. Is the final court of appeal 'my scientisit, my inner light, or my bible'? Please, note that I am still saying 'final' and not 'sole'.

I really don't have time to read the near-hundred posts on this topic.I lead people to Jesus through refutation of evolution all the time. I know a lot about the topic, and confident enough to debate with any university professor with an open mind.If you believe in chemical evolution, you're just not really up to date with current science, and there's no excuse for arguing something that you're not even up to date on, let alone qualified.There's a saying, and I think it fits really well here. Better to have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.With the exception of Richard Dawkins and some of his lonesome peers, very few scientists are placing much emphasis on chemical evolution. The reason being, is that the forerunners of the Intelligent Design movement, namely Behe and Dembski (and if you need to ask for their first names, you REALLY don't have a clue!) and their peers are putting forth now such solid evidence, yes, EVIDENCE, for design, that to stand with the believers in chemical evolution believers will mean a lonely time ahead.Even Kenyon, once the darling of the chemical evolution movement and author of the pro-chemical evolution tome: Biochemical Predestination, has since switched sides and is now an ardent proponent of Intelligent Design.Truly, information & irreducible complexity alone, are new sciences that are and will radically change science going forward. It's time we scientists go with the evidence, not try and find support of our own agendas.Believe in chemical evolution if you want. You're a dying breed though, and survival of the fittest will ensure you won't be around long.And one last comment. Please, PLEASE don't say that you can be a Christian and yet disregard what Jesus said. I'd like to call you a brother, and I hope you find the real Jesus, not the one of your own making, but if you disregard what Jesus said, you're not a brother, and you bring the rest of us into disrepute with your Theistic Evolution beliefs in addition to your comprised beliefs in God.TTFN.

Here are some scientists I've been listening to lately. joukohttp://www.icr.org/radio/rad-0306.htmandhttp://www.icr.org/radio/rad-0307.htm

CrimsonOffering et al. offer invective in place of rational discussionI offer you no invective. It would be possible to offer reasoned refutations of each one of your points, but it would not resolve the basic issue. And a man convinced against his will remains unconvinced.At the base of your argument lies your 'right' to interpret the Bible as you will, according to your personal light. Currently your interpretations are at odds with those of Christ and Paul. Christ taught that 'the beginning' was a time when one man and one woman existed in perfect faithful union. Your interpretation sets this aside and regards Adam and Eve, not as individuals but as a stage in the evolutionary process, which was followed by several other stages.Now according to the simple laws of logic, when two mutually exclusive options exist, there can only be two possible outcomes. Either one of them is wrong, or both of them are wrong. It is not logically possible for both of them to be right. Either Adam was God's first man, an individual created by the infusing of Spirit into Matter which made 'a living soul' or Adam is a stage in a process and not an individual. Christ says he is an individual, you say he is an evolutionary stage. Either, one of you is wrong or both are wrong, but it is quite impossible for both to be right.

I must be the et al. Bible bashing Christians and bible bashing evolutionary Christians and evolutionists have all got the same history, past to work with. The difference as I see it, and I'm not a scientist, is that bbe christians and evolutionists see the past from a humanistic perspective where the bbe Christian uses the evolutionists view and somewhat the view of the Bible to interpret the past but leans more towards the evolution view whereas a bb Christian interprets todays science in the light of the word of God, the Bible to the best of his abilities with the help from above.As for the judge not business. Every time there is a disagreement on something and one of the views is sort of loosing out it comes back as judge not, why ? It's not a matter of judging anybody to hell but a matter of discerning between God's word or the view of the world. And that we are commended to do. Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. :-?

Jake wrote Ron, you clearly are a well educated and well intended person and know languages of the Bible. I respect this. So you should know (admit) that when Genesis uses the word Adam, it means man in the plural.Jake, I know and admit no such thing. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. One of the reasons I continue to use the KJV is because of its precision in singular and plural nouns and pronouns. In the above quotation the Hebrew uses what are sometimes known as 'emphatic pronouns'. The Hebrew actually tells you where to put the stress when you read it aloud. He made him before He made them. Genesis 1 gives you the overview, Genesis 2 gives you the process.This verse is a clear statement of Adam's singularity (him) and of Adam and Eve's plurality (them). In His teaching on marriage, Christ clearly believed and taught that Adam and Eve were singular persons in a unique and exlusive relationship. Paul bases important New Testament doctrines on the same belief. 'In Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive'. [1 Cor 15]. His whole doctrine of the effect of Sin's entrance into our world and of Christ's remedy is based on the singularity of Adam and his single act. [Rom 5]Your view is subversive to Christ's witness and consequently to His integrity, and to major aspects of New Testament truth. Christ bases His teaching on the fact of Adam's unique personhood, so does Paul.I repeat, I do not 'know or acknowledge' that Adam is code for 'the human race'. One of the revelation facts that your thesis ignores is that each of these named persons died at a specific point in time. If Adam aka the human race 'died' who are we?On a personal note I am not particularly well educated in academic terms, although I have some theological qualifications and a UK teaching certificate. I work on the principle that 'when you've had no education you just have to use your brains'. :-D 'by faith we understand'. this is true of all of us, Darwinian evolutionists, Christians, Scientists, our 'beliefs' continue to shape our understanding. While I hope to be able to give a reason for the hope that is in me, I have no expectation that my reasonings will convince another. My purpose is only to show that my faith is 'reasonable'. The order is important; I believe and therefore I reason, so do you.

Who am I to believe, the Hubble or God ?Gen 5:3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: Gen 5:4 and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.Note the sin in Adam's life, he begat a son in his own image whereas Adam was Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image. That jake is absolutely beautiful reading. If you are born again in Christ you are His and that is truly fantastic. As for sons and daughters read the last line in Gen 5:4. May the Lord bless you.

JakeOne of the amazing things about the scriptures is that the illustrations are accurate. If you read early church history you will find godly men men claims about pelicans feeding their young with their own blood; this was a common belief of their day, but quite inaccurate. We never have these inaccuracies with the sayings of Christ. I wonder what you do with Christ's teaching on evil spirits. Do you think this was due to his ignorance of true conditions or was He speaking truth?I find the idea that Christ's truth is based on superstition or current ignorance quite unacceptable. I belief every word He spoke is 'gospel truth'.your quote Next, you have not dealt with the serious difficulties I mentioned. Where did Abel, Cain and Seth's mates come from if their were only two original people, their parents? You have not dealt with the problem of inbreeding and the fact that inbreeding causes sterility.I didn't answer this because others did. The scripture speaks quite clearly of Adam's other children, and the fact that the other children of the main characters are not mentioned is quite in keeping with ancient methods of historical record. It is partly because of this phenomena that historians say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Jake wrote I don't think they did. Moreover, what you are saying is that Cain, Abel and Seth's mates were their sisters! This practice, incest, is abhorent and has been shown to cause defective offspring. Is this what God wants for us?If this occured in today's world it would be incest and as you rightly say is abhorent and can produce defective offspring, although not inevitably. I have commented before on the enormous riches of the gene pool which must have been present in the original population of the world's creatures. This would be especially true of Adam and his family. Consequently what sometimes results in defective offspring now may not have done so then. As regards the morality of such things, incest was indeed prohibited later in Bible history, but at the beginning of the human race was not a prohibition.Your refusal to recognize the truth of the word of God is becoming a stumbling block.Jake your refusal to recognise the finality of the scripture has been your own stumbling block from the very beginning of these conversations. Contrary to my refusal to recognise the truth of the word of God, the real issue is your refusal to accept the Bible as the word of God. You say you accept the testimony of Jesus but in practise you deny it. Jesus believed in the integrity of the Old Testament scriptures, He believed in a literal Adam and Eve who 'married'. He made reference to saints of earlier ages unto whom the word of God came and immediately commented and the scripture cannot be broken In this statement He equated the scriptures with the word of God which is something you refuse to do.I know that you do not equate the scriptures with the word of God, but that you believe the scriptures only 'contain' the word of God. My conclusion is that your attitude to the scriptures is not that of Christ. Underlying all my defense of the scripture there lies a simply fact. Jesus has authenticated the Old Testament by his constant reference to, submission to and confidence in these writings. I believe in the Old Testament because Jesus did. I do not believe that His faith in the scriptures was as a result of His ignorance to their truth. The Spirit that had inspired them, inspired Him. He and they spoke with one voice. This is how we know that they are of the same spirit. There are other spirits which will not give the same testimony. One of the ways that we may know the origin of the spirit that leads us is whether or not that spirit witnesses to the scriptures and the truth as it is in Jesus.

JakeI think it is time for some open honesty. What do you mean when you say 'the word of God'? Do you mean the 'all scripture which has been God breathed'? That is the entire Old and New Testament or do you mean some subset of that? Or do you mean your own witness? When I say the word of God, I can alternate the phrase with 'the scriptures' because they are synonymous. What is your position on this?I have also pointed out clear references that show that Adam means mankind, but you didn't respondOn the contrary I have shown you how Genesis can only mean Adam was a single person; in the image of God made he him, male and female made He them. You have not even acknowledged this posting.

JakeSo do the scripturs contain error as well as 'the word of God'?I see you have provided Strongs definitions of Adam. Adam, simply means ruddy, probably earth-coloured. It was the proper name given to the creature that God created (literally potted like a potter) and infused with the 'spirit of lives'. This creature became a living soul who bore the name Adam, which is why God addressed him by name in Genesis 3. We sometimes say that man has a 'soul, technically man is a soul who has a body and a spirit. This spirit infused body became a living soul; singular.Consequently 'adam' became of the Hebrew words for man. When it is used for mankind collectively is usually has the definite article preceeding it, although this would not be seen in most English versions. It then takes its place as one of a few Hebrew words used for mankind e.g. Ish, Enosh, Geber, Methim. The meaning is best found in the context, this is called exposition. The interpretation of a passage of scripture is hermeneutics. Unless another passage of scripture gives a definitive interpretation, hermeneutics should always be based on exposition, not the other way around.

Wow...I leave for a little over a week, and return to find 89 posts about evolution. lol Before I begin, I must confess I did not read all nine pages in this thread. If I repeat something, forgive me! I'm your sister!Evolution was something I struggled with when I was a new Christian. Doubt is healthy -- because doubt leads to a search for answers, and a sincere search will always lead for the truth. But we must be honest with ourselves in this search; too often to we, as humans, seek out proof for what we want to be true, and not simply seek out what is true. But doubt must be coupled with faith-in-action...In C. S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, Screwtape, the senior devil, is giving advice to his nephew/apprentice devil, Wormwood, on how to weaken or destroy a Christian’s faith. “Make no mistake about it, our cause (that is, the devil’s) is never more in doubt than when one of them (a Christian) looks around on a world from which every trace of God has vanished and asks ‘Why,’ yet still obeys.”So I doubted, but I still held firm that the entire Bible is the Word of God. And if I doubt translation, then I go as far back as possible and learn from the original Greek and Hebrew as best I can.So...that brings me to evolution.There is micro-evolution, and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is within a species -- it accounts for the 200+ different breeds of dogs, as referenced in the first post by "jake". Macro-evolution is the evolution between species. This is a fish becoming an amphibian becoming a reptile.I take this from Lee Strobel's Case for Faith: Student Edition that I read through about a week or so ago -- he's got a way with words, and tends to be less wordy that me. ;) Based on the changes within species (for example, the fact that bacteria can develop into drug-resistant forms), Darwin theorized that evolution occurred across species (in other words, that over time an amoeba would evolve into a complex sea creature into a land creature, and so on). Darwin himself said that the lack of fossil evidence showing animals involving from one species into another “is probably the most obvious and serious objection” to his theory, but he confidently predicted that such fossil evidence would be discovered in the future.Fast forward to 1979. David M. Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, said, “We are now about one hundred and twenty years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much…. We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.”What the fossil evidence does show is that in rocks dated back some 575 million years, there is a sudden appearance of nearly all the animal phyla currently known, and they appear fully formed, not in various evolutionary stages.Well that does it for me. :) God bless, friends.

jake wrote: The word of God is in the Scriptures. But the Scriptures are not the only source of the word of God. God gave us reasoning and the presence of the Holy Spirit (in ourselves and in the voices of others so led). To hold the Scriptures as the only word of God puts limits on God. God works in the here and now, as well as in ancient times. What He spoke to the prophets was in the days of old and some of this can only be understood in the context of the people who lived then. These words are not for us, but were for the people of that time. When I read the Bible I ask (actually expect) the Spirit to lead me in doing so and help me make sense of what is being said.The book of Daniel was only for then ? Jeremiah ? Ezekiel ? or any other prophet ?Psa 119:9 Wherewith shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word. Psa 119:65 Thou hast dealt well with thy servant, O Jehovah, according unto thy word. Psa 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, And light unto my path. Psa 119:140 Thy word is very pure; Therefore thy servant loveth it. Psa 119:158 I beheld the treacherous, and was grieved, Because they observe not thy word. Psa 119:160 The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever. Psa 119:169 Let my cry come near before thee, O Jehovah: Give me understanding according to thy word.Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. Joh 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth. Rev 3:8 I know thy works (behold, I have set before thee a door opened, which none can shut), that thou hast a little power, and didst keep my word, and didst not deny my name. jake wrote: Your interpretations require special conditions and exceptions, (like tremendous genetic diversity in original species) and it seems like you are making these up in order to make sense of what is written. I try to look at the world around me and use what is known in combination with what is written. Where there is correspondence, I look further, discern, hold it in the Light, wait, and then decide.Written where ?Many Christians cannot answer the question about Cain’s wife because they focus on today’s world (and the problems associated with close relations marrying), and do not understand the clear historical record God has given to us. They try to interpret Genesis from our present situation, rather than understand the true Biblical history of the world and the changes that have occurred because of sin. Because they are not building their worldview on Scripture, but taking a secular way of thinking to the Bible, they are blinded to the simple answers. Genesis is the record of the God who was there as history happened. It is the word of One who knows everything, and who is a reliable witness from the past. Thus, when we use Genesis as a basis for understanding history, we can make sense of questions that would otherwise be a mystery. Read more here :http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

So, according to what you say, English versions of the Bible contain error.I have never believed in the infallibility of translations. Most evangelicals would use the following kind of phrase. "we believe in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the scriptures, as originally given". It is the work of a separate branch of theological expertise, called Textual Criticism, to establish the original text.Easton Bible Dictionary Definition: that extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (R.V., "Every scripture inspired of God"), 2 Tim. 3:16. This is true of all the "sacred writings," not in the sense of their being works of genius or of supernatural insight, but as "theopneustic," i.e., "breathed into by God" in such a sense that the writers were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of his mind and will. The testimony of the sacred writers themselves abundantly demonstrates this truth; and if they are infallible as teachers of doctrine, then the doctrine of plenary inspiration must be accepted. There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God, none have been proved to exist. Difficulties and phenomena we cannot explain are not errors. All these books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired. We do not say that they contain, but that they are, the Word of God. The gift of inspiration rendered the writers the organs of God, for the infallible communication of his mind and will, in the very manner and words in which it was originally given.(my emphasis - RB)As to the nature of inspiration we have no information. This only we know, it rendered the writers infallible. They were all equally inspired, and are all equally infallible. The inspiration of the sacred writers did not change their characters. They retained all their individual peculiarities as thinkers or writers.I would want to modify this slightly in that 'theopneustos' really means exhaled rather than in-breathed. The scriptures are God's words, breathed out by Him.

Jake wrote Your interpretations require special conditions and exceptions, (like tremendous genetic diversity in original species) and it seems like you are making these up in order to make sense of what is written. I try to look at the world around me and use what is known in combination with what is written.Jake,what is written already makes sense to me. What I am trying to show is the possibility that the Bible has it right; no more, no less. I would like you to look at the world around you and then give me your scientific explanations for the virgin conception of Christ.Meanwhile I still await your comment on 'spirit possession' as believed by Christ. I wouldn't mind a scientific explanation of that too.

Jake wrote Personally, I don't depend upon belief in the virgin birth of Christ for my faith. It doesn't matter. In olden days people attached such ideas to many spiritual leaders. Buddha, Kirshna, etc. were reputed to be born of virgins.Buddha's mother was not a virgin but the wife of a king. You can find more details here.Jake, if you do not receive the testimony to His virgin birth; please tell me who do you think He was? Was He the unique Son of God, the Word made Flesh? I still await your scientific explanation. I find it difficult to understand how you can put any trust in His sayings at all. You discount his statements about the 'casting out of demons as evidence that His kingdom was at hand'. You reject the basis for His teaching on marriage. You reject His position on the reliability of the scripture. Of the things that He said, How can you know what is true and what is just His ignorance?Can you see where your line has taken you? The Bible is a lucky-dip of facts which may fit, may have to be adjusted. The witnesses to its supreme character you take or leave as you choose. If the final court is the inner witness what is the point of the scripture?You say this has gotten off the track of evolution and creation but this thread is in a forum called 'Scriptural Debate'. Most of us are here because scripture has a unique place in our understanding. To use a quote from Robert Barclay again, we do look upon them (the scriptures) as the only fit outward judge of controversies among Christians; and that whatsoever doctrine is contrary unto their testimony, may therefore justly be rejected as false.

What purpose would the Holy Spirit have if the Bible was the be all and end all of the word of God?He comes to lead us into the truth, not mere academic appreciation, but entrance into the truth. The Holy Spirit comes to create the life of Christ in us. He comes to apply the achievements of Christ's cross to the individual. To make it possible for Christ to be 'in us'. I am still awaiting your scientific explanation of the virgin conception. Perhaps you would add another scientific explanation for Christ's physical resurrection from the dead?

Hello jake and ron.This is post number 99 so as to let one of you get the century. jake, haven't you put God in a box already by not letting His word be the guiding light instead of a combination of humanistic evolutionary thinking and the Word ?His word is what sets you free as was shown in my last post.Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.If indeed the virgin birth etc does not matter to you then you are choosing and picking what suits your own doctrinal interpretation and not the truth which the Spirit of truth will guide you to. Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. Joh 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you. Joh 16:15 All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he taketh of mine, and shall declare it unto you.And if God can do anything as you write, maybe it was done exactly the way His word describes it. Maybe it is too simple to understand.Pro 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; But he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsel. Pro 28:26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool; But whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.God bless you both.jouko[Evolution, True Science Fiction]

I couldn't care less about whether the Christ was born of a virgin. It makes no difference to me because God can do anything. Same thing with the resurrection. These events, whether real or not, have served to place emphasis on the LIFE of Christ.Now we see clearly. You couldn't care less as to whether the gospels are authentic testimony or useful fiction. God can do anythingYou have just summed up perfectly my view on creation. Although, I must admit, it's not a very scientific approach. :-D

Jakeyour last post Ron said: "You couldn't care less as to whether the gospels are authentic testimony or useful fiction."I said no such thing. You are putting words in my mouth. your previous post I couldn't care less about whether the Christ was born of a virgin. It makes no difference to me because God can do anything. Same thing with the resurrection. These events, whether real or not, have served to place emphasis on the LIFE of Christ.But the Luke and Matthew clearly record a ‘virgin birth’, so this must be either authentic testimony or fiction; there are no other options. If it is fiction, in my view, it undermines the whole character of the gospel writer. If I thought it possible that they had not been faithful witnesses how would I stake my eternal future on their testimony. If it is fiction, in your view, it is still useful as these events ,whether real or not, have served to place emphasis on the LIFE of Christ.This is a peculiarly pragmatic view of scripture. It doesn’t matter whether a thing is real or not? In such a world does truth matter at all? As long as the results are judged beneficial it seems truth is immaterial. This is looking very much like post-modernism ‘truth’. If it’s true for you its true, it doesn’t matter about the facts. On the contrary Christianity has always been a faith based on fact. Sometimes the facts are verifiable, sometimes not, but always facts.We have no Saviour if God did not become sinless man. If He be not risen, we are of all men the most miserable; we have no Saviour if He did not rise, The virgin birth, the resurrection, are not negotiable ‘facts’ for Christians. Someone who says I couldn’t care less about whether Christ was born of a virgin. It makes no difference to me because God can do anything. Same thing with the resurrection. These events, whether real or not… cannot be regarded as someone who is guarding the faith once delivered to the saints. [Jude v3]

HEY! HOLD UP!Accountability time -- guess what I don't care about? Evolution.There are more important things than a petty debate about evolution, and there are more important things than what this discussion has progress (or should I say, digressed) into.Knock off the accusations and put-downs. Whatever happened to "Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ"?Merry CHRISTmas -- let's remember Ephesians 4 and stay united in the Spirt. Edify, guys, don't tear down.I recommend an end to this thread. If posters do want to continue discussing evolution, keep it impersonal. If you're incapable of that, hold your tongue (...fingers).

