thilipsis

I don't even think you are a Creationist, I've seen this before and it's always the same. Its all just a game to you, one long ad hominem attack driving the discussion from anything remotely Scriptural or scientific. Some call that trolling, none call it science.

Which is a statement directed toward me personally and not based on anything substantive. A classic ad hominem fallacy. You have to actually relate an actual statement to the illogical framework that makes the argument a fallacy. What I said was that what is referred to as 'the theory of evolution' is Darwinism. Once in a while you might try relating what I say to the scathing indictments you write. The Modern Synthesis, aka Neodarwinism. You say I'm begging the question of proof. Dobzhansky and Mayr were the architects of the Modern Synthesis. What was being synthesized was the emerging science of genetics and Darwinism. Frequencies come down to traits that emerge from dominant and recessive traits in normal Mendelian genetics. I would elaborate but you would just ignore it. You have done nothing but attack me personally, this has been on long cut and paste of quote mining and biting personal remarks that never address what I actually have to say. You mean to tell me that you don't consider Principia to be scientific? Wow... First of all I was talking about the principles of motion and the Scientific Revolution. I don't know what this is and I'm really starting not to care. Ok that's enough, the formatting alone is enough to bore me to tears but your obviously making this one big fallacious mess. Nothing you have said has been directed at anything substantive I've been saying. You come up with some random quotes, play with the formatting and make a lot of biting personal remarks. I've seen it too many times to count, when you have nothing but ad hominem arguments it's because you have nothing left. Thanks for the exchange but I'm thinking it's the last time we have one. I was fishing the boards for a discussion of Creationism, I honestly don't think you would be interested. Grace and peace, Mark

This is the quote: Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. (John 6:26) This is the context, Jesus had just fed the 5000: After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself. (John 6:14) That evening the disciples get into a boat and cross the Sea of Galilee, Jesus went to a mountain and joined them later, his famous walk on the water. The people who wanted to make him king by force followed and found him, but Jesus explained, using the example of the manna from heaven, that he was the bread of life that came from heaven. It's all in John 6 which is why I suggested you read the verse in context. My point was that politics are secondary to Christians since we have our Sovereign King, Jesus was confronted with various segments of society including political factions. Jesus never submitted to them nor should we. Yes, the topic is the intolerant way people in our political system treat one another. Even though I'm pretty much a Democrat I'm aware of the animosity coming from the far left and even from those who might be more moderate, case in point. I have always considered myself something of a moderate so that influence on politics is of great interest to me. Rick Bayan wrote this in his blog: Righty: The Republican Party is far from perfect, but who else will defend our nation against Islamic terrorists, atheists, Communists, abortionists, antiwar traitors, militant minorities, gays and Barack Hussein Obama? Lefty: The Democratic Party is far from perfect, but who else will defend our nation against greedy capitalists, warmongers, gun nuts, pro-lifers, despoilers of the environment, fundamentalist Christian fanatics and Sarah Palin? (Political Parties|The New Moderate) Notice the inclusion on the 'Lefty' side of, 'fundamentalist Christian fanatics', I'm a fundamentalist Christian and I really don't appreciate being considered a fanatic because of my religious persuasion especially since I've been a life long Democrat. What bothers me the most is the fact that religion and politics should have very little to do with one another since the First Amendment prohibits any governmental control of religion and any religious control of government. Yet it's a big political issue. Even though religion should be a matter of conviction with no political bearing Rick Bayan describes the attitude of the left like this: Lefty: The pathetic fools who believe their holy scriptures to the letter are not simply ignorant and deluded; they’re belligerent fanatics who would kill us to save our souls. Save us from what? From the eternal torments promised in their scriptures to all unbelievers. If the scriptures are full of human errors and embellishments, as they obviously are, then nothing in them is believable and the entire faith must collapse like a house of cards. If the scriptures are false, then God is a myth. Surely we’ve progressed far enough over the past few thousand years to abandon those patriarchal Middle Eastern faiths that have existed primarily to perpetuate fairy tales, subjugate their believers and keep them in a state of abject guilt simply for being human. Let’s get real: God is a human fabrication and his devout followers (like Righty) are a menace. Belief in God and the supernatural has no place in an enlightened society, and it must be eradicated before it destroys us. (God|The New Moderate) This is what so many people in my own party think of my religion and frankly it's depressing. What on earth could my religious views have to do with my political choices that would invoke such animosity from the party I have remained so loyal to all this time. I want to get into this in more depth but I don't want to bog the thread down before I express what I think the Christian view of politics should be, or at least how it happens for me. Just understand, I'm further left politically then I ever could be religiously. I'm appalled at Liberal Theology and think it's based on simple unbelief. My biggest problem here is I'm wondering why this animosity toward religion is even doing in our political system. At the same time I have serious problems with the GOP and it's fiscal policies I see as dangerous. My President, Democrat or Republican is subordinate to God whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, whether they want to admit it or not. Bottom line, I don't think either party would support Jesus as a candidate and I think there is ample historical reason to conclude we will not find a safe haven in either political party. Our faith is in Christ, not worldly political systems. Grace and peace, Mark

