KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

Evolution-A Religion or Not?

▼

Evolution-A Religion or Not?

It takes a lot of faith to believe it

from JoeUser Forums
Today the local newspaper printed an editorial response by my son David and I thought I'd share it. It was pretty good and many people around town alerted him to the fact it was in there as well as my husband while out and about. It was a response to an earlier article about evolution. Anyhow here it is.


Theory of Evolution

Evolution is fact? The evolution “theory” that is taught in classrooms today is nothing more then that- a theory. There are more holes in evolution then twelve Swiss cheese sandwiches! I would love for Mr. Sares to show me the scientific law that proves life can come from non-life, the very staple of evolution. That, however, is impossible because no such law exists; there are only theories of how this may occur. Look outside. Especially here in the Mountains we should be able to see with our own eyes the complexity of our earth in its beauty with the mountains and the gorgeous sunsets.

Look at yourself. The human body is the most complex thing on earth. This wasn’t an accident. Scientists say that although the chances of evolution are impossible, given enough time this impossibility becomes a possibility. They say that if I randomly picked a card from a deck of 52 cards enough times it’s possible that I could pick the ace of spades 100 times in a row, given enough time. But what are the chances of that ace of spades growing a head, a brain, legs and arms and starting up a conversation with me? That Mr. Sares is the possibility of the “theory” of evolution.

One Creationist, Kent Hovind, stated he would give $10,000 to anyone who could prove evolution scientifically. No one has come forward yet since he made this challenge- in 1990. Mr. Sares, I challenge you to take up this task and prove to all your readers that evolution is true science. In the meantime, why don’t we continue to teach our children that they are here by mistake, with no purpose in life and let’s continue wondering why they lack self-esteem.


David

One has to wonder why, in the absense of physical substance or actual evidence (the missing link) ,is evolution not somewhat faith-based? Perhaps it is because having faith in the theory of a missing link is more acceptable than having faith in an intelligent designer?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrew 11:1

Let's face it.....evolution is indeed a religion."
religion
28,979 views 282 replies
Reply #126 from JoeUser Forums Top
In Job I do think he's using poetic license here. The Pillars denote strength and stabiity. In this section 4-12 Job is saying that God has revealed enough about Himself even through nature. Remember Job also says..."The earth hangs on nothing" 26:7

Other scripture talks about this shaking...for instance a few here

Isa 2:19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks and into the caves of the earth for fear of the Lord and for the glory of His Magesty when he arises to shake terribly the earth.

13:13: I will shake the heavens and the earth shall remove out of her place........

Hag 2:6: For thus says the Lord of Hosts, yet once it is a little while and I will shake the heavens and the earth.....

Rev 6:12-13 ....there was a great earthquake ........And the stars of heaven fell to the earth even as a fig tree casts her untimely figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

I studied (not read) bit by bit, verse by verse the book of Revelation for two years. I saw that all the OT prophets spoke of this great shaking at the end times. It's all over the place and is under the "Day of the Lord" timing which is basically last day events. Much of it to me sounds like astroids and the great earthquake we're all waiting for. I mean look at the power of the tsuami in Indonesia and that is small in comparison.

I suppose that our interpretation of the Bible can cause us a lot of problems, whether or not the book is infallible itself. That, if for no other reason, should give us pause in making these big judgements, wouldn't you say?


ya I think the biggest problem tho is people pick and choose what they want and that's where the problems arise. They don't use the "whole counsel of God." But for those who do usually their debates stem around 'non essentials." I take this approach..

In Essentials-unity
In Non Essentials-Liberty
in all things-Love

P.S. I found this verse from the Koran that might be of interest:"And we have made the earth egg shaped (79:30)"Sounds more 'round' than much you read about in the Bible.


Yes, it's interesting but how can it be more "round" than the "circle of the earth?" So now ask yourself. Is the earth round or egg shaped?

Showme a signle transitional fossil.


yeah Mason *grins* Show me too!!

Reply #127 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's not forget that biblical scholars much more dedicated than you or I executed people for the heretical belief that the earth revolves around the sun. Therein lies the problem with the infallible Bible. In the end your interpretation also becomes infallible, and then people who interpret it make vile mistakes.


yes those scholors (CC) made a great mistake and is a great embarassment to the church. I agree. But nowhere in the bible will you find such a claim. So don't knock the bible for what the interpreters interpreted. Everything revolves around the SON and the sun as well. The fault is not with the word at all. I also think that every generation has been given more light. We've found out more and more as the world goes on. Today, Revelation makes much more sense and Daniel as well. It's almost like reading the news or watching it on TV. I read alot of Matthew Henry of the 1700's and he had a very hard time grasping the prophetic scriptures without what we have for modern technolgy. Israel being in their own nation is huge as well. It makes much more sense now.

If someone says a half dozen things I agree with, but most everything else they say is off the wall, I'd want to know.


me too but Baker, who DO YOU LIKE? I've given you two great guys and they are about as straight as you can get and you are picking on them for little things. Hovind is either you like him or hate him type of guy but the other two stand out as very reliable.