MaryI'm not quite sure how I should respond to this, but if my contributions cause offense I shall be content to cease making them.

This is for Jake In reading the posts of you and numerous others in this thread I have often noticed that you follow the Spirit and not the LETTER, I would just like you to explain, and this is totally off topic from the thread, how you distinguish between the mind and spirit. How do you make the distiction between what is of the Spirit and what is just our fleshly nature's way of thinking. A Work In ProgressLyndon

A little late here but...Ron (philologos) said: I'm not quite sure how I should respond to this, but if my contributions cause offense I shall be content to cease making them. No offense taken at all -- wanted to put peace before pride.Evolution's an awesome topic -- I love apologetics and the like. God reveals Himself through science, too -- honest science.Very very very few physicists are atheists -- cool beans, huh?So throw out that common sense and science facts and evolution mumbo-jumbo -- I wanna learn -- in a good Spirit. :-)

I wonder if anyone has ever thought that it may be the other way round... that monkeys developed from humans...If the theory of evolution says that due to natural selection the 'stronger' or 'better' species survives than monkeys can... climb and jump trees, live only on bananas/nuts etc. Looking only at the physical side of things, the few things monkeys can't do that humans can are usually damaging to the environment anyway, except may be some smell-pollution after a large meal - but I don't think the surrounding animals are really bothered about that.But thank God we are made in His image and if God is Spirit we are not talking about a physical image - and thats what makes us very very different from monkeys and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Jake wrote Well actually it isn't monkeys we are closely related to, but Chimpanzees. And yes they also have evolved from a common ancestor along with us.We are in the image of God because we can discern good from evil. But I'm also convinced that many animals can also do this, albeit in a more limited way.I think perhaps I have 'held my tongue' for long enough and may just pop into the forums from time to time. Jake, you are making the same presuppostions that similarity implies dependency. In the New Scientist , July 1, 2000, Robert May stated that we share half our genes with the banana I wonder whether this may have some Darwinian significance. But then some fish have 40% the same DNA as modern man.At one time in my life I used to create Lotus Notes Databases. Whenever possible I would use things that I knew worked and adapt them. If you had looked carefully into a couple of my databases you would have seen that the pattern was more than 90% identical (if it works why fix it?), but no-one suggested that random mutations and the survival of the fittest was were the reason for the similarity. In fact, without exception, all random mutations wrecked the databases!Perhaps another comment, this time on animals' 'conscience' or sense of right and wrong. Before I was a Christian I was a dog addict. Dogs have no sense of 'right and wrong' or 'good and evil'. They are pack animals and they know that they need the support of the alpha-male to make life bearable. In a normal pack they would work their way up the chain and one day become alpha-male themselves. Life can be frustrating for your dog; they have no career path. They can't move up the line. An animal that is at the bottom of the pack will try to become the 'buddy' of the alpha-male; therein lies safety. Consequently they are amazingly adept at knowing what 'pleases' the alpha-male (or even his wife). This is why they are so trainable; they want to 'please' you.Other group animals behave in the same way; even teenagers sometimes. :-D But this should not be confused with a moral sense or even dress-sense. Just joking, kids. :-P

From an idiot's perspective I have a question.If this is true that:There are simply no logical arguments that can refute the plain fact of our evolution from the primordal slime because logic itself cannot correctly overturn or contradict physical evidence. Evolution is a reality, not just a theory. It is hopeless to argue against it, just as it would be to argue against gravity. At what point along the process did God plant the conscience?Not a jab, just an honest question.

Jake, you wrote There are simply no logical arguments that can refute the plain fact of our evolution from the primordal slime because logic itself cannot correctly overturn or contradict physical evidence. Evolution is a reality, not just a theory. It is hopeless to argue against it, just as it would be to argue against gravity. By the way, how gravity works is still unkown, but no one with a brain disputes that it exists. Because, it can be tested in any laboratory, anywhere, any time. The whole point about scientific proof is that it can be tested, or calculated. What we have in fossils is evidence not proof. Evidence has to be interpreted, proof needs no interpretation. Darwinians interpret the fossil evidence in accordance with their presupposition; so do I. Science doesn't deal with evidence it deals with observable facts. Gravity is a proven physical law, Darwinian evolution is an unproven scientific philosophy. BTW in one of your recent posts you commented that no serious scientist disputed evolution (or words to that effect). There are scientists far beyond any that have yet graced this forum who constantly dispute Darwinian evolution. I have met some of them; their scientific qualifications in their own fields are indisputable. I am referring to zoologists, medical doctors, experts in long molecules, biologists, hydrologists. I could give you names for all these specialities of scientists who cannot accept Darwinian evolution. To say there are none is plainly untrue.

JakeWhy would a reptile begin a process which would result in feathers and wings? What point would the scales have in the interim period? And yet if the change was not advantageous, according to Darwinian evolution, it would not be 'the fittest' and hence it would have no advantage and no better chance of 'survival'.I recall listening to a radio programme many years ago. Two naturalists were on a Mediterranean island; one was native the other a visitor. "are there any unique species on the island" asked the stranger. "yes, we have a moth that doesn't fly" replied the native". "Speaking in evolutionary terms" said the stranger "why would the moth have evolved the ability not to fly?"I am not joking, one naturalist used the phrase "the ability not to fly". I almost rolled of my chair in laughter, but the punch line was even better..."oh" said the native naturalist "to save energy". :-? I bet the eagles wished they had thought of that!

Conscience evolved. God had no need to plant it because he set up the system to produce sentient beings from the beginning. JakeI made some comments on conscience in animals in a previous post. Do you have anything to post?

jake wrote What is your explanation for the massive amount of geological evidence supporting the theory of evolution? (For good reason, it isn't called a hypothesis.)And it is for good reason that it can never be called a law but it is incapable of proof, scientifically. As regards the usual terminology of science in the progression from hypothesis to theory to law, Darwinian evolution would still be at the hypothesis stage. A hypothesis is a working assumption. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory. As Darwinian evolution can neither be observed nor tested by experiment, in strict scientific language is should be called the 'Hypothesis of Evolution'.

Jake wrote Nature tries out all kinds of experiments through the process of genetic mutation. Many fail, but some succeed and prove to be beneficial. That many fail is not an argument against evolution.Who is this Nature who 'tries out all kinds of experiments'? I hope you aren't going to tell me that 'God' has been conducting experiments to see what will really work? What kind of a God would need to do that?

jake wrote The Giant Panda bear eats only Bamboo, but it has the gut of a meat eater. Scientists can't figure out how they get sufficient nutrition. Clearly, as all other bears eat meat, they evolved this practice under peculiar circumstances. Ones that we probably wont be able to deduce.but this is micro-evolution or adaptation within a species. This is no evidence for Darwinian macro evolution. I experience some of these micro-evolutions myself; when I can't find a Burgerking I'll eat a McDonalds.

jake wrote Nature is not a who. It is the system God produced to create life, and, ultimately, us.You spoke of Nature conducting experiments. How can a system 'conduct experiments'? Your language suggests planning, design, evaluation, reiteration... how could a 'system' do all this?I'm not making judgments about God, I'm just asking how a system could possibly 'conduct experiments'.

Jake wrote You are laying the human developed scientific methodology on nature. Nature can conduct "experiments" without the need for planning or evaluation. Genetic mutation and time guarantee that these experiments will continue.Who me? I don't believe that Nature can conduct experiments at all; that was your phrase. "Experiment" means the observation of an experience which has been designed to test or prove an hypothesis. There can be no scientific experiments of Darwinian evolution, so the process can never officially become a theory. I think what has happened is that you have slipped into one of these Darwinian anthropomorphisms where the insect evolves 'in order to' maximise its survival rate, or some such phrase. Darwinian evolution cannot do anything 'in order to'. That would be an argument from design which the New Darwinists like Dawkins and Gould will have nothing to do with.As soon as you use the phrase 'in order to' you have adopted the "Watchmaker" view. Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" was explicitly written to refute this possibility. However, populisers of Darwin constantly refer to animals camouflaging themselves to increase their chance of survival in the hunt, or evolving 'in order to' increase their chances of success in the hunt. It is the random nature of Darwinian which is most at variance with the idea of creation from design. In fairness to those scientists you cannot have random mutation and design; you must choose.

We have a Temple to Darwinian Evolution just up the road from here called the British History Natural History Museum. I am pretty familiar with the evolutionary scenarios they present. Eohippus is a great favourite. Here is a website showing the underlying problems with such a simplistic scenario. eohippus

JakeCosmologists are now beginning to question whether the speed of light is a constant. And it can't actually be 'demonstrated' it can be calculated presuming that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. [2 Pet 3:1-4ff] This is known as scientific uniformity and was predicted as one of the signs of the 'last times'."there are billions of planets out there" is another extrapolation. I think currently we have two astronomical phenomena where 'planet like materials have been identified'. (I may be a little out of date on this) It is going to be a long time before anyone can realistically say "billions of planets".

Jake wrote I don't claim design at all. Dawkins is an idiot, claiming that "evolution relegates the book of Genesis to the quiant limbo of mythology." Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that there is no design in the cosmos? I don't think Dawkins is an idiot. I think he is a brilliant communicator and a very logical thinker in the main. His folly is that he has eliminated God from his model, and is left with the only plausable alternative... Darwinian Evolution. If I were not convinced of the verbal inspiration of the scripture I would be a strong supporter. It is the nearest thing to sense, other than a Creator.

Greg wrote Augistine once said: 'If you believe what you want to believe of the Gospel's, then you are believing your own Gospel.'Jake I have made this same point frequently in our conversations. I think perhaps you have not seen the most recent time so I will repeat it here. My intention is not to win a debate but to alert you to the danger of your position.Jake wrote in another forum I don't need a virgin birth to have faith in Jesus. In fact, I don't need any of the reported miracles he performed. His words of loving your neighbor as yourself and loving your enemy ring true and profoundly alter the way I look at (and hopefully live) life. This is sufficient for my faith.This effectively means that your faith is based on your faith. By this standard your impressions are only subject to self-authentication and are without any 'second witness' validation.Jake, This position has very serious consequences. Which Jesus are you putting your faith in? The Jesus of biblical revelation or the Jesus of your own fashioning? I am desparately trying not to make this personal, but this methodology can only lead to idolatry. There is only one Jesus, and any modifying of the biblical revelation results in a false image, and putting our faith in a false image is idolatry.for if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached...[2 Cor 11:4. There are 'lots of Jesus's' which the apostles have not preached, but not of them can offer salvation. This is the prayer of Jesus in John 17 Neither pray I for these alone, (the disciples)but for them also which shall believe on me through their word. The one, authentic Jesus prayed for 2 kinds of people; his own disciples and those who believed their testimony. Later John wrote that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. Here John is insisting on the unbroken testimony to the one and only true Jesus. To put our confidence in any other Jesus is idolatry. Perhaps this is partly why John ends his letter with the admonition Little children, keep yourselves from idolsIt has another serious consequence. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who is He? Is He the second person of the trinity who 'became flesh' or is He an ordinary human being like the rest of us who 'became God' by obedience? If He is God/man how did that happen? How did God become perfectly manifest in flesh if it was not by incarnation, and how could incarnation take place without a unique union of God and man which produced a virgin 'conception'? Jesus was, without contention I hope, Mary's child? Who was His father?

Jake wrote If you try to rationalize it you can only conclude that the human form of Jesus was akin to a puppet and that He had no free will. Dying on the cross would thus be fakery and bogus. Is that the Jesus you claim? I think not.JakeHow would a single, only-human, life acquire such value that it would be acceptable as the payment of debt for the whole of mankind? If a human being were able to fulfil all righteousness he would only thereby qualify for his own acceptance; there would be no merit left over for anyone else.We can see now where your views have taken you, with question marks over creation, virgin birth, miracles, physical resurrection, substitutionary atonement, a physical return of Christ, the validity of Paul's life and writings and the book of Revelation. Our common ground is shrinking by the minute.You ask Why on earth would you be impressed by God causing a virgin to give birth? and that you yourself would be much more impressed by Jesus if He was just a regular guy that got things right by God and man. The purpose of biblical revelation is not to "impress" but to give us truth than cannot be deduced in any other way. Truth "impresses" me.Jesus's death was not showing the way for sinners and sacrificing himself rather than commit violence; it was to give His life a ransom for many. There are many men who have believed in things enough to die for them; this is not where the value of Christ's death lies. Its value lies in that the life of God was poured out in death, not as a puppet but as a personal choice from one who said not my will but thine be done. That is not puppetry but free choice.His blood, as a material substance, had no magic qualities. The value of His blood was the value of the life that was poured out in that blood. Only the life of God Himself could suffice. Virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection are not theological optional extras for authentic followers of Christ; they are the truths "once delivered to the saints". The Jesus that I claim, to use your language, is the Christ of biblical revelation; all other Jesus-es come with another spirit and are another gospel. [2 Cor 11:4]

Jake wrote So, are you saying that Jesus' teachings are all worthless because they cannot help a person find salvation by following them? That salvation comes only from believing that "the life of God was poured out in death" and there is no merit in works?JakeYes, yes and yes. Would you like me to expand my answer?

About now is where I like to focus on something called "Simplicity". "But I fear lest...your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (IICor. 11:3)Simple:1. having or composed of only one thing, element, or part; pure2.Not involved or complicated3.Being without additions or modificationsComplex 1. Composed of many things, elements, and parts; impure2.Involved and complicated3.Having additions and modificationsSimplicity in Christ means "Composed of One thing. Jesus says only One thing is needed. HIM!!! :-)

The Simplicity TestThe next time you hear a teaching, sermon, etc... ask yourself: Does this glorify Jesus and bring Him more clearly into focus? Is it consistant with the simplicity of Christ, or does it take me away into some complicated, elaborate thing? This simple test will keep you from being misled.C.Brogden

Jake wrote Go ahead. But keep in mind that Paul was a murderer and wanted desperately that such works would not count against him. I appreciate all he did to build the Church, because without it Christianity may have not become widespread. But his interpretations of Jesus need to be seen in this light.Jake I think your judgment of Our beloved brother Paul as Peter called him is very wide of the mark. But I take it as a rejection on your part of another fundamental bible truth 'justification by faith'.Jake wrote So, are you saying that Jesus' teachings are all worthless because they cannot help a person find salvation by following them? That salvation comes only from believing that "the life of God was poured out in death" and there is no merit in works?Yes, If Jesus was no more than a man he was a demon incarnate, or a madman. Oswald Chambers once said this If He is a teacher only, then He is a most cruel Teacher, for He puts ideals before us that blanch us white to the lips and lead us to a hell of despair. But if He came to do something else as well as teach - if He came to re-make us on the inside and put within us His disposition of unsullied holiness, then we can understand why He taught like He did. In my words, you cannot find salvation by following the teaching of Jesus; they were never designed for that.yes, Salvation is a result of entire dependence upon the death of Christ at Calvary. Upon a life I did not live, upon a death I did not die, on another's life, on another's death, I stake my whole eternity.yes, there is no merit towards salvation in works. Either His death is sufficient or it isn't. If it isn't how will I ever know how much top-up I am doing to have to make.

Jake wrote None of us can know how much "top-up" we have to make. What does matter is the seeking and exerting and loving your neighbor as yourself. Without these, faith is an empty vessel.JakeThat would imply that our effort is really what is being measured. This is consistent with the Buddhist concept of merit which underlies your belief in reincarnation, but shows how far distant it is from a biblical perception.I know you don't approve of Paul's interference with Christianity, but those who knew him best and had witnessed Christ's life and ministry were unanimous in their receiving of his revelation. Peter referred to it in 2 Pet 3:15,16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.This passage tells us that Peter regarded Paul's writings as the wisdom given unto him. According to Peter, these are not the ideas of Paul but are God's. Secondly, you will see that Peter refers to Paul's letters and in the same breath the other scriptures Peter clearly regarded Paul's epistles as scripture. So if you reject Paul you are also rejecting Peter who endorsed Paul. You probably know that Peter is most likely the eyewitness behind Mark's account, so to reject Peter means you lose Mark as well. Your canon of scripture is becoming very small.The reason I mentioned Paul is because of a fundamental revelation truth given to him by God; namely that God justifies the ungodly. There is no escaping this that on the basis of our complete dependence upon His death in which Christ died for the ungodly God declares us to be right with Him. This 'justification by faith' is a bedrock of Christian doctrine. It eliminates all need for reincarnations or works of merit. It is what makes Christianity unique among all belief systems. All others insist upon some contribution from the one seeking salvation. Christianity's uniqueness was never expressed better or more simply than in the hymn which says;Not the labours of my hands,Can fulfil thy laws demands;Could my zeal no respite know,Could my tears forever flow,All for sin could not atone;Thou must save and Thou alone.Nothing in my hand I bring,Simply to Thy cross I cling;Naked, come to Thee for dress;Helpless, look to Thee for grace:Foul, I to the fountain fly;lWash me, Saviour, or I die.To know Christ's salvation we must resolutely turn from all human effort and contribution and, having abandoned all hope in do-it-yourself salvation. This is authentic, biblical Christianity. We come without law-keeping qualification; with no confidence in the effort we are putting in; with no self confidence in our contrition. We come empty handed, naked, helpless, foul. But with a glorious prayer that can change everything; wash me, Saviour, or I die. The rest is another gospel.

Jake wrote:None of us can know how much "top-up" we have to make. What does matter is the seeking and exerting and loving your neighbor as yourself. Without these, faith is an empty vessel.I am reminded of the following verse (parenthesis mine);Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant (not stupid) of God's righteousness (the completed work of Christ), and going about to establish their own righteousness...If you're doing, you're not done; if you're done, you're not doingYou do until you're done, and when you're done you can't do any moreGod loves us all and has placed this concept in everyone's life. How long do you brush your teeth/shower/get dressed? Until you are done.Every Christian should be living in the glorious truth of Romans 10:4 - Jesus Christ has completed the work; the work is DONE.Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.Everyone is either in the DO basket or the DONE basket. Evangelism is DONEs going to DOs and telling them the work was DONEIn Christ,Ron

inthelight wrote Everyone is either in the DO basket or the DONE basket. Evangelism is DONEs going to DOs and telling them the work was DONEI love it, its going straight into my diary. In fact, its Done!