No they wanted to make him king because they ate and were full. I was inferring some things from Scripture that are not readily applicable to the divisions between liberal and conservative ideology.

You might want to look this one up and read it in context: Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. (John 6:26) Have a good safe trip.

Reading your post I was thinking about Jesus in Galilee, he just feed the 5,000 and they decide to make him king, the implication is they aren't asking nicely. He demands that they believe in him, that they only want him to be king because their bellies were full, he demanded faith and many of them would not follow him anymore, that had to hurt. If you remember the Exodus they called the bread of heaven, manna, worthless so he gave them all they could eat and they were getting ever closer to the promised land but in their hearts they turned back to Egypt and rose up and worshiped a golden calf. Moses was constantly complaining they were a bunch of stiff necked and rebellious people. When it came time they not only failed to believe Joshua and Caleb that God would drive their enemies out they were going to kill Joshua and Caleb. Since then we have seen the rise of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformation fighting the Thirty Years war and a terrible civil war in England. In the wake of this tremendous political upheaval William and Mary signed the eight charters the would grow to become the thirteen colonies. Before and after the Revolution there were two profoundly Christian movements, the Great Awakening 1 and 2, a revival that sandwiched the American War of Independence. This movement was started when Johnathan Edwards preached a sermon, Sinners in the hands of an Angry God where he described the Church as crossing a rickety bridge and below was lava, fire and smoke. The very definition of a fire and brimstone sermon. John Wesley would go on to preach as London was being over run with the poor and desperately poor telling Christians we have a greater duty then church attendance, we were called to have a burden for the poor and the Methodist/Wesleyan movement was born. Wesley also preached compassion for the rich and powerful and was one of the key people involved in the Bloodless Revolution. I actually have a point, not meaning to sermonize. Christians have been involved in all kinds of political issues but our power comes from the grace that saves us. Aligning ourselves with either party isn't how Christian influence is really supposed to be brought to bear and worldly governance. If we do not respond to the promises of God with repentance and faith any political influence we might have is worse then useless. I saw the Culture War unfold and apparently the issues of abortion, same sex activism and Creationism that were key issues have resulted in the Church being alienated from the portals of political power. The fault is in ourselves, not the political parties be they conservative or liberal. We know how this ends, the world is at enmity with God because of sin and if we are lured into worldly thinking we are simply part of the problem. Pilate was desperate to free Jesus but he was told in no uncertain terms that he wasn't in charge of the situation. We will continue to struggle against the powers and principalities as we take a stand on the Gospel of peace and if we fail to do this, if we leave our first love, if we manage to convince ourselves we are rich and in need of nothing then we will fall. I'm going to get off my soapbox now and leave you with one final thought. The Most High is Sovereign and rules in the affairs of men. Grace and peace, Mark

Been reading through the fundamentals of the faith, a four collection of essays defending the Christian Scriptures and core convictions. Its over a hundred years old but looking at what the modern seminaries are teaching apparently warnings of an encroaching liberal theology went unheaded. Its not just politics it's in activists social agenda, legal issues from eugenetics to assisted suicide, even evolution reflects a liberal view of traditional theistic reasoning. That said I'm not sold on a tea party pro status quo hard right either. Like Aristotle said virtue is the balance between two extreme. excess and deficiency.