The Job quote and the other were intended to make you see that the Bible speaks figuratively about the 'pillars of the earth' and yet you and Mr. MacArthur doesn't grant any figurative leniency to anyone else


I dunno Baker, the earth on elephants backs compared to pillars meaning strength and stability?

how literalists tend to sit around and argue about inconsequential biblical details just like the pharisees, but couldn't recognize Jesus if he was wearing a name tag.


pretty strong generalization here. I don't think you can generalize like that. The bible is to be taken both literally and symbolically as it is both. Some go to far either way. When Jesus said he was the door, or the bread of life. Do I think he's a loaf of bread? Or a door? No. Like I keep saying...IF IT MAKES SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE. It's a good rule to go by.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top
"n Job I do think he's using poetic license here. "


Oh, there are people even more literalist than you and insist that every word is literal, like the take-up-snakes-and-drink-poison folks. You just expect everyone to come to the same literal translation of figurative literature as you. Mr MacArther made that demand on the Koran with the elephants thing, but when you start talking about the earth sitting on pillars it is nitpicking to take that literally?

Can't you see what a mess that is? Go back and look at the kind of horrible cults that came to be in the early church because such verses were taken literally. We think that the Romans were burning Baptists, but in reality Romans were seeing Christians who believed in human sacrifice, cannibalism, self mutilation, suicide, etc.

So, you admit that the Bible isn't supposed to be taken 100% literally. You would differ, no doubt, with Catholics who believe that we are actually eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood during communion, but they get their belief from a literal interpretation of the Bible. Can't you see how your own flavor of Christianity came about by REJECTING literal interpretations of scripture?

"ya I think the biggest problem tho is people pick and choose what they want and that's where the problems arise."


But you'd admit that you pick and choose which parts to take literally, which parts of the Old Testament are no longer mandates, etc., based upon what you deem figurative and how you interpret the Bible.

Let's say a father, seeing his kids off for a day of swimming, made a cryptic comment. At the last moment some of the kids realized it was a warning about something in particular and the rest drowned. Would you consider that the actions of a 'perfect' father? Nor do I think God would purposely encrypt his message to mankind so that the majority of them would go to hell.

If I expect more of a fallible human being, I am not thinking very much of God to say he'd behave that way, am I? I don't think the kids who survived would feel very good when their father shrugged at the funeral and said "He that hath ears, let him hear"...

In the end what is literal isn't the Bible, it is your interpretation of what it says. When you are shown something that isn't literally true, you say it is figurative, and that my interpretation of it is flawed. Who decides what is literal or figurative, Mr MacArthur and the elephants?

So, the difference between you and people who take the Genesis story figuratively isn't much different than you and the Catholics who believe in transubstantiation, or you and the snake handlers. You aren't right because the Bible is literally perfect, you are right because you are able to interpret it and they somehow aren't.

Whereas if EVERYONE took it with a grain of salt and realized it was the word of God as funnelled through the hearts and minds of mortal, flawed human beings, there'd be a lot less arguing about whether Jesus was the son of God before he was born. Heck, there might be a lot more time then for the things Jesus actually taught.
Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top
"yes those scholors (CC) made a great mistake and is a great embarassment to the church. I agree. But nowhere in the bible will you find such a claim."


Nowhere in the Bible will you find the literal claim that the Bible is inerrant, either. Yet... we all rely on our interpretations, don't we?

The people who persecuted Galileo interpreted the scripture:

""The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved." -Psalms 104:5"


to mean that everything revolves around the sun. You see it as figurative. Many people see the creation story as figurative. How do you decide which is and which isn't? Is it the Bible that is inerrant, or is it the interpretation of scripture that is inerrent, in light of the fact that the earth does in reality move a great deal?

You interpret the literal meaning of a figurative scripture, when in reality what the scripture says is not literally true. Kind of hard to paint the Bible as literal truth when you have to work to decide what is and isn't spoken figuratively.

"I dunno Baker, the earth on elephants backs compared to pillars meaning strength and stability? "


If you lived in a poor nation with few pillars and used elephants as your animals of burden, you might see them as archetypes of strength and stability, wouldn't you? Easily as much as someone might see a pillar as such.

"The bible is to be taken both literally and symbolically as it is both. Some go to far either way. When Jesus said he was the door, or the bread of life. Do I think he's a loaf of bread? Or a door? No. Like I keep saying...IF IT MAKES SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE. It's a good rule to go by."


LOL, but you don't grant that to people who see the creation story as making no sense. You don't grant the license to accept the story of Noah figuratively. The people you quote are the ones who slam the their fists on their pulpits and decide what is inerrantly literal and figurative.

In the end, if you look very hard at the situation, you'll find that what you are seeing as inerrant is your interpretation of doctrine relating to the Bible, not the Bible itself. If that is the case, is there ANYTHING more errant than the judgement of Man?
Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top
#125 by BakerStreet
Sun, July 02, 2006 00:36 AM


Take the time to understand the theory and you'll find that they are almost ALL transitional. If you are looking for a monkey with a man's head or a tomato with watermelons for fruit you need to go back and look again.

Spare me the condescension, Baker. I am not uneducated and I understand the theory perfectly, thank you.