Jake wrote This is all well and good. and I accept that Grace is required because our efforts will always fall short, no matter how well intended we are. But I have a hard time believing that one can accept this Grace without giving any effort to loving our neighbors as ourselves and seeking to follow after the examples and teachings of Jesus.JakeI was playing about with some theological algebra on another thread. Here's another bit of theological algebra. (Just an illustration of truth)Grace + x = Law, (for any value of x).Biblically, if you add anything to grace as a necessity for salvation you have introduced an 'x'. The problem inevitably will be that all concentration will be fixed on the x. The x may be prayer, charitable acts, evangelism, a more virtuous life, new resolutions, repentance, faith, efforts towards world peace. Anything that I do to gain acceptance with God is 'law'. Grace is God's undeserved, undeservable love, if I add anything to it as a necessity for acceptance I have polluted it and transformed it into law again.But 'by the keeping of the law' no man can be justified. It must be by gift of God. For what says the Scripture? "And Abraham believed God, and this was placed to his credit as righteousness." But in the case of a man who works, pay is not reckoned a favour but a debt; whereas in the case of a man who pleads no actions of his own, but simply believes in Him who declares the ungodly free from guilt, his faith is placed to his credit as righteousness. Weymouth TransationThis is outrageous, but it is also the gospel of the grace of God.

Philologos wrote;I love it, its going straight into my diary. In fact, its Done!Hehe...glad you liked that. I can't take credit for it though, that's a quote from my brother in Christ Bill Jackson.Jake wrote;Using this approach one could feel saved and continue sinning in gross manner until the moment before death. Sounds like a dangerous idea to me.The Apostle Paul addressed this very argument at the beginning of Romans 6 after setting forth in previous chapters the righteousness that comes by grace through Christ and not by works of the law.Romans 6:1-7 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? (2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: (6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.In Christ,Ron

jake wrote If Jesus and Paul spoke about Adam as if he were a single individual it is because that was the common understanding at that time. It wouldn't have made any sense to the listener to speak otherwise. We know better now.Do we indeed? Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Col 1:12-17All things were made by Him and for Him, but 'we know better'?

It's interesting to see how the world moves in an OPPOSITE direction to God.To the natural man it would appear that things are getting better - thatwe are moving FORWARD. The theory of evolution seems to suggest this and that is why it is so widely accepted as the answer to creation. Man can see its fallen state andis always trying to improve it. At school one of my classmates who believed in evolution saidthat one day science would eventually also find a way of overcoming death.In contrast, God is always working BACKWARDS. All His redemptive work is for restoration. Romans 3:23 says we have fallen 'short of His glory'. In Hebrews 2 it quotes the Psalmsand talks about how man was originally crowned with glory and honour. How could it beany different if we were created in His glorious image out of pure love.Satan says: You can do it, it's the way FORWARD. God says: I did it from the very beginning. And God did do it in Jesus Christ, for His name's sake, so that He would be all in all - as it was from the very beginning.

None of us can know how much "top-up" we have to make. What does matter is the seeking and exerting and loving your neighbor as yourself. Without these, faith is an empty vessel.James says:Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.Notice that the faith is dead, it doesn't 'die', it was never alive to begin with.Real faith will always produce good works, but even these works are as 'filthy rags' if we try and 'top-up' the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ with them.

To the natural man it would appear that things are getting better - that we are moving FORWARD. The theory of evolution seems to suggest this and that is why it is so widely accepted as the answer to creation. Man can see its fallen state andis always trying to improve it. At school one of my classmates who believed in evolution saidthat one day science would eventually also find a way of overcoming death.And that is the blindness that is pervailing, the progression is away from God. It does seem strange that for all the fancy window dressing the obvious fact that it is a 2 Tim 3 world escapes most. Man is still his own worst enemy no matter how he tries to avoid the fact.Something in this also brings to mind another fact that I don't recall hearing in this whole discussion: The law of atrophy. Not only humanly speaking, but in the natural. How could we be 'evolving' and degenerating at the same time?Just more questions from a ignorant fisherman.By the way, I think your classmate was right about"one day science would eventually also find a way of overcoming death.""1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." "Phi 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Phi 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Phi 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."The only way of overcoming death.

Jake I was wondering if you have ever watched Kent Hovind's seminars on creation or on the flood, I have never checked on his scientific facts but the initial impact of the videos may make you think (or give you some of the evidence you want) I believe you can download them in realplayer format, or if you like I could send them to you.Lyndon

Jake wrote Your position is like believing in a fairytale and is not grounded in fact or the spirit in which the Bible was written.Some fairytale. I am waiting for the day when the proponents of Darwinian evolution bring real witnesses into the court. I am waiting for the day when someone stands up and says "since I believed in evolution my life has been changed, sins which bound me bind me no more, my heart is filled with the love of God, and His Spirit bears witness with mine that I am His child".I could putyou in touch with hundreds of people who could give a similar testimony, but they would begin be saying "since I believed the Bible to be the infallible word of God..."I think I know the Spirit of God when I hear Him, and He never contradicts Himself. He would never base truth on a lie, as you seem to think Christ did. The Bible teaches that the active agent in creation was Christ Himself, as in Colossians. The assumption that we 'know better' than the Creator is, at best, somwhat lacking in modesty...

Jake wrote Evolution is not a religion and has nothing to do with our spirituality and mortal souls.I do not think Christ lied about anything. He was quoting Moses' record of Adam. That isn't lying.Darwinian evolution is most certainly a belief system and to read the Neo Darwinians is to come constantly across the phrase 'we believe'.Christ had a belief system too. He believed Moses had his information from God. Was He mistaken? If Christ was mistaken on this what else might He have been mistaken on?

JAKE SAID: My point is that some of the things Jesus said don't make sense in modern translation. They have been either mistranslated or recorded mistakenly.If they were recorded mistakenly then why trust anything in the Bible at all? If you can pick and choose what is authentic or not then what do you base your decisions upon when deciding what is accurately recorded?JAKE SAID: But the important things have been preserved and this can be found in the whole of His testimony, and not one verse.How do you know this if you have found what you consider to be errors or statements attributed to Christ which you feel are not His words? JAKE SAID: A. Domesticated dogs. All domesticated dogs are the descendents of Siberian wolves. From the tiny tea cup chiwowa (sp?) to the great dane and everything in between. This shows the plasticity of morphology of animals.You are mistaking Micro and Macro evolution, Macro evolution is one species evolving into an entirely new species. There is absolutely no evidence or proof to support this theory. Micro evolution is variations WITHIN a species, a poodle and a dachshund are variations within a single species, both are dogs. Micro evolution is fact but no one would argue that. What you are saying is that Macro evolution is fact and that simply is not true, if it is true then maybe they should drop the "theory of" from the beginning of it. Darwinism asks us to believe something tangible came from nothing tangible. There is a major problem with evolution and the law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics is Entropy which is the winding down or degeneration of all things, if evolution is to be true then there should not be entropy or any degeneration of something which is "evolving" or progressing forward. Anything which is moving forward or progressing cannot regress or move backwards and still be progressing or evolving. How can a species progress and regress at the same time as Darwinism teaches?JAKE SAID: "B. Neoteny, meaning the retention of juvenile characteristics into adult hood. They say a picture is worth 1000 words. This link is worth many more. The picture of the juvenile chimpanzee looks just like a human."So wouldn't this follow logically that identical twins are the same person instead of two unique individuals? JAKE SAID: This may not be conclusive proof, but taken together these points put the burden on the person who denies evolution because they demonstrate that human evolution from primates is clearly possible.It is also clearly possible that you could teach a pig to read sheet music since a pig has eyes and ears and a brain. The burden of proof always lies on the one making the objectionable claims and in the case of arguing with God (a God which you yourself admit to believing in) the burden of proof lies with you to prove His words and account of creation to be false.You say there is a lot of evidence to support evolution, could you share it please? Claiming to be Christian and a believer in Darwinism or Macro evolution is impossible, first if evolution IS true then we have a problem... If God did not create Man and Woman free of sin in a sinless world with the potentiality of evil which Adam and Eve freely decided to test then why bother accepting Christ as THE redeemer of something which does not exist (i.e. Evil/Sin)? Where or when did man get a soul if we evolved? If man evolved then how could a progressing evolving man sin? The ability to sin requires a positive and a negative, in evolution you cannot make a "sinful" choice, only a "survival" choice. Theistic evolution requires "Design by chance" is sin nothing more than a consequence of evolution, swamp gases or is it the willful rebellion of a sinless man and woman being tempted and using their God given ability to choose? You can't have it both ways, Theistic evolution requires no redemption. The creation account of the Bible demands redemption.-David

JakeThis whole post begins to show how little you understand of the Bible and its testimony.you wrote Whoa!!!!, hold up there pardner. Where do you get your information on what Jesus believed about what Moses wrote? You are making very large assumption. There was no mistake made in His quoting Moses.I get my 'information' from the lips of Jesus and this list is not exhaustive.Matthew 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.In other words He believed Moses wrote Leviticus.Mark 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?In other words He believed Moses wrote Genesis.Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.He knew that those who rejected Moses testimony would reject His.Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.The 'law of Moses' here is a technical term for one of the Jews divisions of holy scripture. It is what we call the Pentateuch, or Gen-Deut.John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:In other words He believed Moses wrote Numbers.John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.He held the testimony of Moses as being valid as evidence for the prosecution against those who rejected Him.John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.Here's an interesting one. Apparently people who do not believe Moses do not believe Christ. There is an unbroken testimony throughout the scripture and it cannot be divided and awkward bits spat out.You tell me that Christ believed a literal personal Adam, but say that he was accommodating the ignorance of His day (or was ignorant Himself?) When Christ spoke of Adam He was quoting Moses who wrote the first five books. This was also something which Christ believed and taught. If Moses wrote of a literal Adam, and an honest reading of Genesis 1 and 2 can come to no other conclusion, in your view, Moses was mistaken. Jesus used the words of Moses to teach personal survival beyond death as an individual; which testimony you also reject. In your view, either Moses was wrong and Christ used untruths to teach truth, or Christ believed Moses, in which case they were both mistaken. Jake, your reliance upon your own light puts you at the mercy of the wildest suppositions. The Spirit that breathed through Moses and Christ is just not saying the same things that you claim are your personal inspiration. He cannot deny Himself. you also wrote Moreover, Jesus says that there are things that the Father knows that He does not. I thought they were one in the same.Well, you thought mistakenly, if that is the case. I suggest you look through some of the threads on Trinity on this site. I think your flawed understanding of incarnation brings you to views which stand in direct contradiction to the scriptures, but then we have been here so often...

"Those in darkness have no power to resist satan. He rules the whole man, shaping his apprehensions and distorting his perceptions. If he reads the Scripture, satan stands by with his own running commentary, twisting the truth into a maze of lies. If he shows any distaste for sin, satan has him view it through the rose-coloured glasses of compromise. And while the sinner may think his insight is greatly improved, in truth, he remains under manifold delusions." Further on:"Yet there is hope for everyone; Christ the Good Shepherd is standing by. If you will cry out to Him, though it be no louder than the pitiful bleaking of the weakest lamb, He will hear and come to your rescue at once."Taken from The Christian In Complete Armour by William Gurnall. (Page 168-169 Red Book)

Jake wrote The whole of those who engage in literalist interpretation of the Bible have forsaken the teachings of Christ. He has said he will not make things plain, but will cover the Truth, lest the sinners enter by claiming Him.excuse me? can you give me chapter and verse for this?

JAKE SAID: "just as Genesis 1:29 says. The women started to scavenge meat against the command of God, and sin began. We became hunters, warriors, and then cannibals, reaching the depths of depravity, because we went against God's command."I'm not entirely sure what bible you are reading...Gen 1:29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; (NASB)Gen 3:3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" (NASB)Are you saying that the original sin was eating meat? Where do you arrive at this concept? I thought Gods command was:Gen 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (NASB)So according to the below verse God placed a animal or some sort of meat in the center of the garden and it stood there without ever moving since it had to remain in the middle of the garden in order to not be confused with the rest of the other animals. God refers to Animals as trees?Gen 3:3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" (NASB)JAKE SAID: "I hear this absolutist rhetoric all the time. History books have errors but if they say the Civil War was fought in 1865 would you distrust them? NO."The only problem with your analogy here is that how many history books do you know of which claim to be the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD? I would not base my life or eternity on a history book as you ask but those have human authors that never claimed to be speaking for God and inspired by God. 2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (NASB)So Jake since you are saying God did something He did NOT do or say your argument is with Him. He plainly and clearly says "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" and you are saying otherwise so you have a lot to think about and a lot of problems in scripture to work out if you wish it to harmonize with your concept of Theistic Evolution.-David

Jake wrote The whole of those who engage in literalist interpretation of the Bible have forsaken the teachings of Christ. He has said he will not make things plain, but will cover the Truth, lest the sinners enter by claiming Him.And the verses you quote are supposed to support this assertion? This is just another example of your complete misapplication of scripture. Well Quakers used to like plain speaking and I am pretty sure what George Fox would have said to such a misapplication.Jake, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

JAKE SAID:"Through the process of Microevolution, a chimpanzee could evolve into a human. This requires no changes anywhere near the changes that have happened in dogs in the last 10,000 years. Just check out the picture of the young chimp and you can see this is possible. Neoteny makes this possible."You are saying that a chimp with the help of microevolution could not just look like a man but also think and feel like a man? If this is so and using your "it could happen" theory then why has there never been a chimp or much less any other animal that formed a single theory or sentence or even spoken one word with the exception of the mimicking parrot? Just because something "looks" possible does not mean it IS possible or even a reality. A horse looks like or resembles a mule but do you call a mule a horse? Could you teach a mule to act like a Clydesdale? You are basing your entire theory of theistic evolution on the "possibility" of nothing more than the physical appearance of a child and a chimp.Human babies pretty much all look alike, so since almost all human babies are bald, does the fact that they will most likely all eventually grow hair mean that they will continue to grow hair for their entire life in a never ending progression of hair? Why does the opposite happen when most begin losing hair? Evolution eventually becomes degradation? If chimps could become human then why on earth does it not ever happen? Why can't you point to one single scientific proof of it or even a piece of working evidence? Can you PLEASE present just ONE not two or three JUST ONE fossil showing ANY transition between the species? Just ONE fossil which shows any stage of transition from one species into a new species. Surely you could present us with just one fossil to support the fact of evolution, couldn't you? Until you can do that then you are basing your "theory" on nothing but "speculation" grounded in humanism.-David

Gen 9:1-3 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the heavens; with all wherewith the ground teemeth, and all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you; as the green herb have I given you all.

Jake wrote You are making my point for me. This passage clearly indicates that originally we were given only every green herb for food. But, as we were wearing animal skins by the time of Noah, it is clear we had broken this command. And had done so before God gave this directive.Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.I don't know whether or not our friend George Fox ate meat, but I do know he wore leather breeches. I don't know whether they ate meat in between Gen 3 and Gen 6. It would not surprise me if they did. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [Gen 6:5] All flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth [Gen 6:12] These verses open up the way for every kind of rebellion against the commands of God.However, your speculation that meat-eating is the cause of man's sin is totally anachronistic within the timeframe of Genesis. It remains sheer speculation and, as such, has no real place in a "Scripture Debate" forum designed for mutual help in exogesis; drawing truth from out of the text. You are performing what is generaly referred to as isogesis; you are importing your own notions into the text. This is not only bad theology it is dangerous.

Quote: Reading Genesis 1:29, it is indisputable that we were originally intended by God to be herbivores. You cannot argue with this, otherwise you are importing your own notions into the text. By using that reasoning could it be argued that since Jesus came to restore that which was lost through Adam, he came to make us into vegetarians? Since eating meat was the original sin, would not the cleansing power of Jesus's sacrifice remove from us all disire to eat meat?Lyndon

Jake wrote Reading Genesis 1:29, it is indisputable that we were originally intended by God to be herbivores. You cannot argue with this, otherwise you are importing your own notions into the text.I am not arguing with Genesis 1:29 I am arguing against the ludicrous notion that the world is in the mess it is because Adam popped out for a beef on rye.

the original human sin is revealed quite clearly in Genesis 3. Adam and Eve chose to take an action, the purpose of which was for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. ASVThis attempt to be 'as God' was an echo of a far earlier rebellion. How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! And thou saidst in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to Sheol, to the uttermost parts of the pit. Isaiah 14:12-15]It had absolutely nothing at all to do with changes in eating habits.

Jake wrote Again, you are making my case for me: "in the day ye eat thereof": They ate something that was forbidden. What was not included in their diet was animal flesh. The Isaiah passage you quote refers to how the Serpent tempted Eve in the story. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are not referring to the fall of man but the fall of Satan. There is not biblical reference to Adam beginning to eat flesh; this is sheer speculation imported into the scriptures.jake wroteRon, do you not see how the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil can be symbolic and representational? Or do you think there were literally two trees in the middle of a garden? I don't see them as being symbolic in the sense of a symbol instead of the reality. Before sin entered the human race there was no artificial separation between physical and spiritual. The same will be true again one day. The trees were real trees embodying spiritual realities.jake wrote It doesn't work because nobody could survive in the belly of a whale for three days.There are true life stories of people surviving swallowing by great fish. The bible doesn't call it a whale. Read it more carefully.Jake wrote(If I didn't care about YOU, I would have long ago abandoned this thread. Clearly you are educated, but you are not using your brain here; simply repeating and clinging to what Biblical interpreters have professed since long before science discovered evolution and the ancient age of the earth. While they (and you) still stubornly cling to this literal interpretation, the archeological discovery process continues unabated. What will happen to all the congregants when this is shown to be false. Will you lead people into a lost faith? That would be a pity.)Have you really been continuing this ridiculous correspondence for my benefit?Let me gather together what we have discovered about your theology from this thread. We know that you couldn't care less whether there was a virgin birth, or a physical resurrection, or whether Christ's return will be physical. You believe, contrary to clear biblical evidence, in reincarnation that keeps happening until the person comes to faith in Christ. You never did answer my question as to who you thought Christ was if Mary was not virgin, but only God could have redeemed us by pouring out a life of infinite value. You reject Paul for corrupting the gospel although Christ specifically commissioned Peter who specifically endorses Paul's letters. You read the scriptures in the style of a supermarket shopping trip, taking what suits and leaving what doesn't. Your authority for this random selection is a spirit which confirms to you that your interpretations are correct. This is quite different to the spirit that confirmed to George Fox and Robert Barclay that the scriptures could by used as a final authority to check any doctrines that inner witness produced. My inner witness agrees with that of the early Quakers while yours does not.Your position is based entirely on your importation of bizarre ideas into the text of the Bible and not on any true exegesis. I'm not particularly educated but I work on the principle of Hebrews 11 'by faith we understand'. I don't ask 'why' in order to believe; the scripture is my sufficient foundation for doctrinal truth. I ask 'why' because I want to understand more fully the wonders that God constantly reveals to my spirit through the inerrant scriptures.Please do not maintain this thread for my benefit. I have made this statement previously but will make this my final remark on this thread; ye do err not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I should have had this with my previous post. Pretty much what Greg has in his post. I don't have a clue who this person is but he said it well."Once we believe we have the right to change the meaning of God’s Word to suit our agenda, there is no limit as to how far the misrepresentation of God’s truth can go. This is exactly how virtually every cult and heresy is started." By Gary E. Gilley, Pastor-teacher, Southern View Chapel

Hi Jake,I'm not going to be long-winded here but I do have a question for you regarding your quote here:JAKE SAID: "This notion goes against all we know about the earliest forms of writing. These were representational drawings."On what basis do you personally then decide what is literal and what is symbolic? You are abandoning all proper exegetical skill and hermeneutics. You're asking us to abandon practical reading skills (3rd grade level) in order to arrive at your reasoning. Why on earth would God use the word "tree" when He meant "meat" when all He had to do was say "meat"? They both have 4 letters so it wasn't to save space. Was it for purely poetical reasons? I do suppose "The day you slaughter the cow and drink it's blood and smother in it's innards" would sound less inviting. Though it would sound much more sinful than eating from a tree... -David

whatsoever doctrine is contrary unto their (the Scripture’s) testimony may therefore justly be rejected as false. And for our parts, we are very willing that all our doctrines and practices be tried by them; which we never refused, nor ever shall, in all controversies with our adversaries, as the judge and test. We shall also be very willing to admit it as a positive certain maxim, That whatsoever any do, pretending to the Spirit, which is contrary to the Scriptures, be accounted and reckoned a delusion of the devil.… the Scriptures give a full and ample testimony to all the principal doctrines of the Christian faith. For we do firmly believe that there is no other gospel or doctrine to be preached, but that which was delivered by the apostles; and do freely subscribe to that saying, "Let him that preacheth any other gospel, than that which hath been already preached by the apostles, and according to the Scriptures, be accursed."Robert Barclay. 1648-1690 Most respected Quaker theologian. Barclay's italics.