I didn't like that either, but of course I wouldn't I just happen to be a Democrat. Awfull lot of that going around. It was a bitter campaign with an awfull lot at stake.I liked Pacino's words in Any Given Sunday, we are either going to have to come together as a team or we will die as individuals. I think of all people we as Christians should be peacemakers. For me the rule of thumb is 'liberal' and 'conservative' are a reference to change. The conservative is more of a strict constructionalist where liberals see the Constitution as more elastic and subject to interpretation. I've really always been a moderate and I have never liked having to choose between two extremes. Read an interesting article a while back that described the growing number of moderates and their effect on the outcome of elections. There are way more of them then any third party candidate can rally. Instead of polarizing factions a smart approach would be to speak to the ones who crowd the middle because more and more they will be the deciding votes in our elections. They don't like one party having all the power so watch out in 2018.

Theories abound, I have an old Biology textbook that says it had something to do with iron pyrite. The most popular one is the RNA world, the real challenge though is trying to determine how the amino acids originated. There are sixteen and they have to be in a specific sequence in order to fold into a usable protein. That's why the definition of 'evolution' as distinct from 'the theory of evolution' aka 'Darwinism', is important. Evolution is a phenomenon in nature, readily defined observed and demonstrated. The so called 'theory of evolution' is little more then a naturalistic assumption applied to all life throughout all time. DARRELX doesn't like to get down to specifics, that's why the conversation got derailed. Just like stem cells they would have to differentiate. The primordial single cell life would have had a pretty short genome and no nucleus. What would be required is molecular mechanisms capable of building and editing stands of DNA so that to can differentiate in protein coding and regulatory genes. After that organelles like mitochondria, ribosomes, Golgi apparatus and at some point there as to be a nucleus with pores that control traffic like a security guard, there are also ports on the outer wall of the cells that are highly specified. These are things all needed to become a population of Eukaryote cells before they organize into multicellular creatures. Then there is the problem of plants which use photosynthesis to power it's cellular functions instead of mitochondria. You see, finding the problem with evolution as natural history is easy enough. You just need to know a little something about biology. What I have done over the years is study comparative genomics, particularly brain related genes. Just like with Eukaryote cell information when you know the difference between human and chimpanzee DNA, you can establish the burden of proof for Darwinians. You can't get into the specifics without a basic understanding of genetics. There is a reason evolution was defined in terms of population genetics, the Mendelian laws of inheritance track changes in traits (alleles) that way. It's the only way science has ever seen it done. When I went to find Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box I had to ask the clerk. Turns out it was in the biology section, I chuckled about that all the way home, of course that's were it would be. Intelligent design proponents simply review biology and apply certain principles to determine intelligent design. Creationists are a little different since we have biblical, doctrinal and theological reasons as well. What invariably happens with the Darwinians is they eventually have nothing but biting personal remarks. That's when you know you have them, it starts with an equivocation of the phenomenon of evolution with Darwins theory of natural history, wrongly called selection. Then it ends with ad hominem fallacious rhetoric that drives the conversation further and further away from scientific fact, theory and laws of science like Mendelian genetics. Learn the rules of science and Darwinism can be dismissed as deductive logic from a priori assumptions that are contrary to science. Science is inductive, until we establish a few rules of reason they get to run us in circles endlessly. Grace and peace, Mark