Your answer is a patent cop out. The fact remains that not a single transitional fossil has ever been discovered that would in any way support the theory of macroevolution. One would think that a process that requires millions of years would have left a few fossil remains along the way for us to find. Not a single fossil that suggests some species in a transitional phase of evolution from one type of species to another has ever been discovered. There is simply zero evidence that macroevolution has ever taken place in any species.
Reply #131 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, you deserve condescension, MasonM, because you are either ignorant or dishonest. The lack of "Transitional fossils" is the oldest lie of creationists. Yes, I said lie, as in liar, as in "Thou Shalt Not..."

answersingenesis.com, the very spearhead of creationism which is headed by Mr. Ham, who KFC believes to be a very reliable fellah, lists “There are no transitional forms.” as a doubtful argument that it is inadvisable for creationists to use against evolution.

Here is a FAQ on the lie of there being no transitional fossils.

Here is the Wikipedia article for honest people who want to know what a transitional fossil is, instead of just spitting the phrase as an ignorant attack on evolution.

Here's an article on the LIE at the Panda's thumb.

It's shameful when people who believe themselves to be on the side of God show so little integrity when debating. You'd think they'd want to show an honest face, and instead embrace what amounts to urban mythology and childish catchphrases. The truth isn't something creationists, of all people, should be afraid of, but they tend to dismiss everything without even looking at it because it CAN'T be true.

The "doubts" Ham and others have about transitional fossils are based upon bias and preconceived theories. They realize that their "doubts" are so based upon a priori Bible-bias that they really can't make the point scientifically, so they really would be better off keeping their mouths shut about it.

Others, though, don't mind persisting in creationist jingles that they blindly believe to be true. Creationism is about proving that one's opinion is the inerrant word of God. I can't think of anything more heretical than that.

...but in the end a lie you can spit in one sentence is always more persuasive than the truth it takes a whole book to explain. People swallow the sentence so that they don't have to read the book and decide for themselves.
Reply #132 from JoeUser Forums Top
Firstly, I am neither ignorant or dishonest. Nor do I result to the sort of insults and condescending attitude normally used by those who aren't capable of holding an open discussion without them.

The articles you linked are interesting, but I still do not see solid evidence of actual transitional forms. Many of the ones cited are dubious at best. I could just as easily claim that they are lies and you as well as those who wrote them are liars but I won't result to your infantile methods. Instead I will simply say that I find the data quite interesting but I feel that some of the conclusions are doubtful in many of the cases with regard to macroevolution.

I do however find some of the more recent fossil finds interesting and some of them may well eventually prove to be actual transitional forms. Some of them certainly appear to be so, but that remains to be seen and I'll be very interested in those results. If they do prove to be so, then I will be convinced of the validity of macroevolution theory as there will be solid evidence to back it up. I don't accept extrapolation based upon microevolution as being a valid support of macroevolution. Frankly, many of the examples cited in the linked articles seem to support microevolution completely but still fall a bit short when it comes to macroevolution.

Who knows? Perhaps genetic biology will eventually be able to prove or disprove the theory. There have been a lot of advances in that area in the past couple of years and they may well have the best shot at it as fossil remains may never be enough to do it.
Reply #133 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Instead I will simply say that I find the data quite interesting but I feel that some of the conclusions are doubtful in many of the cases with regard to macroevolution."


A statement which, had you said that to begin with, wouldn't have brought any condescension from me. What you said was "...not a single transitional fossil has ever been discovered that would in any way support the theory of macroevolution" which is very different, indeed. I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at Archaeopteryx and not see a transitional form.
Reply #134 from JoeUser Forums Top
Catholics who believe that we are actually eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood during communion,


The body and blood of Christ can be bought and sold?

Romans were seeing Christians who believed in human sacrifice, cannibalism, self mutilation, suicide, etc.


And who are the cannibals?
Reply #135 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mr MacArther made that demand on the Koran with the elephants thing


I found out that there are 4 mentions of elephants in the Koran and none have anything to do with what JM said. So I will put in a question to find out why he said that. My guess? Either it's in the Hadith or as you said coming from the Hindu religion. If that's the case he misspoke. But I've listened to him for many years and have read a bunch of his books and I'm telling you he's out there not saying what people want to hear but telling it like it is. I've found him totally trustworthy in the process. In this case his sermon had nothing to do with Muslims, Islam, or the Koran but just a passing note so I'm not going to throw this guy to the lions because he mispoke. This is where a little grace comes in.

Romans were burning Baptists, but in reality Romans were seeing Christians who believed in human sacrifice, cannibalism, self mutilation, suicide, etc


How'd you know they were Christians? I have people tell me they are Christians when clearly I see no evidence of it. So I ask. Do you go to church? "No" Do you pray? "No" Do you have Christian friends that help hold you accountable? "No" Do you read God's word? "No." Then how do you know you're a Christian? I'd say the same here. Is there enough evidence to convict them of being a Christian? You will not find those behaviors mentioned as God sanctioned in scripture. In fact the early church were being killed by the thousands and they were not lifting a finger in their defense save the gospel. The blood of the martyrs was the seed of the faith.

You would differ, no doubt, with Catholics who believe that we are actually eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood during communion, but they get their belief from a literal interpretation of the Bible. Can't you see how your own flavor of Christianity came about by REJECTING literal interpretations of scripture?