Jake wrote Robert Barclay is known among unprogrammed Friends as the "apologist" because of the kind of message you quote. He caved in to the dictates of the Crown and Church of England and abondoned the Testimony of Fox regarding the Holy Spirit the interpretation of the Bible. His testimony is the basis of great division among Friends, and caused the Society much harm.As far as I am aware Barclay always had the full confidence of Fox and they worked together in Europe. At least one delightful letter exists from Barclay to Fox which shows the affection and mutual trust of the two men. There were people in their day who felt as Jake, they were generally known as Ranters. One description says They were above all authority and actually said:"Have not we the Spirit,and why may not we write scriptures as well as Paul?"They believed the Scriptures "not because such and such writ it,"but because they could affirm "God saith so in me."Sounds dreadfully familiar.

Jake, why do evolution adherents try to stop creation scientists views from being published, the latest being in your own country, a book called Grand Canyon: A Different View ?Why isn't creation science, meaning the creation as per the Word of God, being taught in the majority of schools in your country as well as mine as an alternativ to evolution ?Do you believe that the christian scientists that actually believe what the Bible teaches are not real scientists ?Why is prayer or an assembly in most parts of the world, or being prepared to be, in the name of Jesus being forbidden unless of course it is an ecumenical jesus, buddha etc ?Why are individual persons in many countries who profess to believe in Jesus Christ being treated in a fashion that should make everyone of us protest in the loudest way possible ? Perhaps its a part of what Darwin taught, the survival of the fittest ?!!If you believe in evolution, as I understand you do, how do you then explain the below: 1Th 5:23 And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. As far as I can see you are defending humanistic ideas and also pick and choose parts in God's word which will conform to your way of thinking as seen from your previous posts thereby making it impossible to debate from a biblical point of view.Talking about floods, some time ago I believe, scientists in your country actually came up with the idea of a big flood on Mars although there hasn't been a lot of talk about it lately. If it can happen on Mars why not here because that is exactly what the Bible teaches us unless of course you believe the Bible is errant in some parts ?If the Bible is errant in parts why believe in it at all ?Jake, you wrote "You obviously aren't here for debate about Scriptures and I wonder, if only people who are believers in an inerrant Bible are allowed to debate Scriptures in this forum, what kind of debate and learning can possibly go on?"I am not a scientist, in fact quite poorly educated, but to me your statement above fits quite neatly in with the one made by the serpent to Eve which is below;Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden? Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat: Gen 3:3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: Gen 3:5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.Again, whether you believe in an actual tree or not, (which I do) isn't that exactly the theme of Satan today, make the Word of God doubtful and people won't believe no matter what especially Genesis 1-11.If you would kindly have a look at these pages and maybe debate with these writers about your ideas. You'll also find that there are likeminded people when it comes to the inerrancy or errancy of the Word of God on these pages expressing their views. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0711ark.aspJake, if nothing else comes out of this, at least you can claim with certainty to have started the longest thread on this site, and it can be proven by just following the words written by mere mortals.jouko

"Let's all just pat each other on the back and reassure ourselves that everybody who disagrees with an inerrent Bible is not a real Christian." Jake with all due respect (and I honestly do respect your right to believe what you will) the main difference here is that you see God as not being "GOD", you see Him as "god"... You are saying God is mistaken and has allowed human error (Bible problems) to interfere with His divine will for mankind. The great thing about God is that you do not have to be a Biblical genius to understand it. When you think someone is trying to impress you with words it is just that certain words can communicate an entire meaning easier with only one word instead of 5 small simple words. You have been asking us to answer questions and I would say that to the best of our ability we have done so. So now it would only be fair to ask you a few questions. 1. Why worship a god who can not even protect the Word He left to His creation?2. Why waste time studying something you find to be corrupt?3. Why quote from a book riddled with errors and poor story telling skills?4. Why trust a god who has to depend on "luck" (evolution) in order for his creation to prosper as he wills it to?5. Why waste one single moment on a god who claims to have all the answer yet can not even tell a story better than you?6. Why place your eternal soul in the hands of a god who can not even create a human body from nothing?7. Why love a god who does not love you enough to speak clearly in order that you can understand him?8. Why serve something you can not be sure you even understand?9. If evolution is true, where and when did man receive his soul? And from what did it evolve from?10. Does the theory of evolution contain any errors?11. Is evolutionary theory inherent?12. Does evolutionary theory correct the errors of god? (you must say yes, since you place the theory of man above the teaching of God)13. Was Charles Darwin a prophet of god? If not then how do you explain his advanced revelation of gods process of evolution? If god did not reveal it to Darwin then how did Darwin receive it? If Darwin was not a prophet then why would god give advanced revelation through him? If god did give advanced revelation through a man who was not a prophet could you give another example of this in the Bible? A man who reveals anything which is truly from God must absolutely be considered a prophet. So, was Darwin a prophet?Take Care!-David

Jake,I don't know whether you are still reading these or whether your 'God Bless you all' was a farewell.Underneath all my questioning of your positions has been an underlying anxiety and I have addressed it briefly in a couple of postings. These postings were not designed to demonise you, they were intended as strong but loving warnings. I testify to you that there has not been a single angry post from me. If my questions have been strong it has not been in attack of you but of your position.Here is my underlying anxiety. You wrote I know you have good intentions and that we share what is a fundamental agreement on the saving grace of Jesus Christ. I really don't think we (you and me, at least) do share a fundamental agreement on the saving grace of Jesus Christ. And again I say this in love but strongly, I don't know who your 'Jesus Christ' is. I know who mine is, He is the one revealed in the Scriptures. The Christ of my experience is one with the Christ of the Scriptures; that is a source of comfort and confirmation to me. He is the Son of God and Man, born of a virgin, crucified under Pontius Pilate, dead, buried, raised in his own physical body, and coming again in that same body. He is the one who appeared to Paul and inspired him to share such glorious truth. But your 'Jesus' is without definition to me.And this impacts upon the saving grace because this is only available from that same Jesus who is revealed in the Scriptures. His church was purchased with the 'blood of God' (Acts 20:28) and if another was his father he was not God and his sacrifice could not have the necessary value to have obtained redemption for all men.You see, Jake, these are not peripheral issues but lie at the very heart of Christian faith. If He was not who the Scriptures reveal Him to be, I have no idea who He is. I am at the mercy of my impressions. As I said before, and again without hostility, I repeat that if I create a God in my own imagination and worship that God I am guilty of idolatry. Only the God of Scriptural revelation can be safely worshipped.If your 'God Bless you all' was a farewell, I for one am sorry to hear it, but as and when God enables I must continue to 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints' and cannot compromise any modification of that 'faith'. A sacred trust has been committed into my care (and into the care of many others)and I must declare and defend the truth as God has preserved it in the Holy Scriptures.God Bless you too,

I browsed through the article cited by Jake (www.thesunmagazine.org/333_Smoley.pdf), and I find it rather amusing.As a Chinese Christian, I really find the notions that the eastern religions can be mixed up with the Christian faith rather amusing. It is rather ironic for a Chinese Christian to be told by westerners that I don't really understand the eastern mind, and that the eastern and western religions are essentially compatible. I really have to work hard to resist the temptation of saying, "Hey, look at me. I certainly look more eastern than you do!"Today in the West, the tendency to mix up Christianity with Zen, Qigong, Buddhism, and all sorts of other "spiritualities" is a clear and present danger. What we Chinese Christians rejected a long time ago as hopeless (though genuine and sincere) quests to meet God, seems to be so dearly embraced by the Western society (case in point, just compare in a bookstore, the Christianity section and the Spirituality section)!I think the so-called "esoteric Christianity" is not Christianity at all. It only convolutes the uniqueness of the faith and prevents the Spirit from moving powerfully as He did elsewhere in the world.

Hi Jakemissed you!you wrote As for my Christianity, here is an article that explains some of my points of view, although there are parts I disagree with. (I just checked the whole article and it is excerpted. YOu would have to get the full edition from The Sun Magazine, September 2003.)I am afraid that we are much further apart than I had originally thought. I see your other posting that this was an excerpt but this is simply Buddhism with occasional Christian vocabulary, almost always used in a non-Christian way. Theologically this is what is known as syncretism; gathering from different sources and mixing everything together. It's pick and mix religion.I studied Buddhism in my formal theological training, and have worked with ex-Buddhist Tibetans in NE and NW India. I have a close personal friend who is a Christian Bhutanese living with his wife and family in Bhutan. They found no peace in Buddhism, they found no sanctifying power, but in Christ they have been transformed. As with Agent001 they stand amazed at the West's preoccupation with Buddhism.I have visited Buddhist temples and spoken with Buddhist monks. A scripture always comes powerfully to mind in such contexts; when a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace [Luke 11:21] There is a sort of peace there, an ominous peace.As regards my views on how we came to be here... well they are just my own views but I don't think of Genesis 1 as 24 hour periods. I don't think it was written to give us scientific data but to show that 'God created'. This is why I reject Darwinian evolution and its 'blind watchmaker'. I have several Christian friends who strongly believe that Genesis 1 is literal 24 hour periods. I have listened to their views and can accept them as working hypotheses, but in the end I have to say "I am not convinced. I am not saying you are wrong, your hypothesis would work, but I'm not convinced." I have a lot of time for the Gap Theory. A view that was held originally by lots of very respectable Bible students; Christopher Wordsworth, C I Scofield, G H Pember, Thomas Newberry, Graham Scroggie, Campbell Morgan. The view has no fallen on hard times now, but I think it still works.I don't know how God did the moulding process referred to in Gen 2:7, but I know He was the moulder. I don't know how long He took to do it but and I read that at a specific point in time He breathed into Adam's nostrils the 'spirits of life' (literal Hebrew) and man became a 'living soul'. Because Christ believed in a literal Adam, I do (we have been here before ;-) ).I believe the symbols of Gen 2 are not just symbols in the sense of 'instead of' but they are symbol and reality in one. The tree represented the knowledge of good and evil, it was also a real tree from which Eve and Adam ate fruit. Know you are as wise as I am. :-P

Hello Jake. I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions that was on the previous posts but then again that is exactly what you accused others of doing to you. As for evidence of creation, look out of your window. The ancient earth and its inhabitants were destroyed because of, would you believe, wickedness and all that goes with it.Gen 6:5 And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:6 And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Gen 6:7 And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Gen 6:8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah.But then again, if you believe the Word to be errant or do believe the Word to be a story then you will have a problem with the text above.I'm sorry to see that you have found yourself an literal evolving jesus in accordance with the text you referred to, new age. jouko

Jake wrote So, if this is true, there should still be such trees in the world. (Unless you say they conveniently went extinct.) Which variety was it? Apple, Orange???Can you be damaged by eating its fruit today?You can see the problems with this point of view.In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Genesis 7:11For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2 Peter 3:5,6

Jake wrote So, where is the geological evidence for this worldwide flood? There should be common geological deposits around the world. They should be easy to find since the flood supposedly happened within the last 6,000 years. Then, also, how do you account for the very old fossils of dinosaurs which are in much older geological layers?You might be interested in this Reason to Believe website.

I approach this subject as a scientist as I am currently working towards a Physics degree and I can say wholeheartedly and with ultimate certaintity that what I read in Genesis chapter 1 did in fact happen in that way because it illustrates that most delightful of christian principles, that God's word is flawless and that his word runs swiftly. These, to me, are the most important principles laid out in this chapter and indeed principles that hold true today. Also from a purely scientific point of view I look, for instance at the theory of evolution which runs in the exact oppostite direction to genetic reproduction which degenerates from generation to generation. Also as I look at the genesis account I cannot see how anything other than six succesive 24 hour periods can be seen as the definitions given are very carefully worded. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. That can only suggest an instantaneous creation of light (sun) also in the process confounds the big bang theory as the earth was already there at this time. likewise the term day is clearly defined, likewise the succession of day to day is also defined (first, second, third etc.).Surely this means that, either, the genesis account is literal, the bible is not the perfect word of God, or God is a liar!Please don't accept scientific conjecture above scripture, please don't deny the infinite power of an omnipontent God, please don't dent yourself certainty in scriptural truth, our truest form of revelation.Also jake mentioned that Chirsts teaching accepted other traditions or something to that effect. That, however, is not the case as He said that He was the only way to the Father.

What’s wrong with ‘progressive creation?’By AiG president, Ken HamThe ‘progressive creation’ view of Dr Hugh Ross on how to interpret the book of Genesis has received wide publicity and endorsement from many well-known Christian leaders, churches, seminaries, and Christian colleges.This brief summary of only some of these teachings is meant to familiarize Christians with aspects of the ‘Rossist’ position, including some that are not so well-known. We need to judge these against the absolutes of God's Word to see ‘whether these things were so.’ (Acts 17:11)While Dr Ross is NOT an evolutionist per se, he does accept much of what evolutionists teach in astronomy and geology. We do not seek to pass judgment on his Christian character or commitment to the Lord.In summary, progressive creation/Rossism teaches: The ‘Big Bang’ origin of the universe occurred 16-billion-years ago; death, bloodshed, and disease existed before Adam & Eve. The days of Creation were long periods. Noah’s Flood was a local event.Sin has only a regionally limited effect on the world. Man-like creatures that behaved much like us—and painted on cave walls—existed before Adam and Eve, but didn’t have a spirit and thus had no salvation. The record of nature is just as perfect as the Word of God. Over millions of years, God created new species as others kept going extinct. Publisher: Dr. Ross’s books are published by NAVPRESS, the publishing arm of the Navigators. They stated in a press release: ‘We consider it our privilege and our calling to stand behind Hugh Ross with our support as his publisher.’Progressive Creation/Rossism teachings(The following quotes are all taken from lectures or publications by Dr Ross)1. Concerning the creation of life in the universe:‘It only works in a cosmos of a hundred-billion trillion stars that’s precisely sixteen-billion-years old. This is the narrow window of time in which life is possible. ‘Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you’ll permit—For God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building a hundred-billion trillion-stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen-billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.’ (Dallas Theological Seminary Chapel Service, September 13, 1996).Our Comment: Read John 3:16 for yourself and compare it to the above!Also: ‘Life is only possible when the universe is between 12 and 17 billion years.’ (Toocoa Falls Christian College, Staley Lecture Series, March 1997)Comment: God is omnipotent—He could make a fully functional universe ready for life right from the beginning, for with God nothing is impossible. (See Matt. 19:26; Mark 10:27) 2. Dr Ross defending his belief that Noah’s Flood was only local:‘But here are some reasons why, physical reasons why, the flood cannot be global. Number one is the limited extent of sin. Given that human beings had not yet civilized and inhabited Antarctica, there’d be no need for God to flood Antarctica because there’d be no sin there in Antarctica.‘There’d be no need for God to kill off all the penguins because those penguins had no contact with reprobate humanity. And in that case, I don’t think Noah took any penguins on board the ark. … Only bird and mammal species, according to the Levitical Law, can be impacted by sin.’ (Toccoa Falls Christian College, Staley Lecture Series, March, 1997)Comment: Read Genesis 6:19-20; The Bible clearly states here that all kinds of land animals—including penguins—were on the ark. By the way, most penguins live in other parts of the world, including the Galapagos Islands near the Equator!3. Dr. Ross defining what he calls the ‘sixty-seventh book of the Bible’:‘Not everyone has been exposed to the sixty-six books of the Bible, but everyone on planet Earth has been exposed to the sixty-seventh book - the book that God has written upon the heavens for everyone to read.‘And the Bible tells us it’s impossible for God to lie, so the record of nature must be just as perfect, and reliable and truthful as the sixty-six books of the Bible that is part of the Word of God … And so when astronomers tell us [Ross uses the example of scientists attempting to measure distances in space and goes on to say that] it’s part of the truth that God has revealed to us. It actually encompasses part of the Word of God.’ (Toccoa Falls Christian College, Staley Lecture Series March, 1997).Comment: Indeed God cannot lie, so when He tells us in Romans 8:22 that ‘the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain’ because of sin, then how can sinful fallible human beings in a sin-cursed universe say that their interpretation of the evidence is as perfect as God’s written revelation? Scientific assertions must use fallible assumptions and fallen reasoning—how can this be the Word of God?4. Dr Ross’s Creation story for children states:‘Starting about 2 to 4 million years ago, God began creating man-like mammals or ‘hominids.’ These creatures stood on two feet, had large brains, and used tools. Some even buried their dead and painted on cave walls.‘However, they were different from us. They did not worship God or establish religious practices. In time, all these man-like creatures went extinct. Then, about 10 to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve.’ (Reasons To Believe Web Site, updated July 8, 1997)Comment: Dr Ross accepts and defends the evolutionist radiometric dating methods, so all evidence of humans, descendants of Noah, if given evolutionary dates of more than 25,000 years (eg., The Neanderthal cave sites) must be redefined as related to spirit-less ‘hominoids’ which the Bible doesn’t mention. However, the same methods have been used to ‘date’ the Australian aborigines back at least 40,000 years (some have claimed much older). By Ross’s reasoning, the Australian aborigines could NOT be descendants of Adam and Eve. However, read Acts 17:26. Interestingly, some scientists now date the American Indians’ ancestors at earlier than 40,000 years.5. Dr Ross commenting on God’s knowledge and wisdom:‘The Creator of the universe must be a Beingthat’s a minimum of a hundred-trillion times better educated, more intelligent, therefore more powerful, more creative, and even more caring and loving than we human beings.’ (Focus on the Family, radio broadcast, August 7, 1997)Comment: Our Creator is NOT a minimum of a hundred-trillion times better educated! He is INFINITELY more knowledgeable. (See Col. 2:3; Job 21:22, 42:1–6)6. Dr Ross defending death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering before Adam’s sin:‘The spilling of blood before Adam’s sin in no way affects or detracts from the doctrine of atonement. Upholding that central doctrine in no way demands a Creation scenario in which none of God’s creatures received a scratch or other blood-letting wound before Adam and Eve sinned … Even in an ideal natural environment animals would be constantly scratched, pricked, bruised, and even killed by accidental events and each other … Could it be that God’s purposes are somehow fulfilled through our experiencing the ‘random, wasteful, inefficiencies’ of the natural realm He created?’ (Creation and Time, Chapters 6 & 8)Comment: Read Genesis 1:29,30; Genesis 9:3; Genesis 1:31; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:17-19; Genesis 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; Romans 5; Romans 8:20-22; 1 Corinthians 15; Acts 3:21; Isaiah 11:6-9; Revelation 21:4; Revelation 22:3. God created a perfect world at the beginning—all the animals and man were vegetarians (Gen. 1:29). Plants were given for food—they do not have a ‘nephesh’ [life spirit] as man and animals do.God killed the first animal in the Garden and shed blood because of sin—if there was death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin, then the basis for the atonement is destroyed. Christ suffered death, for death was the penalty for sin. There will be no death or suffering in the perfect ‘restoration’—so why can’t we accept the same in a perfect (‘very good’) Creation before sin?7. Dr Ross on Revelation:‘We’re also told in Revelation 6:9 that Christians who died ahead of us are watching what we’re doing. It’s like they go to heaven and they’re given the equivalent of some kind of TV monitor with a bunch of channels that they can select and they can watch.’ (Focus on the Family, broadcast August 8, 1997) Comment: Look up Revelation 6:9 for yourself!8. Dr Ross on space-time dimensions:‘What follows, then, from string theory and from all these recent findings in particle physics and astrophysics is that God must be operating in a minimum of eleven dimensions of space and time, or their practical equivalent.’ (Beyond The Cosmos, Chapter 8)Comment: Dr Ross bases much of what he says on ‘string theory,’ which is NOT universally accepted, and is just one of many arcane speculations being discussed by theorists. It is so vague and speculative, and without experimental support, that to use it to apply to defining attributes of God is foolish.In the same book Dr Ross declares: ‘We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only for God’s existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent of our own four.’ (Beyond The Cosmos, chapter 3) Comment: What about Hebrews 11:3,6? Whatever happened to faith? String theory is NOT proof for God’s existence. Remember Romans 10:17: ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.’ The Spirit of God uses the Word of God to bring people to Christ.A detailed critique of many more ‘Rossist’ teachings is available in book form: Creation and Time—A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Available online at:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.aspCOPYRIGHT © 2004 Answers in Genesis