I assure you I am being very serious and aside from some dramatic rhetoric no serious questions have been posed. The truth is you can't dismiss evolution as a phenomenon in nature, arctic wild life for example. The arctic cod for example, has a brand new (de novo) gene, co-evolved at least four times. It produces an antifreeze gene they need to live in the frigid waters of the arctic. Now this creates no special problems for me as a Creationist since I simply regard this as define providence, God provided for adaptive evolution. Let us not rush ahead of ourselves and dismiss evolution before we actually define what it is we are talking about. That's how evolutionists do it, they get you to argue against evolution when what is really at issue is the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians. It wouldn't be that bad if not for the fact that creationists tend to go for that equivocation fallacy hook, line and sinker. The adaptive evolution of a protein coding gene with simple repeats and the de novo emergence of 60 brain related genes in the human genome since the supposed split isn't the same thing at all.

I keep running into turn the other cheek, so if someone smacks you, your supposed to let them smack the other side. Well that is what it says but there was a rule in court, if you stole something and you were at trail and lied someone who was a witness could smack you and then tell the court the truth. Jesus demonstrated how this works, at his trial he basically told them that he was the long awaited Messiah, the Son of God. Well this slave steps up and smacks him. Jesus says, if I spoke falsely then bear witness, otherwise, why did you strike me. I think it means keep telling the truth no matter how many times they call you a liar. Sometimes it takes a little digging to get at what a passage is telling us.

James is, arguably, not the best writer in the New Testament. I think he is struggling with the conduct of Jewish Christians so very early in the formation of the church. A couple of points worth mentioning. James was the surviving brother of Jesus so he was a son of David as well, in the mind of these Hebrews he would have been seen as royalty. When writing to these guys, who we dare not judge too harshly, he describes the Royal Law: If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. (James 2:8) If I were the king and I died the next logical person to take the throne would be either my oldest son or my next oldest brother. Well, I think they kind of looked at James that way, of course they knew Jesus was still the rightful heir to the throne but still saw James as being from the Messianic line. He presided over the Jerusalem Council, it was James that proposed that Paul write the letter we now know as Galatians. James was one of the first leaders of the Church Paul met with three years after conversion: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. (Gal. 1:18) Ok, he was not a great writer but like Jude he wrote a timely admonition at a time when the Church was struggling with some things. I still think if we were going to have to determine the best writer in the New Testament it would be a toss up between Paul and John. Paul went on and on and John had a tendency to talk in generalities, emphasizing personal dialogue. For some pretty straight forward, bare bones, get right to the point admonition James is hard to beat. Grace and peace, Mark