No actually. Didn't I just tell you that the bible is both literal and symbolic? Haven't I been saying....if it makes sense...seek no other sense? Haven't I been saying other passages help explain what you're reading? I'm not changing here Baker. I think I'm pretty consistent. So let's take this and I'll answer you here. BTW I was a Catholic so I understand the religion totally and have very dear friends still in it.

1. When Jesus held up that bread he said..."This is my body." Now is that literal? Can it be? He was right there. His body was holding up his body? No!! His body was holding up the bread which symbolized his body. It would be like me showing you a picture and saying...."This is me." Is it literally me? No I'm right there in person.

2. What did Jesus say? Did he mean for it to be taken literally? John 6:63 (read in context) is the answer. He said..."The words I speak to you are spirit and they are life. Compare that to Phillipians 3:3. If you read John very carefully you'll see he was constantly trying to take their eyes of the physical and onto the spiritual. Remember the women at the well in John 4?

3. The NT church which is all those who profess Christ are called the "body of Christ." Is that literal or symbolic?

4. Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT Feast of Unleavened Bread of Lev 23. Moses gave 7 feasts to the Jews. 4 have been fulfilled in Christ and the 7 show his whole redemptive career and pointed to the one who would come. Passover (His death), Feast of Unleavened Bread (death) Feast of Firstfruits (resurrection) and Feast of Weeks (Gk-Pentecost-birth of church). These first 4 represented his first coming. The next Feast is called the Feast of Trumpets. I'll leave that one to your imagination.

The feasts were to be made without leaven (represents sin) except one.....Pentecost or Weeks. For this feast two loaves were to be baked with leaven as commanded by God. Funny how that was way back in Moses day. I'm sure they had no idea. Leaven represents sin and these two loaves were to be baked during the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) that's because much later the church would have sin in it and the two represent Jew and Gentile. That was the mystery that the two would inherit together God's Kingdom. So Jesus was the symbol of unleavened bread cuz he had no sin. But he surely was not a loaf of bread.

So, the difference between you and people who take the Genesis story figuratively


You know Baker, you'll have to take it up with Christ as well. He said this in Matthew 19:4-6
'Have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and hall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." Guess what? Jesus was quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. So he must have believe it.

I'm not making this stuff up. I'm just spreading the seed. It's up to God to proivide the warm soil for the heart and the water that is needed for growth. Not me.

Whereas if EVERYONE took it with a grain of salt and realized it was the word of God as funnelled through the hearts and minds of mortal, flawed human beings


actually it was funnelled thru flawed men but they were inspired (God breathed) to do so. But what you're saying is you'd much rather know that what we are reading is God inspired error? That makes you feel better?

This book was written by over 40 men of all different walks in 3 continents over 1500 years and yet they are in complete agreement. I don't think we could get three people on a street corner at the same time of day that witness a car accident that could be more in sync as these guys were. How about 5 sportscasters reliving the same game? Could they be so in tune like the writers of scripture? I doubt it.

oh and the Psalm you chose to use to make your point above? It's not even close to what you're portraying it to be. You want me to make such verses literal which is kind of hard when you pick something like the Psalms which tends to be very poetic. I notice you are giving me symbolic language in poetic books to try and make your points when in fact they are not meant to be taken as such. Remember those middle books are poetic books and again you have to interpret scripture with scripture. If something seems sort of cloudy you don't run with it, you find another that's a bit more clearer and put together to bring into focus.

You know Baker, you're really ruining my reputation. I thought I was the only junkyard dog with a bone on JU.

Reply #136 from JoeUser Forums Top
And who are the cannibals?


savages who do not know God.

Get the movie "End of the Spear." Good movie.
Reply #137 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I notice you are giving me symbolic language in poetic books to try and make your points when in fact they are not meant to be taken as such. Remember those middle books are poetic books and again you have to interpret scripture with scripture. If something seems sort of cloudy you don't run with it, you find another that's a bit more clearer and put together to bring into focus. "


And it is for creationists, of course, to decide which scriptures are poetic and which are intended to be taken literally. That way, when somone differs with you, you can tell them that they can't doubt the inerrant word of God. Then when that happens to be proven to be not so accurate, then you can say that it was really metaphorical.

In the end it is a sham, with all due respect. Creationists have decided that while they interpret many of the passages in the Old Testament to be metaphorical, no one had better do that with the creation story. Why? Based upon what do you decide that?

Over and over we are told that we can't take parables literally. When I point out that for hundreds of years a psalm was proof that the sun orbited the earth, you brush it off as silly that anyone would ever think that was the literal truth. They did, though, until they were proved wrong, and now it was never MEANT to be literal, conveniently.

...and yet, you can't FATHOM the idea of taking the creation story metaphorically. You want that to be the accepted history of the creation of the earth. By declaring it the literal, inerrant word of God, anyone who differs with your perspective on creation is differing not with you, but with God.
Reply #138 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I've found him totally trustworthy in the process. In this case his sermon had nothing to do with Muslims, Islam, or the Koran but just a passing note so I'm not going to throw this guy to the lions because he mispoke. This is where a little grace comes in. "


Dunno, last I heard bearing false witness against your fellow man wasn't a trustworthy practice. I can see it in passing conversation, but when you are in the pulpit teaching, leading people with what is supposed to be the inspired word of God, one would assume you'd cross your Ts and dot your Is.