Thanks Jouko,When will we ever get over ourselves, all this human reasoning...Ecc 7:23 All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me. is just one of many arcane speculations being discussed by theorists.Think that sums up much of this topic andseems on par with;1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Hi Joukoyou wrote

Philologos, no problem, we can all have our viewsand not necessarily agree. I'm of Finnish descent and reckon we were there before the homo nocrustians as we seem to like the crust on the rye bread. One of those heads with a smile would fit here but they don't seem to obey any command I give!! Wonder why ?I just wanted a comment to increase my post count. Maybe I should have divided it into a few more ?! Excellent verse crsschk. Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.Although, I wish jake would have answered some of the questions in one of my previous comments and the questions (quick look back) David asked.

JakeCan I ask you is there any suggestion from scripture that the stories of genesis are in fact "symbolic and representational" or is this conjecture on your part given a propensity towards the metaphorical sense of genesis but as with the stories that are found throughout the old testament is it not that much more in keeping with the God of creation to illustrate His character and His purposes through His creation.Again the wonderful thing about scripture is it's specificity as you look and see in Job the very accurate descriptions of "Dinosaurs" also look at the accuracy of biblical prophecy these show God's nature as being specific and accurate and I would reiterate that if the Bible is the inspired Word of God and when God speaks that thing is fixed, then it must contain truth on every level. So therefore when the Genesis account of creation is not prefixed with a warning that this could in any way, shape, or form be interpretted as a text for metaphoric study I see no reason to interpret it only in that manner.Also as I said in my last post the basic LAWS of nature as they are presently understood by the very top genetisists is that DNA of any form degenerates from its most complex form to a less complex form which gives us the reasoning behind not reproducing amongst families as, for instance if one parent where to be an MS carrier but not sufferer their children would have a heightened risk as that genetic defect is pased on from generation to generation and when two parents both have that weakness the chance is further increased. Likewise you mentioned that many current dogs have descended from one original and again you will find that there has been a genetic dengeneracy.You also mentioned that the earth was spoken of as being formless and void but in these verses that "the Spirit of God was hovering over the WATERS"(verse 2). This shows that there was water (at least) about before the light was brought into being which is contrary to the big bang theory.You also saidIf you had faith you would be able to accept nonliteralist words from God because they ring true of the Holy Spirit.Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. By that definition I would say that you are infact correct in saying that I have no faith in this instance but the faith that I am lacking is not faith in God or indeed faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible. Of those things I am absolutly certain in my belief. The faith you are referring to is faith in scientists who in the main are very staunchly atheistic and as such when they approach any scientific find they do not even give credance to the possiblity of divine creation and hence their work is often scarred by that omission and so I don't take what they say as fact!I hope that clarifies my position.

Jake, you wrote; "The story is meant to convey that God made us; that we disobeyed God's intentions for us (vegetarian and in harmony with nature and wildlife); that we were punished for our disobedience and live in sin."If I do understand you right Jake, then because I just converted myself to vegetarianism and feel in harmony with nature and wildlife, I'm now a born again believer in Christ.Then, Jesus Christ the Son of God shed His blood for me for that same reason ?So as to make me secure in my belief, would you please tell me where in the Word of the Living God can I find proof of that ?jouko

God only give us permission, and with no small amount of sarcasmJust a small contribution, but God never uses sarcasm. It means to tear flesh with the teeth. It is the devil's wit. It is from the root word 'sarx' meaning flesh. This has nothing to do with these curious notions of vegitarianism but God is no carnivore and never tears with His teeth.

Jake wrote Ron, you claim the literal truth of Genesis yet where the Bible is clear in its intent, (1:29; 9:3) you claim the words are not meant to be read that way. You are trying to have it both ways.Jake,We just go round and round with this. I can't remember how many times I have said the same thing; I don't know whether you really want to hear or whether you just want to use this forum for propogation of your own ideas.You refer, above, to the Bible being clear in its intent. It is, but you have missed it entirely. In between Gen 1:29 which I do regard as literal truth and Gen 9:3 which I also regard as literal truth, you have created your own fantasy world. In this fantasy world, which is far from the Bible's intent, you have inserted creatures with names long enough to break a camel's back, although you are irritated when I use specific technical terms. Yours is the K-mart method of Bible exogesis, cruise along the shelves pick what you like, leave anything that is inconvenient. Into this concoction add a few spices from scientific speculation and then claim it is the authentic recipe, absolutely in line with the Bible's clear intent.This culinery creation is all of your own imagination. Biblically, it fits where it touches. It is totally divorced from any genuine discipline of hermeneutic methodology. This is humpty-dumpty at work; it means what you want it to mean.I think you will be offended by what I write, although I have no wish to offend, but I have followed the twists and turns of this thread long enough to know where it is going, or where it is not going. Your points have been demolished time and again by many posting here. You have received nothing that has been said. You leave your point dead in the water and move on to another.I have said before that we serve different Gods. My God never plays jokes on men. He does not regard rebellion as funny and He loves men too much to compromise with them. Faithful are the wounds of a friend.

Hey, Check out www.drdino.com there are some awesome articles about creationism Vs. Evolution that deal with things like dinosaurs in the time of humans and the false "facts" of evolution. Check it out you might be surprized at what you will learn. Just go on that website and click on the articles page.

Except for the fact that in being crucified He became another victim of our tools of violence, Jesus' sacrifice and salvation has nothing to do with the nature of original sin. By your logic a piece of unknown (extinct, according to Philologos) fruit would have in some way a role in Jesus' crucifiction and our salvation. Are you kidding?"He became another victim of our tools of violence"Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. "...has nothing to do with the nature of original sinWhat?Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. I am totally at a loss as to why you would even want to listen to any of the messages on this site. I will go out on a limb and state that there is not one single message here that would come anywhere close to supporting that view.Are we to believe that all these men are wrong?This is beyond just debatable issues and I don't see much sense in dishing out all the scriptures stating just exactely why Jesus came into the world, layed down His very life and rose again.This is a first principle in Christian Faith.To what end are you after? You have failed to convince anyone here of this 'theory' even after numerous post's. I have never heard anyone attempt to interpet the Bible in this fashion and want us all to believe that we are just a bunch of ignorant fools who just take God at His word and then throw the rest of our brains out the window. We also believe in the witness of the Holy Spirit, to lead us into all truth. Are we all then deceived? Because we hold to the inerancey of scripture,(which to this ignoramous must be or the whole structure falls apart) and if it is not true...why bother? Why believe? Why have faith?If "Thus saith the Lord" has no meaning and we can't trust the inspired writings of the prophets and Apostles...Sigh, Jake I may not be the brightest tool in the shed here and I love you as a brother in the Lord.This is just so grevious, there seems to be no backing down from your position, just an endless series of point/counter point that is going absolutely nowhere and we seem to be of no real help either. This is so beyond who is right, who has the more intelligent argument...the debatable, secondary issues, fine, have at it. But the essential, orthodox teaching that stems from the prophets and apostles and has been held to through all these centuries, I don't see us chucking it all now.This is probably just one more fruitless stack of words to throw on the pile. I could care less whether 'I am right' or not.Let God be true and every man a liar.I pray He sheds some light on all of this, on all of us.

This might not have anything to do with this or maybe it has all to do with this, and that is not to imply anything about Jake and his comments. The words that caught my attention are; proven knowledge in the second paragraph below."In 1946, the first head of WHO laid the foundation for today's mental health program. Having implied that Christian parents indoctrinated "their defenseless children" with "poisonous certainties" that cause war and conflict, Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm, added,"The problem is no longer the germ of diphtheria, but rather the attitudes of parents who are incapable of accepting and using proven knowledge..."Surely the training of children in home and schools should be of at least as great public concern as their vaccination.... Individuals who have emotional disabilities of their own--guilts, fears, inferiorities--are certain to project their hates on to others... [S]uch reaction now becomes a dangerous threat to the whole world...."We must be prepared to sacrifice much.... If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently..." 10Half a century has passed since Dr. Chisholm called for UN controls that would abolish divisive Christian "certainties". Today, WHO commands an international networking agency that helps nations around the world change and monitor the ways their people think, choose, and act. Called Nations for Mental Health, it links each member state to the UN agenda and promises to steer each nation toward the UN goal:"The whole thing can be read here;http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/MentalHealth2-99.htmlHow long before there aren't any certainties of the Biblical kind ?I had to add this page;http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2002/change-agent-1.htm

Scientist vs. God Author Unknown The scientist approached God and said, "Listen, we've decided we no longer need you. Nowadays, we can clone people, transplant hearts and do all kinds of things that were once considered miraculous." God patiently heard him out, and then said, "All right. To see whether or not you still need me, why don't we have a man-making contest?" "Okay, great!" the scientist said. "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam," God said. "That's fine," replied the scientist, and bent to scoop up a handful of dirt. "Whoa!" God said, shaking his head in disapproval. "Not so fast. You go get your own dirt!" :-D And while everybody else seems to be asleep, here's more to ponder when you wake up. "As an example, read the following caution that comes from a recent syllabus for a science education class at a major U.S. university: 'Cautions about sources and topics Never cite a religious science source such as ICR, Answers in Genesis, or anything else like that. It is easy to recognize these groups. They are virulently anti-evolution. This caution also extends to the new ID (Intelligent Design) movement - another anti-evolutionary charade. These people are 95% wrong....'" :-?

Jake wrote Also, didn't sin enter by way of the woman Eve, and not one man?No, it didn't. You have missed the whole point of Romans 5. It focuses on 2 men and 2 events. It says the 1st man is a figure of the 2nd. The two men are Adam and Christ; the two events are Adam's sin and Christ's death. Adam was the federal head of the race; he was its representative. God had said, to Adam before Eve had been created, in the day ye eat ye shall die. So it was; he ate and he died, but because he was representative man as well as individual man his sin affected the whole race including Eve. In Eve sinned but her sin had no knock-on effect. Read Gen 3 and see who God holds responsible, who brought the curse, and who was expelled from Eden. It all affected Eve, and me, but the man in the dock is Adam.Romans 5:12 through one man sin entered into the cosmos, and death through sin; and so death passed into all men, for that all sinned.Notice that Sin entered; Adam's sin was not original, there was sin before Adam sinned. But Adam's disobedience opened the door for an alien force, Sin, to enter the human race, and that force brought death with it. This is the terrible revelation of Romans 5. Sin is older than the human race and we have become its slaves. Adam's one act of rebellion against God brought sin and death into the human experience. This is the bad news.Here comes the good news. "O loving wisdom of our GodWhen all was sin and shameA second Adam to the fightAnd to the rescue came."O wisest love, that flesh and bloodWhich did in Adam failShould strive afresh against the foeShould strive, and should prevail."Perhaps when you see the above and understand the parallels you will understand why I strive so earnestly for Adam as an individual. In one individual, Adam, all died; even so in another individual, Christ, shall all be made alive.Our sinful condition has a single point of entry, so does our salvation.

rock solid physical evidenceI certainly don't see it as that.We have yet to come close to that conclussion.Theories, possibilities, hypotheses, yes, but there are way to many holes in all of them to get to a grand statement of fact.Because the Bible is not inerant does not mean I throw it away or don't trust God's word where it has clear meaning. You say it is not, I say it is.Hence my earlier statement: "Let God be true and every man a liar"That may come across as a cop out, but the point I wanted to make with that is this;Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.You are searching for concrete certainty in the wrong place.Actually I am not, otherwise what would I need faith for? I am in complete agreement that neither of us should throw are God given minds out the window.Yet we are still defective in all of ways, thinking included. We are and always will be the creation, not the Creator and that seems to imply that we will never have a final explanation to the mysterys of this life.I believe it is just as "intellectually dishonest" to hold theories as statements of fact.I hesitated to even put my two cents in considering much of this whole debate is so beyond me as far as knowledge of all the issues.So, I apologize if it seems that I am attempting to dodge a particular point.Do we really have the answers in regards to this whole topic? I don't think so, nor do I believe we ever will this side of eternity and perhaps beyond. God owes us no explanation.

Jake wrote What I get from the Genesis account on this is that women began the practice of scavenging meat. Eating something forbidden is the key, for at that time the only thing forbidden was animal flesh. It is represented by the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because once men joined the process they learned how to kill and gained the power over life and death. This was previously the domain of God solely.Jake,"what you get from Genesis" never ceases to amaze me. But you are getting from it only what you have put into it. There is a simple principle of hermaneutics for all non-prophetic portions; a passage of scripture can never mean what it never meant. This means that we cannot interpret a passage to mean what it could never have meant to the original recipients. This would be literally 'non-sense' for the original recipients. It would also imply that God had written something which would be nonsense until 1859 and the Rev Charles Darwin. Likely? I think not.

Jake I reiterate my stance and please understand that I am not burying my head in the sand but am reasoning the matter with with scripture as my central point because in the instance to which you refer in your reply and I qote:"there are actual archeological sites with real dates that show real animal fossils millions of years old. They show a progression of forms advancing across the ages"What you actually have there are real fossils noted on real sites. The dates that are provided their are in no way fixed and are found using methods that place artifacts that are found deeper in the earth as being older, a situation very readily explained by a worldwide flood (didn't we have one of them in genesis?) in that it speeds the burying of many artifacts. There is also the obvious observation that these dates that have been provided are not verifyable as there is no-one there to verofy it. Also you mentioned evidence of a progression of forms, again I can confirm that any so called "missing link" has been proved to be a hoax so therefore the evidence of human evolution or indeed progression is in fact not evidence but conjecture.I would also ask that if yoiu have any answer to give to the questions that I posed previously then please answer and don't throw out insults or attempt to patronise me to try and distract from the issue at hand and that is essentially the authority of scripture.Again I say why should genesis not be taken literally?I am open to any properly reasoned reply.Saint_ferg

Quote by Jake:As I have said before, evolution was completely unknown at the time of Paul and Jesus. Thus it could not be part of their explanation for Adam and Eve and mankind's arrival on earth.I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, hence He is also God(trinity). A few of the attributes of God are: omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. Now...if Jesus is ALL KNOWING...how could he possibly not know correctly of the creation of Adam and Eve, because He didn't know of the theory of evolution???? This tells me you don't believe in the same Jesus I do. To doubt that Jesus knows what He is talking about, when the attritbutes of God are clearly defined throughout the Bible show a lack of true understanding as to the DIVINE nature of God.

The other question I have about all this is, what about all the people who have lived and died never knowing anything about Jesus? (Pre contact Native Americans, for instance.) Are (were) they condemned? This would seem to me to be unfair. (and this is one of the more minor reasons I beleive in reincarnation, everybody getting a chance for Grace at some point.)Let me point you to Romans 1:18-2518 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are WITHOUT excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their foolish thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the TRUTH OF GOD for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the CREATOR--who is forever praised. Amen.(emphasis mine)

Men are without excuse. God has given all of us a conscience to know right from wrong. When we lie our conscience tells us it's wrong. When we steal our conscience says,"No, don't do that" before we even do it. The same with people throughout the Earth and throughout the ages. God doesn't send people to hell because they never heard of Jesus or because they never "asked him into their Heart" or "Recieved Him". He sends people to hell because they have broken His law. We have a conscience yet we deny it and do what we want. Instead of listening to the light of our conscience we run into the darkness of our sinful desires. God is holy and just and He, because He is holy and just must punish sin. If He let murders go free He would be corrupt, and the same is true of lairs, adulterers, theives, rapists, and all others who have broken His eternal Law. He must punish sin or else He would be guilty of being corrupt. We are without excuse. The only hope we have is to fling ourselves at the feet of the Righteous Judge and plead for mercy not on the basis of any good deed we have done, but on the basis of the fact that He send His Holy Son to pay the penalty for our sin. We broke God's eternal Law, but Jesus paid our fine by His death on the cross. The Son of God was nailed to a horrible Roman cross so that you could be free. He paid your debt in full.

Think about it: why would He ask: My God why hast thou forsaken me? if He was fully God.It was an expression of profound dereliction, rather than a question. If you want to regard it as a question, regard it as rhetorical question.Read Psalm 22 which has the full quote, and the reasons why He had been abadoned. "Thou art Holy" [Ps 22:3] was the reason for the abandonment.Here's another rhetorical question: Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? [Isaiah 53] which also contains an answer to the rhetorical question of Psalm 22.Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.If you read the epistles of Paul you will find, literally, scores of questions. Most of them are answered in the next sentence. So also, Psalm 22:1

JakeI don't think anyone could have purposely mistaken my intention so completely, so I will put it down to a simple misunderstanding.You want Him to be either/or. God or man. The teaching of scripture, and of those Orthodox Quakers that I have such an affinity with (see the belief-o-matic thread) is that He was both, at the same time; fully God and fully man. This was possible because of virgin conception. Consequently, He suffered all that you and I would have suffered, and in addition to that He suffered as the sinless Lamb of God. Can you imagine His sensitivy to sin? His unique and perfect fellowship with His Father was forfeit as He bore our sins. This is the only place in scripture where He calls God, God. The Father-Son relationship was the price of our redemption. When it is finished you will see that He returns to the old way of address. Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit. Your refusal to believe that He was who He said He was, and who the scriptures reveal Him to be. have produced the false dichotomy.You write So, according to this reasoning He wasn't really suffering in the way that you or I would if put up there. And thus He was not in anyway human at all. I have great problems with this line of reasoning. This is your logic having begun from a wrong starting point. My starting points could never have led me here.