Well your argument is an obviously ad hominem and it's what you resort to when you have nothing else. Scathing personal arguments are not substantive, they are illogical melodrama. Differentiating between the phenomenon in nature known as 'evolution' and Darwinian naturalistic evolution also known as the 'theory' of evolution are two different things passed off as if they were the same thing which is an equivocation fallacy. If you want to define, 'evolution' then be my quest but I'm not chasing this around the mulberry bush. You fail to see that during the Modern Synthesis Darwinism and Mendelian Genetics were blended. That's why evolution in this day and age reflects population genetics, which is statistical variance, which is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Your too busy attacking the person to focus on the substantive aspects of these issues. From your link that you didn't bother to quote or discuss: For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter. (Equivocation Fallacy) Evolution is not one thing but two, it's the change of allele frequencies in populations over time and it's the Darwinian philosophy of natural history that presupposes universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes. No the biggest problem is that you like correcting things that are not errors without pertaining those random corrections to anything substantive. Science, as we have come to understand it today, was a product of the Scientific Revolution. It was an inductive approach that was the inverse of the Medieval Aristotelian deductive logic. With the advent of tools, mental and physical, like the Y squared and the telescope a new approach was forged. Newton sent his Experimentum Crucis, which was a serious of demonstrations, published and submitted to the Royal Society in London. If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment-the experiment crucis-where found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory. (Isaac Newton, The Last Sorcerer, by Michael White) It was attempted to argue from a priori deductive logic but Newton argued that since he had demonstrated the principle it could only be disproven through demonstration. This silenced his critics, science has held to that standard ever since. Newton, once in a coffee shop challenged his colleagues with a wager over the Y2 in motion. He said a comet will appear in the eastern sky in May, if they could calculate when it will appear in the western sky on it's return trip he would give them an uncut (brand new) book on astronomy worth over 700 pounds. They couldn't do it so very politely one of them asked if he had calculated it. He said, 'yes, of course', so he asks to see the calculations and Newton agreed to try to find them. When he was unable to do so he reproduced the calculations and as a result he ended up writing Principia, this was the first application of an emerging math we now know as calculus. In Principia Newton describes the rules of science: Admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances, To the same natural effect, assign the same causes, Qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and Propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena. (Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning from Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton) We learned that science is a process where you test hypothesis, frame a theory explaining the data and when the principle is sufficiently universal it's determined to be a law of science. To date, the only scientific laws governing evolution are the Mendelian laws of heredity which propelled Genetics ahead by leaps and bounds over the hundred years from Chromosome theory to the unveiling of the Initial Sequence of the Human Genome: The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century1, 2, 3 sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same. The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial Sequence of the Human Genome, Nature Feb. 2001) You see, l do know what a theory is and this is getting tedious. I'm well read on the subject of comparative genomics, especially the DNA of chimpanzees and humans. I have a special interest in human brain evolution and if you would like to learn more about that I suggest you start working with me and stop trying to turn this into a contest. That is an interesting question, after looking carefully at the text of Genesis it would appear to be an open question. I would have to answer, perhaps, but there is an alternate reading. God created the, 'heavens and the earth', a Hebrew idiom for the universe. At some time subsequent, perhaps minutes, perhaps billions of years, God started his work of creation on earth that was complete in six literal days. What I think is going on is that the radiometric dating in geology is getting samples from fossil beds that are showing indications of old age, the fossils are becoming mineralized from elements that may well be very old but it is useless to determine the age of the fossils. Don't get me wrong, radiometric dating is quite useful, it can be highly useful when examining archaeology evidence. I found a study of the ashes at Ai where the city was destroyed by fire around the time of the Joshua conquest. The date was hard to determine because ash isn't your best source for radiometric dating but the date is very close to the Biblical timeline. Now I intend to keep my word, if you want me to make an argument for Darwinian evolution I can do that. But we are not going to get anywhere simply exchanging biting personal remarks. They had me on the ropes and I was even willing to rearrange some of my theology to accommodate Darwinian evolution right up until the publication of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. To date I have not been able to find an evolutionist that has an answer for the indels (insertions/deletions) thought responsible for extremely long divergent strands in the human and chimpanzee genomes respectively. Grace and peace

Yes, grace and peace, God have mercy on me a sinner, judge not lest ye be judged...stop it, STOP IT I SAY!...deep breaths, deeeep breaths...it's going to be ok....

It puzzled me early on that God preferred the poor over the rich, the weak over the strong, the sinner over the religious perfectionist. I still catch myself wondering why Paul when the villains of the Gospels were the Pharisees and then one of them becomes the Apostle to the Gentiles. I sometimes think of the rich man and Lazarus or the rich young ruler who thought he was keeping the Law but was still covetous. It's all over the Old Testament: The Lord stands up to plead and stands to judge the people. The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders and the princes of His people: For you have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What do you mean that you beat My people to pieces and grind the faces of the poor? says the Lord God of Hosts. (Isaiah 3:13-15) God judges us for how we treat others and while we cannot fulfill the Law by our own merits, the tenth commandment, 'Thou shalt not covet' still has an important lesson for us: Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. (Col. 3:5) People don't erect idols of gold and silver and worship them as gods anymore but this description of idolatry has sexual immorality and other things but then at the end it includes greed. I makes me wonder what staring at these idols did for and to those who worshiped them. There is nothing wrong with gold, God paves the streets of the new Jerusalem with the stuff. I just think we have to be careful what we set our hearts on. Looking at a women with lust is really worse then adultery? Well, at least the same thing. The church at Laodicea was an important church in Asian Minor, actually founded and supported the church at Colossi. They had amazing wealth but somehow that made them forget they were poor, pitiful, blind and naked. I sometimes wonder which is worse, losing it all or having it all.