He declared a religion to be foolish for a belief they don't espouse. He most certainly has been banging away at Islam. He's said that "Allah" is another name for Satan. He's written a lot about Islam since 9/11. Good for him, but you'd think someone who undertakes such an enterprise would find out for sure. Declaring people to be satan worshippers who believe elephants hold up their world? Hmmm...

I'll say again, if someone can point out where that is in the Koran, I'll sincerely apologize, but I don't think it is. If it isn't, I don't see him as trustworthy at all.
Reply #139 from JoeUser Forums Top
And it is for creationists, of course, to decide which scriptures are poetic and which are intended to be taken literally. That way, when somone differs with you, you can tell them that they can't doubt the inerrant word of God. Then when that happens to be proven to be not so accurate, then you can say that it was really metaphorical.


it's kind of a twisted way of looking at it. A creationist is a literalist. But we don't decide this. By using the whole bible you understand it and along with Science it helps us in that process as well. Science and biblical instruction go hand in hand. It's man's interpretation that screws everything all up. Science has not disproven scripture. What you cite about Galilao is man's interpretation of a poetic verse...yes. You've beaten that to death. Man is not infallible. Man's interpretation is not infallible either. With each generation God sheds more light. He allows us to discover more about him. But we don't want to be ever learning and never coming to the truth either.

Creationists have decided that while they interpret many of the passages in the Old Testament to be metaphorical, no one had better do that with the creation story. Why? Based upon what do you decide that?


No, because when you doubt that you also doubt Christ. He helped us out here. He said in John 5:46

"If you believed Moses you would believe me for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote how are you going to believe what I say?"

Of course if Jesus can make mistakes in testable areas why should He be trusted in untestable areas (John 3:12)? No wonder that doubt of the first book of Moses often leads doubt of Christ's other words. Christ endorsed the Genesis records of creation (Matt 19:3-6) and Noah's flood and the ark (Luke 17:26-27). Jesus also cited Abraham in Luke 16:31 (also mentioned in Genesis). Denominations that doubt Moses by teaching theistic evolution often have leaders who doubt the resurrection too.

So again it's not me or any other creationist making this up. I for one have no agenda nor do I endorse any religion. I've been in a bunch and I see the harm they do. It's not man, I'm following but the God of the bible. I'm a biblical Christian who just so happens to believe it to be absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt true.


]
Reply #140 from JoeUser Forums Top
"What you cite about Galilao is man's interpretation of a poetic verse...yes. You've beaten that to death. Man is not infallible. Man's interpretation is not infallible either. With each generation God sheds more light. He allows us to discover more about him. But we don't want to be ever learning and never coming to the truth either."


I've beaten it over and over because you've ignored the reality of it over and over. A passage that was accepted as literal, scientific fact became metaphorical once science proved it wrong. It's pretty obvious to me then that the decision what is literal is going to be based on what makes a good argument for you.

That would be fine if the decision didn't put words in God's mouth. When you declare something literally true, you are saying that God said it, and God meant it just the way YOU say. Seven days are seven days, and to doubt that is to doubt God.

In light of the Galileo/Psalms issue that you don't like to talk about, that perspective seems really, really dubious. Men at that time said that if the Bible says the earth doesn't move, then the earth doesn't move. When you can no longer deny that the earth moves, the scripture becomes metaphorical. Convenient, huh?

"If you believed Moses you would believe me for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote how are you going to believe what I say?"


I'm sorry if this is insulting but do you have any idea how completely irrational it looks when you try to prove that the Bible is inerrant by pointing to what Jesus said... IN THE BIBLE? Jesus didn't write an autobiography, so what He is cited as saying is coming right from the same mortal men who did the other stuff that is open to scrutiny and interpretation.

"It's not man, I'm following but the God of the bible. I'm a biblical Christian who just so happens to believe it to be absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt true. "


You don't believe that the Bible is 100% LITERALLY true, since you believe that parts are often parables or poetic license. So, you aren't relying 100% on the Bible, but at least partially on your own mind to tell you which is which. In that case what you are putting forward when you argue creationism isn't the literal, inerrant word of God, but your interpretation of it.

So, I can't see how you can say that denying the creation story of Genesis as literal has anything to do with denying God or God's word. I'm just coming to a different conclusion than you, with no less proof than you have. Are you denying God's word when you decide that Jesus didn't really intend for you to pluck out your eye or lop off your hand?

God's word isn't at issue here, we both read the same words. What is at issue is YOUR decision to interpret the first chapters of Genesis as literal, historical, scientific fact. You don't portray that as your decision, though, you portray it as God's word and anyone who differs is differing with God, not you.
Reply #141 from JoeUser Forums Top
In light of the Galileo/Psalms issue that you don't like to talk about, that perspective seems really, really dubious. Men at that time said that if the Bible says the earth doesn't move, then the earth doesn't move. When you can no longer deny that the earth moves, the scripture becomes metaphorical. Convenient, huh?