Can you imagine His sensitivy to sin? That is the horror of it all, a horror we will never fully comprehend.

“Theology has been taken captive by the modern spirit. The theory of evolution has relegated everything sudden and supernatural to the limbo of superstition…. We can understand culture, but distrust conversion. Growth appeals to our sense of reason, but a sudden elimination of inherited tendencies is not harmony with the processes of Nature. That is why so much modern preaching is of the sheet-lightning sort; it shines but does not strike. Glittering generalities may dazzle, but they accomplish nothing.” Samuel Chadwick Late Principal, Cliff College, Sheffield, 1937

Would a man have had this knowledge?Philip and Nathanael43 The following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and He found Philip and said to him, "Follow Me." 44Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." 46And Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see." 47Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!" 48Nathanael said to Him, "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." 49Nathanael answered and said to Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" 50Jesus answered and said to him, "Because I said to you, "I saw you under the fig tree,' do you believe? You will see greater things than these." 51And He said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter[10] you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."Or was this the knowledge of God?What you are doing is a classic CS Lewis argument in which a man says that Christ's suffering was less because He was God. This, however, is the whole point. He did have advantage! Is that a reason to reject His salvation? When you fall through the ice on a frozen lake and someone offers you a hand do you say "It's not fair, you have an advantage! I don't want your help!"? I doubt it. Christ suffered in a human body. There was no charade. At the same time He had power and knowledge that is above man. To remove any God-qualities from Him is an error. He had foreknowledge, He saw people's hearts, He did strange supernatural things like walk right through crowds of people trying to stone him and appearing suddenly to people, He was transfigured, etc. The only power and knowledge He didn't have was because it was the Father's will that He accept certain limitations.No One Knows the Day or Hour Matthew 2436 "But (1) of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

How Could Jesus Be Both Divine and Human? - R. C. SproulHow can a person have a divine nature and a human nature at the same time in the way that we believe Jesus Christ did? One of the great crises in evangelical Christianity today is a lack of understanding about the person of Christ. Almost every time I watch Christian television I hear one of the classical creeds of the Christian faith being denied blatantly, unknowingly, unwittingly. And of course, part of the reason is that it is so difficult for us to understand how one person can have two natures. You are asking me the question, "How?" I don't know how; I know that Jesus is one person with two natures. How can that be? Long before there was a human nature there was a second person of the Trinity. Here the second person of the Trinity, very God of very God, God himself, was able to take upon himself a human nature. No human being could reverse the process and take upon himself a divine nature. I cannot add deity to my humanity. It's not as if Christ changed from deity into humanity. That's what I hear all the time. I hear that there was this great eternal God who suddenly stopped being God and became a man. That's not what the Bible teaches. The divine person took upon himself a human nature. We really can't understand the mystery of how this happened. But it is conceivable, certainly, that God, with his power, can add to himself a human nature and do it in such a way as to unite two natures in one person. The most important council about this in the history of the church, whose decision has stood for centuries as the model of Christian orthodoxy and is embraced by Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Baptists -- virtually every branch of Christendom -- is the Council of Chalcedon. It was held in the year 451, in which the church confessed its belief about Jesus in this way: They said that we believe that Jesus is verus homus, verus Deus -truly man, truly God. Then they went on to set boundaries for how we're to think about the way in which these two natures relate to each other. They said that these two natures are in perfect unity, without mixture, division, confusion, or separation. When we think about the Incarnation, we don't want to get the two natures mixed up and think that Jesus had a deified human nature or a humanized divine nature. We can distinguish them, but we can't tear them apart because they exist in perfect unity. When Paul wrote that Jesus emptied himself and became a servant and yet he was God, in what ways did he retain or not retain his powers of being God? The concept of "emptying" was a raging controversy in the nineteenth century, and elements of it remain today. The Greek word used by Paul in the second chapter of Philippians, kenosis, is translated as "emptying" in most Bible versions. The question is, Of what did Jesus, in his human (incarnate) state, empty himself? The popular view in certain circles in the nineteenth century was that at the time of the Incarnation, the eternal God, the second person of the Trinity, laid aside -- emptied himself of -- his divine attributes so that he could become a man. And in becoming a man in the very real sense, he stopped being God. And so there is the transformation from deity to humanity because he set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, his self-existence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God. There was on orthodox theologian during the middle of that controversy who said somewhat caustically that the only emptying that theory proved was the emptying of the minds of theologians who would teach such a thing as God stopping for one second to be God. If God laid aside one of his attributes, the immutable undergoes a mutation, the infinite suddenly stops being infinite; it would be the end of the universe. God cannot stop being God and still be God. So we can't talk properly of God laying aside his deity to take humanity upon himself. That is why orthodox Christianity has always declared that Jesus was verus homus, verus Deus -- truly man, truly God; fully man and fully God. His human nature was fully human, and his divine nature always and everywhere was fully divine. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul does speak of Christ emptying himself of something. I think the context of Philippians 2 makes it very clear that what he emptied himself of was not his deity, not his divine attributes, but his prerogatives -- his glory and his privileges. He willingly cloaked his glory under the veil of this human nature that he took upon himself. It's not that the divine nature stops being divine in order to become human. In the Transfiguration, for example (Matthew 17:1-13), we see the invisible divine nature break through and become visible, and Jesus is transfigured before the eyes of his disciples. But for the most part, Jesus concealed that glory. I think Paul is saying in Philippians 2 that we're to imitate a willingness to relinquish our own glory and our own privileges and prerogatives.

Mat 11:27 All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.Mat 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. Mat 26:53 Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels? Joh 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Joh 17:11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are. Col 1:19 For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens. 1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. Zec 6:9 And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Zec 6:10 Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah; and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah, whither they are come from Babylon; Zec 6:11 yea, take of them silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest; Zec 6:12 and speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh Jehovah of hosts, saying, Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah; Zec 6:13 even he shall build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

with regard to carbon dating please read this article as it proofs are really very rigourous from a scientific point of view.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.aspAlso with regard to the reasons to discount genesis 1 as non-literal, you have given none, only a minor suggestion in grammatical variance. I'm sorry but that is not proof of any kind. Also your insistance on using the term "protohuman" is really rather strange given our previous dicussion as to the degeneracy of human DNA from generation to generation and the fact that proto suggests an intial stab at something (eg prototype) as I'm aware God isn't in the habit of making mistakes first time round.

Jake wrote "The Answers in Genesis article misrepresents c14 dating. The half life of carbon is approximately 5700 years. This means that half of the c14 decays during that time. AIG says that "Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left." Wrong!!!" Jake also wrote "It takes millions of years and enourmous amounts of pressure for buried carbon to turn into coal and oil, not 6,000 years"Hello Jake, are you a scientist ? If not, where and who did you get your information from ?jouko

Jake wrote "Objective science has no agenda other than finding out the truth. Thus, I trust conventional scientists and greatly distrust those defending a literal Genesis""The truth comes out of examining both"Here Jake is some of your objective scientists views;"At first glance, this seems to exemplify a kind of harmony between religion and science, a peaceful concord between faith and reason. Indeed, a variety of public figures--from prominent scientists to the Pope--have promoted the view that science and religion are not adversaries but complementary and mutually supporting fields. "Truth cannot contradict truth," they declare, implying that the truths discovered by reasoning from sensory evidence cannot clash with the "truths" of religious dogma. A closer look, however, reveals the long history of the hostility of faith towards reason--which continues to this day. Violent clashes between the two are not only possible but unavoidable, and the notion that religion can coexist on friendly terms with science and reason is false."http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/kl_easter.htm I'm quite sure these people wouldn't agree with your views and they are objective scientists.

Jake did not read the C14 article closely at all! I am an electrical engineer so I know some science, and although I'm not a chemistry expert, I have taken enough Chem to know off of the top of my head years later that C14 is an extremely rare isotope of C12. Extremely rare isotope in a varying ratio to C12 in any given sample. One can approximate this ratio to try to do some comparison but the results cannot be considered anything near authoritative. So what you have in a brick of coal is like a few particles per million of C14 and then after many half-lives you are going to have a couple remaining C14 atoms in the whole brick. So what you are doing mathematically is taking a curve that asymptotically approaches the x-axis as x gets large and then trying to match a certain enormous x value to a y value. The chance for error here is enormous and being the least bit off in your approximations and assumptions will land you in the millions rather than the thousands. This is something no sane mathematician, pure scientist, or even engineer would ever do! A EE looks at that curve and says "I can't tell what it is going to be because you're down in the noise down there!" Any good statistician could see the problems here as well. They would give you a date and a margin of error like this - "The age of this sample is 500,000 years +/- 497,000 years." This is why science got rid of this ridiculous test for years. Then some resurrected it in the name of proving their religion (evolution).If you think that these promoters of evolution are neutral scientists trying to figure out the truth- get serious. Next you'll be telling me that my philosophy professor had no agenda he was pushing on me. Or my lesbian Rhetoric professor. Or my athiest buddies. Just like the sodomites these "scientists" are out to push their religion 100%. It reminds me of moral relativism, really. Any educated philosopher can beat a moral relativism argument to the sidewalk in 14 femtoseconds, yet it is taught all across America as though it made perfect sense. Evolution fits right in the same slot.

I'm finding your lack of a sound defence of your stance more and more incomprehensible. The thing about science is that everyone approaches the table with an agenda and that agenda determines certainly the first port of call of their reasoning and given that the vast majority of comtempory scientists are atheists it only stands to reason that their interpretations of data will effect that philosophical position. The fact that I want to draw to your attention is that the "theory" of evolution is constantly being debunked (scientist talk for disproven) and what happens then is that the philosophical need of scientists dictates that they then find some way of revising the theory so as to exclude the debunked aspect or make some correction to satisfy themselves, however, that revised version is generally debunked at its first testing, or if not very soon afterward. Also looking at their philosophical point of view (no God) that in itself is entirely against scientific evidence as there is no way scientifically that life can spontaneously generate. There was, however, such a theory propounded a couple of centuries ago and that was then debunked by various emenent minds of the day. In fact that theory now ranks alongside the flat earth one in terms of its weight scientifically.Also add to that the fact that nearly every school now propounds this proposition as fact and you have a far less unbiased scientific communityalso you mentioned that the C14-dating method was applicable beyond 50-60000 years. Not according to your previous source; and I quote: "After 10 half-lives, there is a very small amount of radioactive carbon present in a sample. At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached "Then if you had actually read the article I posted you would understand that 50-60,000 years is an uncalibrated estimate and a worldwide flood tends to throw off such poor estimates as you no doubt will know. If I could explain the range of known data from which this notion is extrapolated is minute in comparison with the range dealt with and as such iseven less relible. Like a graph whose best fit curve is drawn from two points very close together, the line will have a very significant error.I stand on the other side of the fence I freely admit to very strong Biblical literality bias, however, I believe that is more in keeping with a relationship of trust with the God who inspired it and sustains it as our truest from of revelation.Jonny

Jake,If you don't believe that the bible is literal, what do you base your faith and life on? Secondly, what makes you so zealous to defend that which you have no concrete basis to defend? Secondly, as to evolution, there are so many problems with the theory, mind you it is only a theory and it even has a hard time maintaining that stand. You seem to be out, not to prove evolution, but rather that the Bible is not to be taken literally. Why is this? Why do you not want to take the Bible literally? If it is not literal, then anyone can twist it to their own interpetation. Are the 10 commandments literal, or just a cultural thing for the time? In Exodus 20:9-11 God says, "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."Is this to be taken literally or is it just figurative? If it is not to be taken literally, do we then not take the rest of the commandments literally? To disagree with the Genesis account is to then disagree with Exodus. Exodus is quoted through out the New Testament. When you question the truth of part, you have to question the truth of the document as a whole. When you do that, I begin to question what your faith is based on to begin with. Would you please explain the foundation of your faith?Philip

Check this out:http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/01/The deeper they look, the more they don't know. They quote their timetables as fact, even though it is based upon a series of assumptions about light. The caption says that the galaxies are 12 billion light years away from us. Now if the big bang happened at what they call the beginning of the universe (5 billion years before that). Then we are looking at 17 billion years of time. This they quote as fact. Now when the big bang happened, according to theory, all the universe was set in motion flying across the universe and spinning and orbiting each other. So we are looking at something that is "12 billion" light years away and it took it 5 billion years to get there then we run into some problems. If the galactic center was between us and this object then we would be able to see the big bang happening and not the formed galaxies. If the galactic center was on the other side of us then these galaxies would have to be going at least twice the speed of light, if not more to get to their current position. And because of the laws of physics, these galaxies should still be going at that speed. The same thing would happen if the galactic center was on the other side of of the galaxies. The galactic center is my term for the location of the big bang where the beginning of everything was supposed to have started. Just given the basics of what I am trying to bring across you will see that their ideas are fundamentally flawed. They require faith to believe, not science. Other assumptions they make is that the speed of light stays constant. I could go into more on this and other things, but I don't want to lose the reader. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1996/01/And then in this photo, they looked at a piece of sky where nothing had ever been discovered and they found 1500 new galaxies. Galaxies consist of roughly 250 billion stars like our sun, give or take 100 million. Just multiply that by 1500 and you have trillions of stars, just in one speck of the sky. That is an awful huge thing to come about just by accident.The deeper they look the more confused they get. Yet they quote all their theories as fact and we are supposed to believe it all unquestioningly because "they are scientists". Yet we subject the Word of God to the proofs of our current knowledge. We have more faith in the assumptions of men than the Word of God. Let us examine this thought carefully.Philip

PhilipThanks for this excellent post. It reminds me of that famous quote from a cosmologist about cosmologists; often in error, never in doubt.

Carbon or no carbon that...Acts & FactsVol. 33 No. 2 February 2004 Online Issue No. 42Diamonds are a Creationist's Best FriendLast month's Acts & Facts related how three of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) researchers were able to present their discoveries to about ten thousand scientists at the American Geophysical Union's national convention. This breakthrough opportunity to present creationist research in a secular professional setting was well received by nearly all of the scientists who interacted with the creationists, and even yielded ideas for follow-up on research. Last month's article didn't discuss the most recent discovery, made just days before the convention, but which generated much discussion. Dr. John Baumgardner's study of The Enigma of the Ubiquity of 14C in Organic Samples Older than 100 Ka included a late investigation of Carbon-14 in diamonds, which are a crystalline form of carbon formed deep inside the earth and brought to the surface by volcanic action. Diamonds are so closely packed that contamination is very unlikely and are thought to be very old, so old that no Carbon-14 would remain. Since Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen atoms, thus none should be in diamonds. When diamond samples were investigated, however, Carbon-14 was present, dating those extremely "old" specimens to be only thousands of years old. No one at the conference could think of a way to dismiss the evidence and implications, but they must do so to maintain an "old" earth. It will be interesting to watch old- earth advocates try. Meanwhile, this is a wonderful confirmation of Biblical truth. [Editor's Note: For an extensive article by Dr. Larry Vardiman, read RATE Posters Well Received at AGU Conference.]

Umm someone mentioned that no one has given evidence's for a young earth/rufuted evidences for an old earth. do these help?http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4180.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.aspoh and i think some may need to re-evaluate the age of the universe... it has been pushed back several billion years i think they are up to 16 or more, cant wait till they reach 20... oh dear, thats meant to be cynical, not sarcastic...ben

we are talking about evolution and the age of the earth. we have mentioned that the sun is x-amount of billions of years old. we need to address something here, and that is this: the sun's mass is currently decreasing, and always has been decreasing. that's right folks, though it may come as a shock to some of you who are too intelligent to disbelieve evolution, the sun was MUCH bigger billions and billions of years ago. the sun is decreasing at a rate of 10to the 9th billion kgs/second. if the earth was truly old enough to accomodate these 'perfect' methods of dating bones and other fossil evidence then the sun would have been so large during the proposed dates of these fossils that the earth itself would have been INSIDE THE SUN!!! i'm sorry jake. you may be an extremely intelligent man. you may love the Lord your God with all your heart mind soul and strength, but you have missed the boat here. you have been infected with the innane babbling of a world that hates God. I believe whole-heartedly in MICROevolution. this states that within a species adaptations occur. these are evicenced by darwin's finches, as well as our lack of need for our appendix. the thing is MACROevolution is a crock. there arent just missing links in the fossil chain, there are no links whatsoever. we look at the fossil records and we see the cambrian explosion. this is where in the precambrian era there was nothing but single-celled organisms. then we see th cambrian era where a multitude of diversity just appears. if evolution were true this would be the smallest fossil era where diversity is concerned, but this is not the case. we dont see a reverse pyramid effect with the fossil records becoming more and more diverse, we actually see less and less diversity. if evolution were true this would not be the case. i think that any christian who believes in MACROevolution should take a long and hard look at themselves and where their belief in this THEORY originates from. it is definately not from God. this THEORY originates from a world that HATES our creator. i believe in the big bang theory. God said it...BANG...and it was.

The post by pfr94 is interesting. I like science but have never spent much time on creation/evolution studies because I'm more into electronics. I believe in God's literal 6-day creation because the Bible doesn't allow any interpretation of the references to it as "metaphorical."The thing that I would find interesting to know more about is the size of sun and how that relates to planetary orbits since the gravitational force on the planets is related to the sun's mass. If its mass was significantly bigger even 1 million years ago I'm sure that would have significant implications concerning earth's ability to support any type of life. Anyone have ideas or references on this?

shrinking in mass...ie it had GREATER gravitaional pull...i dont care if you have a problem with all of that scientific stuff...you cannot expain away the fossil records...the cambrian explosion clearly illustrates to us that the fossil records are becoming less and less diverse...thus things are not evolving...the fact that the diversity of the fossil records is shrinking as time goes on flies in the face of the thought that evolution is correct

This thread is far too long and you need a PhD in Physics to follow it. :-)"I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well." Psalms 139:14

have you ever stopped to consider the research of noted microbiologist dr. michael behe of lehigh university. until you can refute the principle of irreducible complexity i dont want to hear another word from you. irreducible complexity states that systems are made up of irreducibly complex pieces. for example: a mousetrap. in a mousetrap you have the board, the hammer, the spring, the catch, and the latch. without all 5 pieces in place at the same time you dont have a mousetrap. you cant put a board out in you home and catch a few mice. then add a spring and catch a few more. and so on and so on. our bodies are full of such irreducibly complex systems. take for instance the flagella that propels many of the one-celled organisms that make up our body. this flagella is made up of some 40 different proteins. each of these proteins must be present at the same time and an exact order or there isnt a flagella. not a flagella that doesnt work or a flagella that is deformed. you dont have a flagella at all. darwin himself said that if it could be proven that life was made up of irreducibly complex systems then his theory is false and evolution is not true. michael behe, who once believed that evolution was fact and went at his research to further prove that it was has proved that evolution is not a fact at all. it is a theory with so many holes that if it were a ship it would have sunk long before the titanic did.