Try Blue Letter Bible and well, some things are not going to translate well. When Jesus asked Peter if Peter loved him and Peter said yes Lord I love you, it's not well known but they are using two different words. Jesus is saying 'agape' and Peter is saying 'phileo'. Jesus is telling Peter that he will pay a price, that means sacrifice. Peter is saying Lord we are friends. Finally Jesus asks if Peter loves him, 'phileo', basically asking him if he is even his friend. Peter then says, I love (agape) you. That doesn't come out in a translation.

Well yea, of course I'm just kidding around but at the same time it just drives me up the wall. Parables are comparisons, visions are highly figurative and when Jesus says I'm the bread of life he's not thinking he is a loaf of bread. I mean come on, it's not that hard guys.

Well yea, you'll either be raptured, running or killed. I mean, if people come to your house in the middle of the night with a guillotine and tell you either worship this statue or that's it for you. I don't really think at that point you need to break out on the number name calculator. Personally I think my only concern is asking them when's the last time you sharpened this thing, cause then it's too easy. Don't even get me started on date setting, what part of no one knows the hour or the day is so hard?

Yea, stop calculating the number of the Beast please. Newsflash, your not going to have any trouble knowing who this guy is. When some lunatic starts an unprecedented rampage decimating and plunging the world into apocalyptic carnage that will be a dead give away. I don't know, maybe the unprecedented blasphemy or the destruction of anything called God might give us a clue.

I'm just saying, if people worked on their cars like they 'interpret' Scripture there would be a spike in people needing public transportation. Don't get me wrong if you want to allegorize a text of Scripture, that's perfectly fine, it's a nice devotional way of reading and applying Scripture. Paint it any color you like, use whatever kind of seat covers appeal to you, play whatever you like on the radio but please don't tinker with the engine if you don't know what your doing. Thanks for letting me vent, l feel much better now.

I don't know of a nice way of saying it but people who think their half baked, or off the wall opinions or simple unbelief, pass muster as a biblical interpretation. The Genesis account of Creation cannot be figurative since it has now figurative language. If you don't believe ok, but please don't call it an interpretation. Song of Songs is this lovely wedding Song written for a young couple in Solomon's court. They sat together at the kings table with Solomon sitting at the head of the table. There is absolutely nothing indicating that the groom is Christ, the bride is the church or that the fruits of the garden are sex. But pick up a hundred commentaries and you will get a hundred different ways to compare the things in Song of Songs to. All of them probably wrong. And oh please stop with the flights of fancy in prophetic literature, I feel like I am going to break out in hives. Danial and the Revelation are by far the easiest books in the bible to do an exposition. With Revelations remember seals Rev 1-7, trumpets Rev 8-14, vials of wrath Rev 18-21. And in Danial it's Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece, Rome. Stop it, STOP IT I SAY! Your driving me crazy with this. My councilors thinks it will help if I learn to control my breathing

In the parallel sermon on mount it says, blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God. Cursed are the rich for they have received their reward. In James 2 and 1 Cor. 11 they are dealing with how the rich treated the poor at the love feasts. James asks if this is saving faith and Paul warns because of this some of you are sick and some of you sleep.