No what I'm saying is that the scripture always meant what it said. It doesn't change. The Bishops of the day made a huge error. They wouldn't even think of looking into a telescope. This was, I admit, an embarrasing episode for the church. Many bishops refused to even look at the evidence because they had already believed another scientific tradition that wasn't biblical. The fault lies with the interpretation not the words of scripture. Scripture does not teach the earth is the center of the solar system.

Now to say that sometimes science corrects erroneous ideas is one thing but actually to disprove Creation is another. There are very few points of Christian faith that are vulnerable to scientific attack. The usual tension is here where we are treading,.....the universe and the origin of life. If science proves that the world was not created I think that would destroy Christianity.

Christianity is committed to the concept of divine creation that there is an eternal God and before whom we will all be held accountable and by whom we were all created and that the earth is not eternal. If the scientist could prove that the universe were in fact eternal that would be the end of the faith. But I am not in the slightest bit worried over that. Just chalk it up to Faith.

says the earth doesn't move, then the earth doesn't move


Now Baker, I see you as immoveable here in your opinion. So let's just say that we put your name in where "the earth" is mentioned in that Psalm. I could say, Baker will not be moved forever. Am I talking literally as if you are as still as a statue or am I talking symbolically? It's the same here in this scripture.

So, you aren't relying 100% on the Bible, but at least partially on your own mind to tell you which is which. In that case what you are putting forward when you argue creationism isn't the literal, inerrant word of God, but your interpretation of it.


But that's just it Baker, I DON'T want my opinion. I want the truth. I'm a truth seeker. I'm probably the most objective person you ever met if you met me. It doesn't matter what I think. Do I have a bias biblically speaking? Absolutely. But this is because after many years of being on the other side I'm firmly convinced this is the word of God. It makes more sense than anything out there. Honestly.

So, I can't see how you can say that denying the creation story of Genesis as literal has anything to do with denying God or God's word. I'm just coming to a different conclusion than you, with no less proof than you have


Well we've got, In the beginning......God spoke!! You say you believe in God right? Then why wouldn't you take the position that God spoke it, that settles it, I believe it? Is it education? Have you had so much education that you've been swayed by what the secular world is telling you? Wasn't we warned about this by Paul? And he very educated no less. But look what he was doing before God knocked him off his horse. BTW....do you have a horse? JK

Are you denying God's word when you decide that Jesus didn't really intend for you to pluck out your eye or lop off your hand?


I see you know enough of the bible to be dangerous.......(a joke Baker ok) but you don't have the understanding of what's behind the words. What Jesus is saying and we see it all over is that sin is so serious that indeed it would be better to enter heaven maimed than not at all. So if our hand or eye (lust) is causing us to sin.....cut it off. See it all goes together and that's why he said "Where your treasure is there your heart is also." I wanted to know what he meant by all these sayings and I went out and searched myself. I couldn't trust these priests and pastors for the most part as they knew less than I did half the time. So I put in alot of time and effort to read and read and read.

I don't go deep into alot of subjects. I know where my limits are. But when it comes to religions/scriptures and spiritual matters I feel confident that I can help others with what I've picked up along the way. But if I want to know how to get to Texas I go to someone who has been there and knows the way or get a map that someone ahead of time put there for me. If I need help for a medical problem I see a Doctor.

What is at issue is YOUR decision to interpret the first chapters of Genesis as literal, historical, scientific fact.


Show me where I've said it was scientific fact. I believe it's literal because Jesus gave it credibility and I believe what he says. Otherwise I'd have to say he was leading me astray. If I can't believe what he said when he said these things what can I believe? Do I believe we are to love one another? Do I believe that he is the only way? Do I believe that He loves us? Do I believe that he is coming back for me? Do I believe he's preparing a place for me? How can I or you decide what to believe and what not to believe he said? Do we just simply pick and choose like at a cafeteria? That's what I believe most are doing today. Taking what they believe either makes them feel good or what lines up with their opinion.

Either you believe in the whole counsel of God or you don't. I just so happen to believe in the whole thing and when scripture said....."In the beginning....,,.God said." He said it, that settles it and it doesn't matter if you believe it or not.





Reply #142 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do we just simply pick and choose like at a cafeteria? That's what I believe most are doing today. Taking what they believe either makes them feel good or what lines up with their opinion.


Do you ever boast thyself of tomorrow? I bet you do.
Reply #143 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I see you know enough of the bible to be dangerous.......(a joke Baker ok) but you don't have the understanding of what's behind the words."


There ya go, in a nutshell. Years in church, years as a Sunday school teacher, and years in a religious school taking religion courses, but I don't have the "understanding" to know what Jesus was saying during the sermon on the mount. You see your problem? People come to a different conclusion than you and they lack understanding. See, it is your opinions that you hold to be inerrant.

Oh, I know what He was saying, and so do you, but what you DON'T acknowledge is how you came to that conclusion. Sure it says "God said" in Genesis, and it also says that "Jesus said" when he speaks words that are metaphorical, as you admit in reference to the plucking out of eyes and lopping off of hands. The difference is you admit one can be figurative, and refuse to accept any suggestion that the other could be.

You aren't talking to an Atheist, or someone who hasn't had any religious experience. I have been in my life sitting exactly where you are, saying the exact same things to people exactly like me. In the end, I found that they were right. I found that I was an arrogant person who wasn't espousing the literal word of the Bible, I was promoting the inerrancy of my beliefs.