Jake,Your questions have brought up some interesting scientific research. I believe that we should not accept mens research when it contradicts with the Word of God. If one part of the Word of God is not true, then it makes God a liar. He says that it is impossible for him to lie. If it is not true, our faith is in vain and we have no basis for our hope.You said:How about because the Holy Spirit, which Jesus sent, is clearly present and available to us all? How about because other people clearly have experienced the Holy Spirit and offer their testimony? These are good enough for me. My faith does not live or die because a book may or may not contain some errors or provide a metaphorical story about how God made the earth and man. What then is your faith in? What does your faith live or die by? What is your basis for truth? Or is all relative to your personal revelation by the Holy Spirit? Seeking truth,Philipps- As to the speed of light, here are a few sites to check out:http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/light_speed_000530.htmlhttp://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/speed.of.light.ap/Please answer the original questions before responding to the speed of light question. Seeking truth,Philip

What is the drive to prove that the Bible is not literal? What is the drive to prove that evolution is true? If the Bible is not true, why then do so many people have to try and prove it? God never had to prove that he exists, he just declared it, "In the beginning God..." and he doesn't have to prove that he created everything, again he declares it, "God created the heavens and the earth." One day all will know the truth of this. What then is the drive to prove that these things are not true? I believe that the answer stems from the fact that if it is true, then my life might have to change. If it is not then I can make up whatever truth that I want to fit my lifestyle. If anyone has a better answer, I would like to hear it.Seeking truth,Philip

Jake:Have you actually read Michael Behe's book?The point of Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, is to point out the weakness of the philosophical presuppositions behind many Neo-evolutionist. His arguments are directed against evolutionists like Richard Dawkins who reject the possibility of God's design.The problem with the interpretation of fossil records is that it often begins with a set of preconceived philosohpical presuppositions that assume intelligent design is not possible. Behe's main argument is based on the concept of "irreducible complexities" that he observed in microorganism (he is a microbiologist). His arguments were strong enough that Richard Dawkins had to write an article on Scientific America to refute him (this in itself is quite an accomplishment for a creationist).Another book worth reading is Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial". He discussed the faulty logic often employed in research on evolution.I would add that both of these authors did not dismiss the possibility of theistic evolution--that is, an evolutionary process guided by God. All they were trying to point out is that neo-evolutionists (those who reject the existence of God) had failed to recognise that even scientific research are influenced by our philosophical presuppositions. They thought of their conclusions as purely objective and therefore raw facts, yet was not aware that their atheistic assumptions had affected their process of reasoning.

jake, you are a hopeless individual. it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. in taking away the power of God as sovereign creator you have taken away a piece of the God that i love and serve. you are ignorantly following the teachings of people who want to believe evolution with their whole being so that they can excuse sin and denounce the existance of God. and to say that talk of the flagella only illustrates that nature is complex further shows your stupidity. i have nothing more to say to you nor will post on here again. you are wrong and merely are too pridefull to admit it. i hope to God that if you are a married man you dont have these same problems in your marriage.

Jakeso is God allowing random mutations (so that He is just as surprised as us at what has turned up) or has He been superintending the process (which would give us design)? Are there some ransom mutations that He is not allowing? In which case they would not be random. We can't have Neo Darwinian Evolution (nor Classical Darwinism) and Design, so I am interested to know which side of the fence this leaves you.

Jake said: When belief overcomes an abundance of clear evidence, then I have to wonder about the rationality of the believer.2 Corinthians 5:7 says, "For we walk by faith, not sight."

Jake, don't be offended by this, k? I love you as a brother in Christ and I've never met you- whether I agree with you or not..I'm sure everyone knows that no matter what we say or come back with, it is not going to change Jake's mind. That's why I see this as a useless conversation. In some ways I think it is very admirable for Jake to continue on with this thread without leaving because of the comments made. (It's kind of like I say to myself- why is he here if he doesn't agree?)Now, if everyone stopped replying and making arguments, what would happen? Jake would either leave or start a new "debate". I think he justs wants someone to talk to- to converse with. If this is the reason for the continuation of this thread- just so that Jake can talk to someone and have fun going back and forth- then continue on! :-D Is Jake here to change our minds? Are we trying to change his mind? Neither one is going to happen. So, debate away if you feel like it. But I am wondering if we don't have better things to do? Anyhow, people should not take all of this very seriously and not call names.In Him, Chanin

To add to Chanin's comments:pfr94Please refrain from makin derogatory comments towards anyone on this site. It is unnecessary and unacceptable.______________________________________________I believe that this has been a healthy debate for the most part and we all can glean something from it, even if it is just to sharpen our swords. (Not to wield at each other!)I know it has caused me to dig into the scriptures.Mike

Jake,Here's a few scriptures for you:Job 34:14-15 If if were His intention and He withdrew His spirit and breath, all mankind would perish together and man would return to the DUST.Psalms 103:14 for He knows how we are formed, He remembers that we are DUST.So is this dust the primordial ooze we came from? Also here's this:Evolution is the predominant view regarding the origin of life and the universe proposed in the scientific and educational community of the contemporary world. Bible-believing Christians should consider these four observations about evolution:1.) Evolution is a naturalistic effort to account for the origin and development of the universe. This view begins with the assumption that there is no personal, divine Creator who made and fashioned the world; rather, everything came into existence by a series of chance happenings that occurred over billions of years. Proponents of evolution claim to have scientific data that support their HYPOTHESIS.2.) The teaching of evolution is not truly scientific. According to the scientific method, all conclusions must be based on indisputable evidence gathered from experiments that can be duplicated in any laboratory. However, no experiments have been or can be devised to test and substantiate theories about the origin of matter from some supposed "big bang" beginning or about the gradual development of living beings from the simplest to their most complex form. Consequently, evolution is a hypothesis without scientific "evidence"; therefore, to accept it one must have faith in a human theory. The faith of God's people, in contrast, is in the Lord and in His inspired revelation, which states that He is the One who made all things out of nothing (Heb 11:3)3.) It is undeniable that change and development within various species of living things occur. For example, some varieties of species are becoming extinct; on the other hand, we occasionally see new strains forming within species. But there is no evidence, not even in the geologic record, which supports the theory that one kind of living thing ever evolved from another kind. Rather, existing evidence supports the Bible's declaration that God created each living creature "according to its kind" (Gen 1:21, 24-25).4.) Bible-believing Christians must also reject the theory called theistic evolution. This theory adopts most of the conclusions of naturalistic evolution, adding only that God started the evolutionary process. Such a theory denies the Biblical revelation that ascribes to God an active role in ALL aspects of creation. For example, every main verb in Gen 1 has God as its subject, except for Gen 1:12 (which fulfills the command of God in v.11) and the recurring phrase "there was evening, and there was morning." God is not a passive supervisor of an evolutionary process; rather, He is the active Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16).

“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:14-16).I thought the following might bring some additional light upon what is happening on this board. It is excerpted from chapter 5 of T. Austin-Sparks’ “God’s Reactions to Man’s Defections” Part 2 http://austin-sparks.net/books/tasbk46pt2chap5.html“Never before in my own life have I seen such a contrast amongst Christians, and in Christianity, as there is today, and it is really the cause and root of all the trouble. It is a difference, not between the Christian and the world, but within Christianity itself, between what is spiritual and what is natural. And it is that that we must look at. “…It would be impossible for the present situation amongst Christians and in Christianity in general to exist, if what is in the third chapter of John really obtained! I am not exaggerating; I cannot be too strong about this.“And so, at the risk of touching on things which you think you know, let us look again at these words. We will not read the whole chapter, but consider the following passages. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born anew." (The margin says 'from above'.) "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth...." ('This thing is a mystery to you, you don't know...'): "so is every one that is born of the Spirit."“…There is a clear gulf, broad and unbridgeable, between what we are naturally and what we are as children of God. “If you really are a child of God, if you have come to the Lord, if you have really had the experience of salvation, you know that something has happened to you. … We have got to recognize again this broad line of difference and division between what is natural and what is spiritual in Christianity. There are few things more important than that we as Christians should be able to recognize the fundamental difference between what is natural and what is spiritual. We have a new constitution, a different constitution, by the Holy Spirit. Natural Versus Spiritual “The natural man is always trying to get things on to a natural basis. He must bring everything on to the basis of natural reason. He must be able to reason the thing through, to comprehend, to compass the thing with his reason. A very great deal of Christianity is just man taking hold of the Bible, of Christian truth, Christian doctrine, Christian things, and interpreting and applying by natural reason. And the Word of God is as distinct as anything can be: the door is closed to that, the door is CLOSED. GOD has closed the door. You are not going to get anything through by the power of your reason, however big it is - not a bit! “Look at our friend, Nicodemus. He stands for all time as an example. "How can a man...? How can these things be?" A good man, a clever man, an intellectual man, a religious man, but outside the door. The door is absolutely closed. Now, you can apply that everywhere. Man may be most devout, most devoted, most religious; he may be a red-hot fundamentalist, a champion of Christian doctrine; and yet it may all be in the realm of his own intellectual power and grip. There is a world that is closed to him, of which he knows little or nothing. He has 'heard the voice', but he 'knows not'. He has heard the sound, and taken the sound as the sum: but there is a mystery that is still outside of his kingdom; and the result of this is that there may be good, yes, devoted, earnest, sincere people, who, living in that realm in Christian things, cannot understand spiritual people, cannot understand the things of the Spirit at all. Spiritual things will always be a mystery, an enigma, to the natural mind.“…A real walk with God in the Spirit, while, of course, never contradicting Scripture, but always being consistent with the Word of God, is very often a lonely thing amongst Christians. The tragedy is that it should be so, but it is very often like that.“…Oh, that Christianity were on that fundamental basis today - the absolute sovereignty of the Holy Spirit! Why is it not so? Because of the present sovereignty of the natural, because of the intrusion into Christianity of the natural man. A New Faculty “…There is a difference of capacity, a new and a different faculty of knowledge, of apprehension and comprehension and understanding. It is a spiritual faculty, for spiritual things. I know how familiar this is to many: it is not new; but there is an urgent need that we should bring this again to the whole realm of our Christianity. I am sure that it has not yet been grasped by many Christians, even of long standing in the Christian life, that, by their very constitution as children of God, they are supposed to have a faculty which makes them capable of comprehending and understanding spiritual things that no natural mind can understand. The youngest child of God is supposed to have this faculty. It may not be fully developed, but it is a constituent of their very being. Have you grasped that? And the very presence of that faculty is the basis upon which everything in the Christian life is going to be built. The Holy Spirit only builds upon HIS OWN foundations, upon what HE HIMSELF puts down as a basis. And that basis is a spiritual one: that which is of the Spirit is spiritual. All our growth, therefore, is going to be along the line of spiritual understanding, spiritual knowledge: not the accumulation of a vast amount of truth, or of religious, Christian information, but what the Spirit teaches us. It will be THROUGH THE WORD, but only WHAT THE SPIRIT TEACHES, for He has come for that very purpose. “Now, there must be a link between us and the Holy Spirit, which is in correspondence with Himself, and the link between the Holy Spirit and the born-again child of God is the renewed spirit of the child of God, with this new capacity, so that the child of God, over against the whole world of merely intellectual knowledge, is able to say: 'We know' - "we speak that we do know". It may be very little, but you know, you know now. As far as you have gone, it is a knowledge which is yours, which is new and altogether different. You are able to say: 'I don't know very much, but what I do know, I know; and the way in which I have come to know it is not because it has been presented to me, but because it has happened in me. Something has been done inside; and, although I cannot put it into words or theories, or compose it into a set of ideas, I know - I KNOW!' "We speak that we do know". There is something about spiritual knowledge which is so strong, so settled, so satisfying, so rest-giving. It is a new capacity. What is the difference? "If I have told you earthly things... That is one realm: what about the heavenly things? 'Now, Nicodemus, with all your wonderful outfit of birth, upbringing, training, education, you are still in the realm of earthly things, and even there they are beyond you. You have not yet come into the realm of heavenly things.' Therefore, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born from above."“That is a very, very great need in safeguarding the whole Christian situation and in the recovery of spiritual effectiveness in this world: a fresh discernment of the fundamental difference between the natural and the spiritual - yes, even in Christian things. No one thinks that I am speaking about something that is extra to what is in the Word of God. I am speaking about the necessary faculty given by the Holy Spirit, and the necessary work of the Holy Spirit, in order that we should rightly know the mind of the Spirit in the Word of God. If we get on to any other basis than that, all sorts of things will happen, which will be very sad and very distressing and very wrong.“…In His own baptism, Jesus was taking representatively the ground that we all have to take in one particular respect, that is that nothing shall be in life that is not of the Father by the Holy Spirit. In Him it was wholly true, but in us it is a position to be taken and then made real as we seek to walk in the Spirit.” T. Austin-Sparks

Here's an uber-reply...my attempt to catch up a bit. ;-)Jake said, "Chosen7Stone: Good comeback. Yet evolution is not an issue of faith for me because it doesn't conflict with my Christian beliefs. My faith in Jesus does not require seeing Him."I wasn't so much questioning whether your belief in evolution challenged your own faith, but disagreeing with when you said earlier, "When belief overcomes an abundance of clear evidence, then I have to wonder about the rationality of the believer." The scientific world is managed by scientists, and scientists are men. They make many mistakes, and men lie, too. I strongly believe that (too) many of the facts (in regards to evolution, as well as otherwise) are incorrect because the leaders in these fields are too "politically correct" to admit that the best explanation for their findings is God -- so they resort to their second-best explanations. To walk by faith, not by sight -- that is to sometimes (perhaps often times) allow belief to overcome the abundance of "clear evidence" that the world has. Remember -- the Bible is of God, while these "clear evidences" are of the world.Jake said, "We could just as well ask why God allows the gene for Huntingtons or other terrible diseases to exist. We will never know."I believe He allows terrible trials to exist because it builds our strength and perseverence. I suffer through a trial now, and I pray that God will use my attitude (despite circumstances) as a powerful witness to those around me. When I smile because of God despite the pain I feel, I know it must raise questions in the minds of those I come in contact with. I got rear-ended today, but smiled at the girl who hit me and told her I have no intentions of suing her...like people of the world might...God allowed her to hit me so she'd read my bumper sticker that said, "Jesus loves you...is the feeling mutual?" James 1:2-3 is the verse that comes to mind, too. Someone who has Huntington's disease may be suffering through it for these reasons...also, times of need invoke times of prayer. God loves it when we talk to Him!! :-DShelly (Everlast) wrote, "So is this dust the primordial ooze we came from?"You made some really great points -- thanks for supporting it with Scripture. :-)As far as Jake's comments on micro- versus macro-evolution goes...I'm still learning about them, but from what I have learned so far, I do agree with micro- and not macro-, as you said. But I can't provide a rebuttal for your specific instances -- perhaps someone more well-versed in these areas will choose to do so in the new forum Greg (wrtbooks) recommended.Blessings, brothers and sisters. :-)

Hi Mary,For all us old people, what's an 'uber' ?I can hear Clutch coming with some tie to cows about now... ;-) Edit:"other", now I get it, just had to repeat it a bunch of times, guess that's why we are always going "Wha?, Huh?"Fortunately, you won't have to worry about that for awhile :-) BTW Like your bumper sticker!

Hi MikeHere's a tie to cows.Do you know why a milking stool only has 3 legs?because the cow has the uber?here's anotherDo you know why Swiss cows have bells?Because their horns don't work.and we are not old, is just that we are getting to that stage of life where young people begin to mumble.

:-D :-D Thanks Ron I needed that.and we are not old, is just that we are getting to that stage of life where young people begin to mumble.wha? :-D

Jakes writes I keep bringing up the point of Genesis not being a literal story because that is nonsense. You have to throw away all reasoning and overlook reams of physical evidence in order to believe it is literal. Noah's Ark is clearly an impossible story and it isn't presented as a miracle. Gathering animals from islands no one had ever been to is what you contend when you say Genesis is literal.And you hang all of this on the fact that Jesus spoke of Adam as an individual man. How do you know What He was thinking?????! How do you know what He knew?????! You are making things up to preserve a literal Genesis that has no standing in truth.If you have listened to anything I have written here Jake you will know that I have never said that Genesis is literal. My objection has been to the wild tie-ins that you make with current neo-darwinian hypotheses, and with your bizarre contention that the original sin which has crippled our race was the 'women' beginning to eat flesh. Among other things this is sexist, and certainly not what the Bible teaches. The bible consistently holds the man responsible for our condition rather than the woman.Jesus Christ clearly believed that Adam was an individual who was joined in union to another individual; He bases his teaching of marriage on this principle. He also clearly believed in Noah as an individual. And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. [Lk 17:26,27] He seems to have got so many things wrong, according to your judgment, that I wonder that you can take anything He said seriously.Paul's teaching on original sin also demands a unique individual as the head of our race, but then you reject much of Paul's teaching, don't you? Peter also believed in an individual called Noah and a flood. [1 Pet 3:18-20. 2Pet 3:5] I suspect you are not very impressed with Peter either.What you are really saying is that you agree with the bits of the bible that you agree with, which means that the final judge of all this truth is Jake. That's an awfully big responsibility you are carrying.

Hello again. I would like to quip in with a short note. Having read the N.T as I'm sure most of you have, don't you like it the way Paul and the rest of em' teach us about our lives as believers in Christ and I am amazed and really happy that these people had/have an insight/knowledge or should I say, a true blessing from above that I can learn from. I also find it somehow amusing thinking that here we are in the big wide world with all this knowledge and finesse that we perceive we have, yet Moses wrote parts of the Bible, the Word of God and he lived some thousands of years closer to the big bang that is being defended on this particular post. The writers of the Bible must have had an intimate relationship with their God and here is at least one making them look like second grade citizens. We really haven't learnt anything or have we ?Then to say that Jesus didn't know anything about Adam, Noah or the Genesis account, whoa, that really made me flap! Where is that bag??Ecc 2:15 Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also [is] vanity.

jake writes That Jesus, Peter, Paul and the rest spoke of Noah or Adam or the Genesis account as literal is to be expected because they had no other way of interpreting what Moses wrote. At least not one that would make any sense to the listener of that time. We know much more about the world today and how we came to be here and thus can interpret these things in a very different light.Jake This is the heart of the matter. You believe that Jesus is interpreting Moses, and that Peter and Paul are doing the same. Peter tells us Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [2 Peter 1:20]Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation, it is propositional revelation. These are not the thoughts of Jesus, Paul or Peter they are the outbreathings of God.For you scriptures' only validation is by means of your reasonings or your inner witness. In other words for you scripture is validated by Jake, no more no less.You are asking me to choose whose 'interpretation' I have greater confidence in; Jake's or that of Jesus, Paul and Peter. No contest.

Jake writes I shared these ideas in a letter to a highly regarded Yale professor and expert on evolution, Elizabeth Vrba. She described the interpretation and approach as "ingenious."That was good enough for me.If the waters had not been gathered into one place, if the order of creation and evolution of living things was not the same, if protohumans were not herbivores, if women had not experience increased pain in child birth due to a change in eating, if we had not all descended from a small clan, THEN, you would have a cause for saying my interpretation is nonsense.I wonder if they use the word 'ingenious' in Yale as they do in the UK, meaning 'not very likely, but 10 for effort'. The word, of course, just means 'cleaver'. I hope you understand that in academic circles 'cleaver' is not always a compliment. I would also call your thesis 'ingenious' but please don't quote me as a supporter of your notions.I see you are something of a literalist in your interpretation of Gen 1:9. How does the creation of the sun, moon and stars on Day 4 fit into your thesis? There is, of course, no indication that 'man in our image' are 'protohumans' but every indication that they are you-and-me-humans.For many years I have taught that the words of God to Eve were not a punishment or a curse. They were simple statements of fact. Why would an increase in fertility be regarded as a punishment? The increase in child-bearing pain would be a constant reminder of her need for her man, and a deterent to the kind of independence of action that precipitated man's act of independence. How do you fit in the specific curses of the serpent and the earth with your thesis? Apparently the earth became less fertile at this time, in contrast to Eve who became more fertile. The earth's loss of fertility is specifically said to be a 'curse'.There is, on course, absolutely no mention in Genesis of your 'small clan'.On the basis of the above you have my reasons for saying your interpretation is nonsense. Please understand when I use this word, it is not from between gritted teeth, or in frustration, it is simply my assessment of your scheme; it is non-sense. It defies all rules of hermeneutics, common sense and logic. What else would I call it?