I'm not sure how the formatting on here works so taking this line by line is awkward. I don't know why it seems significant that you 'clobbered' my definition of 'evolution', the change all alleles (traits) in populations over time has worked fine for me for years. Yea, that definition is attributed to Mayr, I fail to see how such a general working definition has any bearing on this. What is more you going through and calling things fallacies and the fact is I haven't really started an argument yet, just making some general comments trying to get a feel for the topic. Let's try this again, there are not one but two definitions for evolution that are passed off as the same thing. The change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. That's about as basic as it gets but when they talk about the 'theory of evolution' it's more of a reference to Darwinism I think is best summed up in this quote: In these works he (Lamarck) upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species. Preface) This comes down to an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. As opposed to how adaptive evolution works as a phenomenon in nature. Nothing is going to be debated here unless we manage to get a handle on the subject matter, defining core terms is pretty foundational. I've spent a lot of time on the subject matter, read a lot about paleontology and comparative genomics. I have long held that the key issues is human evolution in general and the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes specifically. I really don't know what you are trying to do with this but there is really no point in dismissing everything as fallacies or clobbering general working definitions. I'm a Biblical Creationist who happens to think the Genesis account of creation allows for an old earth. God created the 'heavens' and the 'earth' at some time in the past referred to by 'in the beginning'. That could have been just before creation week or billions of years previously. The Genesis account describes the creation of the biosphere being made suitable for life, then the creation of life in general and man in particular about six thousand years ago. If that sounds like that would be of interest to you let me know. Grace and peace

What was that? The working definition I'm using is responded to with some rambling description of Mayr, why? I don't think you wrote most of this, I think you just copy and pasted it and I have to wonder if you read my post because most of what your responding with has little to do with what I said.

I have a little bit of a different view of this. All we know about the original creation, 'the heavens and the earth', is that it was created, 'in the beginning'. So an old earth and old cosmos fits the Biblical scenario. On the other hand I share your skepticism regarding radio metric dating, Mount St. Helen's was tested and a: 'block of dacite from high on the lava dome.. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method.'. (Radio-Dating in Rubble, AIG) These fossil beds are dated using very similar beds and they are invariably going to give late dates. If every living thing was created 6000 years ago and mineralized in an old earth the dating would be unreliable, which is the case with fossils. Now as far as day four when it says God made the sun, moon and stars, the text uses a different word for 'created', 'made' and 'set'. The word translated 'created' is (Strong’s #H1254 בָּרָא bara'), it is used once for the creation of the 'heavens and the earth', a Hebrew idiom for the universe (Gen. 1:1), life in general (Gen. 1:21) and used three times to describe the creation of man (Gen. 1:27). What happened on day four did not directly effect the sun, moon and stars on day four, what God was working on was the atmosphere, called the 'firmament'. And God made (H6213 עָשָׂה `asah), two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (Gen. 1:16) And God set (H5414 נָתַן nathan), them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth (Gen. 1:17). [source: Blue Letter Bible] So either God created the earth and for four days there was no sun, no moon and no stars. Or, God created the entire universe including the earth, sun, moon and stars but the earth was covered with darkness and water. What we are seeing in the passage is the atmosphere, land and sea being prepared for life, this includes clearing the clouds away so that they are visible from the surface of the earth on a regular basis. This interpretation dovetails nicely with the Job and Genesis account of creation as it is described by God himself. I have no reason to compromise with secular science or modern academics, a literal understanding of Genesis 1 makes that impossible anyway. With the genealogies we have an unbroken string of relative dates going from Adam to Christ. In Luke's Gospel account he presents the entire lineage going all the way back to Adam, who he calls, 'son of God', indicating Adam was created and had no earthly parents, thus, the first parent of humanity. According to Paul: Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19). There is plenty of room for skepticism with regards to radiometric dating while maintaining a literal understanding of the Scriptures historical narratives that obviously include Genesis 1. The New Testament witness and a careful exposition with an exegetical treatment of the words used bears this out. Science and Scripture are not in conflict, it's Darwinian naturalistic assumptions that are at the heart of the secular philosophy of natural history. Grace and peace, Mark