So, if you want to say that the Bible is inerrant, fine, but your interpretation of what the Bible says will never, ever be inerrant. It is a human interpretation; not God's word, but yours. So you can't say that differing with your estimation of creation is differing with God. God has not spoken here, you have, and the scripture you cite was written by man, and interpreted by man.

I differ with what you believe God is saying, you just believe that since God appears to be saying what you believe, it makes your beliefs as inerrant as God. That's exactly what those Catholics believed who held that the sun revolved around the earth and persecuted people for differing with them. In the end, it is just an effort to make you interpretation appear to be coming out of God's mouth.
Reply #144 from JoeUser Forums Top
Years in church, years as a Sunday school teacher, and years in a religious school taking religion courses, but I don't have the "understanding" to know what Jesus was saying during the sermon on the mount


I've known many people (including my MIL) who taught religious education in various denominations that couldn't find the book of Psalms. So this means nothing to me. I've seen Sunday school teachers (and Pastors for that matter) run off with the church piano player. Again, they really have no understanding only head knowledge. Big deal. Those are not the ones I would follow. The ones I follow are the ones I see following Christ. I have such people in my life today and it helps me tremendously. Paul said follow me as I follow Christ. We need to do that as well. Find a strong spiritual influence, one that SHOWS not by outward strutting but a quite example of Christ like behavior. That was the very purpose of the church...one to glorify God and the other to edify and encourage the body.

I said you don't understand the wording because you told me it was literal. Jesus wants us to cut out our eyes if we look at someone of the opposite sex, or our hand if we use it inappropriately.

but what you DON'T acknowledge is how you came to that conclusion


But I have repeatedly, I come to that conclusion by other scripture and putting it all together.

You aren't talking to an Atheist, or someone who hasn't had any religious experience.


I know that and I think God is doing a work in you even now. He's not done with you yet tho. So don't get too complacent.

but your interpretation of what the Bible says will never, ever be inerrant


I've been saying that all along Baker. I've never said I was inerrant. Never. Have you ever heard the principle of .....one interpretation, many applications?

I differ with what you believe God is saying, you just believe that since God appears to be saying what you believe,


That's ok...........and no I've had to readjust my thinking to get in line with God's word. So that's not true.

That's exactly what those Catholics believed


comparing little ol' me with a big powerful institution is not even close. God always went with the little guy and the ordinary not the mighty and powerful. If you get too big for your britches God can't use you. He needs someone that is available and ready to listen.

Reply #145 from JoeUser Forums Top
KFC, you are one of the most unappealing ambassadors for religion that I've ever encountered.
Reply #146 from JoeUser Forums Top
KFC, you are one of the most unappealing ambassadors for religion that I've ever encountered.


why is that?
Reply #147 from JoeUser Forums Top
" said you don't understand the wording because you told me it was literal. Jesus wants us to cut out our eyes if we look at someone of the opposite sex, or our hand if we use it inappropriately. "


I DEFY you to show me where I said that parable was literal. What I said was:

"So, I can't see how you can say that denying the creation story of Genesis as literal has anything to do with denying God or God's word. I'm just coming to a different conclusion than you, with no less proof than you have. Are you denying God's word when you decide that Jesus didn't really intend for you to pluck out your eye or lop off your hand? "


I never said He wanted you yank out your eyeball, but at some point people decided that he didn't REALLY mean for them to do that. It wasn't because he told them not to read it that way, they DECIDED to read it that way. When people DECIDE to read parts differently, and you differ with their decision, they are denying the truth of God's word.

Don't you see how that is a tad hypocritical? There's no equation for deciding what is literal and what is figurative. There are no rules that I have ever seen to use to make that decision. The existence of untold numbers of Christian, Protestant denominations should tell you that everyone interprets things differently.

I just want to know why it is okay to do that in some spots, and not okay to do it in others. If you look at attitudes over the centuries, you'll see that your personal flavor of Christianity is totally due to someone deciding that they'd interpret particular scriptures differently than the rest of the crowd. At one time they were deemed to be rejecting God's word.

So, don't you feel just slightly odd when make the same declarations that led to dire mistakes and divisions in the past? The arguments you are making here are not so different than the ones that they beat Galileo about the head and shoulders with. That doesn't feel the least bit uncertain to you? Well, it probably didn't to them, either.

Here's the bottom line.

  • If evolution IS false, it doesn't prove that creationism is true. It's quite possible that both are wrong. So disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism.
  • The demands for proof you put on the theory of evolution bite back every time you use them.

    • You can't answer the "Were you there" question any more than proponents of evolution. A book written and translated by people you can't vouch for isn't any more proof than books by people I can't vouch for. The difference is that belief in the veracity of science can at least be tested. Sure, both are belief, both require faith, but science isn't any more religion than history or any other field.

    • You demand fossils and can't provide any yourself. You point to the lack of transitional fossils, and at the same time ignore the fact that there are no human fossils alongside trilobytes and ancient cities with dinosaur bones in the fire from dinner. There are bones of creatures we expect to be there, and there are fossils of creatures we expect at the levels we expect them. Science is about using what you know to make predictions. Your belief predicts humans living right alongside every species that ever lived, and we just don't see that in the fossil record. Why?