Hello,I just came across this thread and to be honest, I don't have enough time to read it in its entirety but I would just like to share my own beliefs on the subject matter.In the past year, I graduated from undergrad and my major was Biology. I had the opportunity to take an evolution course and I thought the experience was great. We had an intimate class of about 12 people comprised of undergrads and graduate students. THe discussions were always engaging.I feel I was able to take a stand for what I know to be true - that our God created this world and this whole universe. My take on whether the Lord literally created the earth in 7 days is that our concept of days is quite possibly different from the Lord's. One day to the Lord can be equivalent to millions upon millions of years in our concept of time. As evidence, I look to a verse like:"You have made my days a mere handbreadth;the span of my years is as nothing before you.Each man's life is but a breath. "Psalm 39:5I believe there are a lot of misconceptions that people have about evolution. For example, it is not that we come from monkeys but that we share a common ancestor, evolutionarily, with them. A common ancestor is a species from which others develop from. Evolution does have its merits. Evidence such as big whale-like species with what looks like hands and legs, like a four-legged land creature, shows that there was change in species, that is in living things over time. What I object to in the scientific view of how life came to be, i.e. evolution, is that it discounts God. They say that life began billions of years ago by accident. They say that for some reason the right ingredients (e.g. different gases) came together at the right time such that life began.I know in my heart of hearts that this coming together was no mere coincidence. It was the Lord who began the cascade of events that led to the springing of life. It is amazing to me to see how creative our God is. I marvel at the Lord's touch throughout nature from the similarities of embryos of humans with that of other animals to how the lining of a female's uterus, the endometrium, looks very much like some sea anemone. The more I study science, and now as I move on to medical school, I continue to just marvel at how awesome creation is and of course the creator of it all, our God.Victoria

Jake, I'm not sure what your background is but you may want to check out what leading scientists other than biologists have said about evolution. Most biochemists, physicists, and astronomers will readily admit that the existence of life (and the universe for that matter) are highly improbable without some type of divine and intelligent intervention. There is no proof anywhere for Macro Evolution. What biologists try to do is point to instances of Micro-Evolution (changes within a certain species not resulting in a new and different species) and then try to apply that to Macro-Evolution which requires a fish to grow legs and walk like a chimp and then for that chimp to eventually walk like a man (all by blind chance remember). Your view is that of theistic evolution and I am not trying to question your faith or judge you in any sense. However, there is simply no evidence that supports Macro Evolution. The Cambrian Explosion and the Anthropic Principle are just two strong evidences against evolution.

Jesus asked a rhetorical question while suffering grievous pain and torture on the cross, just before He expired?Jesus became sin, and took upon him the wrath of God against sin. At that very moment He was abandoned by God so He could take the punishment.Following this statement, Jesus says "It is finished". Even apart from God at this moment, Jesus expressed pure faith.It was no rhetorical question. Jesus became sin, and endured God's wrath."God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21) Even though it might be difficult for us to understand, Jesus did not become a sinner on the cross, Jesus became sin for us. They are not the same thing. Here is what some Bible commentaries say about 2 Corinthians 5:21 (above): "sin--not a sin offering, which would destroy the antithesis to "righteousness," and would make "sin" be used in different senses in the same sentence: not a sinful person, which would be untrue, and would require in the antithesis "righteous men," not "righteousness"; but "sin," that is, the representative Sin-bearer (vicariously) of the aggregate sin of all men past, present, and future. The sin of the world is one, therefore the singular, not the plural, is used; though its manifestations are manifold (John 1:29). "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the SIN of the world." Compare "made a curse for us," Galatians 3:13." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary) "He made to be sin (amartian epoihsen). The words "to be" are not in the Greek. "Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin."" (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament)

No support in the fossil record for whale evolution. Until they find intermediary fossils I am more than skeptical about this theory.

Read the fourth paragraph of that link. "Many Gaps" in the fossil record. "Frequent Discoveries" refers to a 1989 discovery of unattatched, unidentified mammal ankles that the scientist associated with the elusive evolving whale. Those ankles are hotly debated among even non-creationist scientists. There should be an abundance of evidence for transitional fossils. There just isn't any. Artistic renditions of a scientific hypothesis are not the same thing as a fossils.

Jake,But, I wonder how those plants lived a million years without any sunlight? No photosynthesis happening there. Pardon me for jumping in unanounced, sort of flittering by, like a butterfly I guess, cause I'm so scatterbrained. Pray for me...I guess that makes me a "fly-by-night Christian. One day I'm going...I'll stop there.

Dear Friends,There are several videos here that you may find helpful in understanding the problem of Evolution.(broadband recommended) Dr. Hovind can explain more. -->http://www.creationevidence.net/offers.shtmlI do believe evolution conflicts with grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. How could there be mutations before sin entered and the fall of man? Notice: God calls everything "good" before the fall. The videos are particularly from the young earth viewpoint....Other good resources: www.icr.orgwww.answersingenesis.orgWebservant,Peter J. Louie

Personally, I like the Day-Age theory the best. I've done much in-depth study on the subject as I have many friends professionally involved in various branches of science. Briefly, the Hebrew word for "Day" is "Yom" which has 3 different meanings(check your strong's concordance): a 12 hour period of time; a 24 hour period of time; and a long unspecified period of time. Also, if you will notice that there is no "morning and evening" at the end of the 7th day. "Morning and evening" were used to mark the beginning and ending of the successive days. The lack of a "morning and an evening" on the 7th day strongly gives credence to the claim that we are still in the "7th day" of creation where God rested and ceased from creating. Indeed, if you'll notice, species are going extinct. They are not currently being replaced. Given these possible translations, the days of Genesis certainly could be translated to mean long periods of time. It is extremely important to point out that given the best estimates of 4.7 billion years as the age of the earth, this is far too brief of a time span for evolution to have taken place. The Day-Age theory leaves no room for evolution. Remember, adaptation within a species is not the same thing as macro-evolution which is supposed to have happened blindly given an infinite amount of time + matter + chance. This is why Athiests hate the Big Bang" theory. They hate that the universe can be shown to have had a definite beginning because they need nearly an infinite amount of time for the Darwin's Evolution to work. A point to consider, Augustine held the belief that God actually created the world in one second. He was a man of great faith and the age of the earth has always been a debated issue within the church. It is NOT an issue of salvation but it is not good for brothers in Christ to persecute one another for differing beliefs as to the age of the earth. Darwin's theory of evolution is not a theory that a Christian can cling to however because it does not allow for the miraculous intervention of God in the Creation (not to mention the serious lack of real evidence...a hypothesis is NOT evidence...for Darwin's evolution)

So Jake, What are we evolving into?

Matt 25 asked:"So Jake, What are we evolving into?" :-oI like that question...I would like to see that one answered!I asked, How plants could photosynthesize without sunlight. :-DI don't think you had an answer for that one either Jake. The plant life was created on the 3rd day and the Sun was created on the 4th day...along with the other celestial bodies. :-P So did God wait until the 4th "million years" to start using photosynthesis? Or did he change to the Sun from the "uncontained light" creation of the first day, suddenly on the 4th day. This latter option would entail a sudden change in the laws of nature after three million years. Changing Natural Laws...to suit WHOSE agenda? :-xNow, I believe in miracles. I believe in the miracle of the spoken Word. But, you seem to not believe in miracles. I don't believe man has all the answers. We are the students. God is the Great Teacher. We are practicing Science. Just because the Bible account does not match up with the view of a quantity of Scientists' views, does not make the Bible account incorrect. We would be quite assuming to think that we know everything there is to know about creation and earthly beginnings, when no one else was here to witness. The angels and the Spirit of God were eye witnesses. So, whose account are you going to accept?jake wrote:Cain is our ancestor (teeth on right). Abel (Australeopithicine, teeth on left) was killed off by Cain. Cain violated God's command in Genesis 1:29 and became a scavenger and hunter. Abel kept to vegetarian diet. Teeth don't lie. Neither does Genesis.JakeIn response to this... did you not read the genealogies? Many people skip over those, you know? We are not descended from Cain. Everybody living died in the Flood except Noah's seed. The question is, who did Noah descend from? The answer is Seth's lineage. We are the seed of Seth. So somebody's teeth lied. :-o

It was the eating of a piece of FRUIT that caused man's fall, not the killing of an animal (Gen 3:6).It was God who slew the first animal and "covered" man with its skin (Gen 3:21).Therefore, man is not the instigator of blood atonement, God is. God commanded the Israelites to eat meat (with the exception of the "unclean" meat). After Christ's sacrifice, We are told that nothing is to be refused if taken with thanksgiving to the Lord (1 Timothy 4:4).Man abstaining from killing animals for food is NOT the source of atonement. I HIGHLY recommend you read 1 TIMOTHY 4:1-5 and rethink your hypothesis....better yet...I'll just post it for you:1 Timothy 41 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.Do you believe these passages???

Right on Matt!Very well put. You have a way of exegesis about you there.

Jake, this is an honest question and I am not trying to evoke hostility but I have to ask it...Are you a Christian who believes that the Bible is the innerant and infallible word of God?

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1.htmhttp://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol2.htm

Jake writes Just as I recently predicted on this forum, this weekend scientists announced that there is good, solid evidence for life being present on Mars. This evidence is methane gas in the atmosphere. Methane is created by either volcanic action or by the decay of bacteria. There is no volcanic activity on Mars. So the only explanation is that anerobic bacteria exist there.Dr Vittorio Formisano, the scientist responsible for the Planetary Fourier Spectrometer which detected the gas said ...it could be evidence of life or volcanic activity... Eventually we shall perhaps be able to identify the source. The source is going to be rather a big issue. It could be either simply volcanic activity, or life of biological origin. I am not stating that there is life now. There is no conclusion yet. In my opinion, it is most likely of volcanic origin, but I need many more observations." [The Times, March 30, 2004]You may note a certain difference of tone between Jake's convictions and those of Dr Vittoria Formisano.

Jake, you write But, this raises questions. Do you believe that the rest of the Universe is dead and that earth is the only planet with life? Or, do you believe that God created life on many planets, (which is essentially what I believe) Except I think He used what we would call natural processes-- evolution-- to do this.This is the essence of things. You have a belief system. You believe, but why do you believe? Because you think that life evolved on earth in accordance with Neo-Darwinism, which is atheistic. Either there was a plan or there wasn't. If there was why would it need random mutations and the survival of the fittest, and how would 'random' be random if it was part of a plan? If there was no plan then God had nothing to do with it. You can't have it both ways.As regards life on other planets; I have no idea, nor do you. What you have is a belief system which is always searching for evidence to support it. Your belief system is based on your perception of probabilities and an inward witness. I have a belief system too. It is based on the inerrant revelation of God's word to human beings as found in the scriptures. As we have found so often, these two views have no meeting place.This is why this thread has never become a discussion. It is a series of propositional statements versus another set of propositional statements. We continue to talk past each other rather than to each other; we are speaking different languages.

Have you investigated Michael Behe's argument for "Irreducible Complexity" within living organisms? Also, are you aware that there is literally zero evidence that shows non-living matter will assemble at random into living matter? The most well known experiment attempting to prove that non-living matter will assemble itself into living matter was the Miller-Urey experiment of the 1960's. Here's a fairly good recap of that experiment from Reasons to Believe, a "Day-Age" proponent of Creation. http://www.reasons.org/chapters/spokane/newsletters/200306newsletter.shtml?main#primordial_soup

Jake states:"...But my source of inspiration is the testimony of Jesus Himself, and not the reinterpretations of His testimony spread by Paul..."If the Bible is NOT innerrant, how can you know what the true testimony of Jesus is? If you don't believe Paul, then how can you believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Which Bible do you read and by what authority are you choosing to believe one part of scripture but to disbelieve another part of scripture?

Morning and evening in the Day-Age theory is interpreted figuratively to mark the beginning and ending of successive eras or epochs.

Jake Writes:"...The conditions in which life evolved on earth are long gone and so it is impossible for Behe to say what the initial conditions were from which it began..."Actually, you are very wrong. If you'll do your research, this is the one area most scientists agree on. We do have a fairly good idea of what the initial conditions were like.But then, in the next sentence you assert:"...Different beginning conditions and a much more dynamic environment in the past make his suppositions about what was possible and impossible then moot..."Wow. You are really contradicting yourself. Behe doesn't know what the intitial conditions were like but you do? Wow. And did you even read about the Miller-Urey experiment? Miller, a devout athiest, later denounced his own experiment admitting that it was flawed. No scientist today recognizes the Miller-Urey experiment as valid.On the scriptures, you write:"... some of what is attributed to Jesus is incorrect. Just look at Matt 16:28, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27. Clearly there is something wrong with these verses..."Then about John 10:27 you write:"...But take heart in John 10:27 and listen. You will hear Him if you are called..."Again, this was my point earlier. By what authority do you choose to disbelieve Matt 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 and the then believe John 10:27?Also, I would like my earlier question answered about the absolute lack of evidence that non-living matter will assemble itself into living matter? Can you point me to the studies/experiments (NOT HYPOTHESIS OR THEORIES) you've seen where they have proven this can take place? I know for a fact that you can't.

Jake writes:"Did you read the verses I mention in Matt, Mark and Luke? Jesus says that people living at that time will not taste death before He comes with Glory in the second coming!!! Clearly this is wrong. As for John 10:27 I need no authority whatsoever, as I myself hear the call. If you don't, that's your problem."Let's look at these verses (NIV):Matthew 16:2828. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 17The Transfiguration 1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. 4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!" 6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus. 9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." 10The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?" 11Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. *************************************************Mark 91And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." The Transfiguration 2After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. 5Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 6(He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) 7Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!" 8Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus. 9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant. 11And they asked him, "Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?" 12Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? 13But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him." *************************************************27I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God." The Transfiguration 28About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30Two men, Moses and Elijah, 31appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." (He did not know what he was saying.) 34While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35A voice came from the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him." 36When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves, and told no one at that time what they had seen.*************************************************Matt 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 were speaking specifically to his disciples who were literally standing there with him. Then read what follows after----the Transfiguration. Every Bible Scholar agrees that the Matt16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 were about the transfiguration. To say otherwise is to take the verse completely out of context and thereby misinterpret scripture. *************************************************I am not angry in any sense and I completely apologize if my textual tone is that of anger. To respond to me with "That's your problem" sounds just as angry, however. Should I post the scriptures that command the rebuke of false doctrines? *************************************************

Your interpretation of those verses is a Preterist interpretation (all of Jesus's prophecies fulfilled around 70 A.D.). I do not agree with Preterism but that is neither here nor there...as you stated this thread was strictly about macro-evolution. I did sidetrack it with numerous questions about your particular scriptural beliefs. Some scripture must be discussed when examining macro-evolution. I am not a "young" earther. I lean towards the view that God gave us brains for a reason. The reason I do not believe macro-evolution is true is because of a serious lack of evidence for it as a theory. Sadly, the Church has played the game of "run and hide" from science ever since Galileo embarrased the Catholic Church with his observation that the the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. The Church's fear of science has left many in the Church with a strong distaste for the sciences. When Darwin published "Origin of the Species" in 1859, the Church literally removed itself from the the game by saying "science and religion are seperate". This was tragic because for the last century the Church has shied away from nearly all matters involving controversial subjects such has the age of the earth and evolution. Thankfully, the last few decades has seen a resurgence from the Religious community to take an interest in science. Apologetics has been the "point of the arrow" that has led the Church back into the scientific arena. Many Christians still hold the belief that the earth is 8-10,000 years old and that the days of Genesis are literal 24 hour days. Ironically one of the Greatest Christian thinkers in history, Augustine, held the belief that the world was created in one second, not 6 literal 24 hour days. The age of the earth has never been a fundemental issue of salvation. Macro-Evolution has been correctly labeled by many as "Evolutionism". The argument against evolution is not one that is placed from Creationsists only. There are many athiests and nontheists who have drawn the conclusion that observational and experimental evidence does not support Macro-Evolution. The reason many call macro-evolution "Evolutionism" is because it has ironically become a religion for people. If man is nothing more than "time + matter + chance" then man is meaningless and his actions are without consequences. This belief frees man to fulfill any and every desire. But don't take my word for it, listen to Aldous Huxley, a devout athiest: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning: consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves...FOR MYSELF, THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEANINGLESSNESS WAS ESSENTIALLY AN INSTRUMENT OF LIBERATION, POLITICAL AND SEXUAL."I understand that you do believe there is a designer but we disagree on how much of the design process involved his direct intervention. To say that God triggered the process and everything evolved from there is not supported by the body of scientific evidence. If macro-evolution is true, then there should literally be millions of transitional fossils that are just as abundant as the fossils which reflect our current species. Evolutionists are always having to admit that there are serious gaps in the fossil record. "Gaps" is an extremely light word --there are CAVERNS in the fossil record. What the fossil record clearly shows is the sudden appearance of many diverse forms of life at one time (cambrian explosion). There has been no observational nor experimental confirmation that non-living matter will or even can be assembled into living matter. There has been no observation for macro-evolution within any species(micro-evolution or adaptation is NOT macro-evolution). In response to having found water on mars and methane in it's atmosphere I can only offer an obvious reply: Our universe is abundant with the ingredients found in life, but to simply have the ingredients necessary for life is not the same thing has having life. 70% of the earth's surface is water but so is 66% of the human body. Carbon abundant throughout the universe and on earth. It's both in my living body and on the very dead keyboard I'm typing on.

Jake's response to Michael Behe's observation of Irreducible Complexity within cellular biology:"I am familiar with Behe's irriducible complexity and hold no stock in it. The conditions in which life evolved on earth are long gone and so it is impossible for Behe to say what the initial conditions were from which it began. He looks around at the world as it is Today and make his judgements. Different beginning conditions and a much more dynamic environment in the past make his suppositions about what was possible and impossible then moot."How leading evolutionary biologists responded to the evidence of Behe's Irreducible Complexity:"Mr. Behe may be right that given our current state of knowledge, good old Darwinian evolution cannot explain the origin of blood clotting and cellular transport."--James Shreeves, New York Times scientific review"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."--James Shapiro, National Review"There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel...We may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways."--Jerry Coyne, Nature MagazineNone of these evolutionary biologists agree to the theory of intelligent design. And here are their reasons for stating that something other than intelligent design was possible:"Shouldn't we leave something for our children and grandchildren to puzzle out besides which systems the cell are intelligently designed and which are not?"--James Shreeves, New York Times scientific review"Sadly, despite it's valuable critique of an all-too-often unchallenged orthodoxy, Darwin's Black Box fails to capture the true excitement of contemporary biology because it is fighting the battles of the past rather than seeing the vision of the future."--James Shapiro, National Review"It is not valid, however, to assume that, because one man cannot imagine such pathways, they could not have existed."--Jerry Coyne, NatureAre their reasons scientific or imaginary?Michael Behe did not trademark "Irreducible Complexity" but was one of the first to publish a book detailing the observation among molecular biochemists. His book Darwin's Black Box can be purchased here: http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=2808057399886&isbn=0684834936