  • By building these layers of claims that are eventually defeated, like the long list of things even Mr. Ham doesn't agree with now, you build yourself a body of evidence against the reliablility of your science. Every time you make new obstacles for people to accept your other arguments. Do you think that the defeat of evolution is worth creating MORE disbelief in God? Do you think that the witness such misreprentations bears will bring more people to God, or create more reasons for them to dismiss Christianity?


Don't take offense at the things I am saying, but look at it as objectively as you can. I am usually out there butting heads with bigoted secularists and hateful ANTI-creationists. Every false claim and misrepresentation you and folks like you propose is one that I get thrown in my face. Can you see how it would be annoying for me to try to plead your case when folks are still out there acting purposely ignorant and telling lies?

Do I sound like a flat earther to you? I've been called that. I'm lumped right in with people that they deem are too stupid to believe in gravity, while at the same time you're telling me I lack understanding. You have no idea how annoying it is to try and put forth the fact that science doesn't have anything to fear from creationists when they are right there handing bigots the proof while I am saying it.
Reply #148 from JoeUser Forums Top
If evolution IS false, it doesn't prove that creationism is true. It's quite possible that both are wrong. So disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism.

I agree with this one 100% and will add that proving macroevolution to be true doesn't disprove creation either. The fact is they aren't really mutually exclusive.

You demand fossils and can't provide any yourself. You point to the lack of transitional fossils, and at the same time ignore the fact that there are no human fossils alongside trilobytes and ancient cities with dinosaur bones in the fire from dinner. There are bones of creatures we expect to be there, and there are fossils of creatures we expect at the levels we expect them. Science is about using what you know to make predictions. Your belief predicts humans living right alongside every species that ever lived, and we just don't see that in the fossil record. Why?


Some excellent points here. Personally, I don't believe dinosaurs and people lived on the planet at the same time (but then I don't see Genesis as literal either), but I do sometimes wonder about certain things like the dragon myths common to almost all peoples. Maybe some species did survive for a while into the time of Man?

Ah well, we may never in our lifetimes learn the truth of whether Creation, Evolution, some mixture of the two, or something else entirely is responsible for life on our little planet, but it's an interesting debate just the same.
Reply #149 from JoeUser Forums Top
" agree with this one 100% and will add that proving macroevolution to be true doesn't disprove creation either. The fact is they aren't really mutually exclusive."


I agree in terms of philosophy, but not science. If everything supposed was true until it was proven untrue then bigfoot, aliens, etc., would be taught in science class. Anyone who scoffed would be met with "Oh yeah, well prove bigfoot DOESN'T exist..."

"Some excellent points here. Personally, I don't believe dinosaurs and people lived on the planet at the same time (but then I don't see Genesis as literal either), but I do sometimes wonder about certain things like the dragon myths common to almost all peoples. Maybe some species did survive for a while into the time of Man? "


Oh, you'll not catch me subscribing 100% to the current accepted theories either, nor does science agree 100%. I think it is sad that people who differ with totally random evolution are branded creationists. The sad part is that creationists have helped that along by hijacking "Intelligent Design" for themselves. It makes it easier for stolid Darwinists to dismiss people who differ with them because everyone now seems to agree that "Intelligence" can only be God.
Reply #150 from JoeUser Forums Top
I DEFY you to show me where I said that parable was literal. What I said was:


Are you denying God's word when you decide that Jesus didn't really intend for you to pluck out your eye or lop off your hand? "


This is what I thought you were saying....that it was literal and that I was denying it to be so.

When people DECIDE to read parts differently, and you differ with their decision, they are denying the truth of God's word.Don't you see how that is a tad hypocritical? There's no equation for deciding what is literal and what is figurative. There are no rules that I have ever seen to use to make that decision. The existence of untold numbers of Christian, Protestant denominations should tell you that everyone interprets things differently.


there is one interpretation but many applications. As far as all the different groups? I've been in many of them over the years. I tend to be evangelical and reformed. So I would be ok in any denomination that the center of it is the whole counsel of God. Doesn't matter if they are Independent, Baptist, Congo, Calvery, Nazerene, or Presbyterian, etc. Most of what used to be good churches have lost their way. They are more about feeling good and tickling ears than they are about truth telling. Most of the ones I've left are because they are following a particular doctrine and throwing out anything that will contadict their line of thought.

Don't take offense at the things I am saying, but look at it as objectively as you can


and I would say the same to you because that's really where it's at. We need to put away our biases and opinions and be open to the truth. Reason together. Agree absoultuely here. I'm with ya on this.

Can you see how it would be annoying for me to try to plead your case when folks are still out there acting purposely ignorant and telling lies?


Yes, absoultuely. I think many Christians are ill informed. Most have no idea but are just parroting what their uncle Billy told them. But also there are evolutionists out there doing the same thing. Works both ways.

while at the same time you're telling me I lack understanding


no, I didn't mean that generally just on that particular verse we were talking about...but now you are telling me that you're not about to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand so I can feel good about that. I really didn't want you to take that literally...whew!!!

Since I'm out of time for now, I would like to respond later to the claim of dinos living or not living with humans bit here.