omega2xx

Remember evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Evolution is not a change in allele, it is a change in a species. The offspring can't receive a trait if its parents do not have the gene for that trait. Traits can and do come and go depending on which genes in the parents gene pool are dominant or recessive, but never causes a change in the species. For example pakicetus did not have the gene for fins. You can't explain how the legs of a land animal became the fins of a sea animal or the nose of a land animal became the blowhole of a sea animal, even if you had a gazillion years. That is genetically impossible. Which happens every time a new member is born. Changes do happen but only in traits, not in a species and you can't give one example of how it would be possible. You've likely confused evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. Actually "common descent" refutes evolution which requires uncommon descent. Common descent actually reinforces "after their kind." But as you know, even honest creationists admit a limited amount of common descent. Yes some do, but it is because anyone educated or maybe uneducated in the public school system has been indoctrinated with only one view, which is evolution as science from about the 6th grade and they have not looked at the real science needed to cause a species to evolve into a different species. Keep in mind that time will not change proven genetic truths. Nothing can add to the gene pool of a species. Peace and joy

Definitions are not evidence. Examples of HOW it is possible and the scientific evidence that caused it to happen must be included.

Evolution has never been observed to have happened, Can you give even one example and the scientific evidence that allowed it to happen? It is not sufficient to admit something, It is also necessary to provide examples and the science that allowed it to happen.

The Bible uses the Ancient Hebrew word eretz for land. Eretz can mean the entire earth, but more frequently refers to a large region. If eretz is referring to a region, then that just means that the mountains in that region were flooded. defining eretz as as a large area when it can also mean just "the earth" is not reliable unless you have some evidence it was limited to that definition in the verse(Gen 7:17). Also Gen 7:20 takes "earth" out of consideratiion. Here "mountains must be considered to properly understand what happened. The animals the fossils came from were not buried there, even scientists from YEC organizations agree with this. Large-scale changes in the geology of the planet led to fossils at mountain tops. The only questions is how long it took for these geological changes to occur. Scientific evidence suggests that changes on this scale take millions of years. Again you are lacking in evidence. What evidence do they have that indicates these fossils were moved to mountain tops. The amount of time it took, which also can't be proved, is irrelevant. Scientific evidence says this is because the continent became isolated when mammals were still relatively new and were all marsupials. A life-destroying global flood would require that only marsupials somehow traveled to Australia and over some sort of land bridge that is no longer present (and hasn Of course Australia became isolated, but there is no evidence when that happened. When all of the animals embarked, there is no evidence where they migrated to, and it is possible that the animals now in Australia migrated there, then Australia became isolated.

The problem with that is that speciation does not result a new species. The inability to mate doesn't make a new species. Also in the only 2 studies I am aware of, salamanders and gulls, the salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls. One studied classified the salamanders as a sub species, Also, it is impossible to study all populations of salamanders, so they can't tell what happened in those groups.

our photogeneteic tree o life is not verifiable evidence. To be acceptable, it must include the how it happened. How can parents with no gene for a trait produce kids with the traits necessary to become a different species? Case in point, how can a land animal(pakicetus) produce a kid with fins, when it did not have the gene for fins? The usual answer is "mutations" However a mutated cat is still a cat. Peace and joy

Of course it is possible that God did flood the entire earth. But the language of the Bible isn’t clear on this point. Since the evidence in the fossil record, geology, and current biogeography suggest the flood was not global, it seems a reasonable interpretation. The Bible is very clear on this point. Gen 7:20; Surely if the highest mo0untains were covered By 23 feet, all of he land lower than that would be Covered. Since the fossils of sea life has been found on mountain tops, some geology certainly suggest there was a global flood. What current biography suggest there was no global flood? Peace and joy

The O.T. stated the idea of the Big Bang before science did. Where? The main problem about the BB is that they never explain the source of the matter that went bang, they never explain the source of the energy needed to make it go bang and they never explain how life began from dead elements. Peace and joy

I don;'t know if dhChristian would be interested, but I would. Peach and joy

You are right that Cain and Able came after the garden, but there is no indication that Adam and Ever had children before Cain and Able. Point #1. for if man evolved then you're saying that God evolved. for man was made in God image. "Create" and the word mean out of nothing, eliminates the idea of evolving. To evolve it is necessary to have something from which to evolve. Point #2. man was made before all the animals was brought forth. for man was made on DAY 3. you gave the correct scripture, Not true. "Let us make", not create is in the future tense, not the present tense. Also notice that in Gen 1:27 "likeness" is omitted. "Image" refers to man's invisible attributes, intellect, love, compassion, etc. Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." This was after the Garden of Eden had been made so God would have a place for man to live in. Gen 2:7). the first man God made was a "DEAD" man, hence the breath of life to enter. Adam was born spiritually dead, not physically dead. So in a sense thag is right. However it is necessary to have the indwelling Spirit to have real life(2 Cor 3:6). You are right that Cain and Able came after the garden, but there is no indication that Adam and Ever had children before Cain and Able. Peace and joy

A vivid imagination is a good thing, but verifiable evidence is need to convince others what is imagined is valid. peace and joy

If you can't be sure of all of it, how can you be sure of any of it? Peace and joy

I have not read through all of the posts in this thread, but I am going to assume you do not believe in a global flood, That is an understanding belief, but with an omnipotent God, nothing is impossible. Also consider that it was more than 40 days and nights of rain. The fountains of the great deep burst open(Gen 7:11). I assume this refers to the underground waters that feed the rivers. These rivers flow continually with great amounts of water. Also the flood gates of the sky were opened. There is a theory that before the flood a vapor canopy covered the earth. This is based on the idea that this canopy kept teh harmful rays of the sun from harming man. That is one reason they lived so long. Right after the flood the age of man started reducing If you can;t rely on the "other stuff" to be true, how can you rely on what it says about faith, salvation and spiritual growth? Without being omniscient it is illogical to believer and not others. Faith in God does not require us to experience anything He says. Christianity is faith based, not experience based. And without faith it is impossible to please Him,God(Heb 11:6).... Peace and joy

Thank you for you kind welcome and the information on God's names. I agree with all of it, but I dislike translating one of His names as "I will be who I will be." God has been who He is before the beginning of time. He is the same yesterday, today and forever(Heb 13:8) Of course He may be reassuring us that we can rely on what He says he is to mankind. Peace and joy

I have been studying for myself for over 40 years. I am not saying that makes me right, but I have done my homework. You are right that we learn day by day and I am sure you agree will will never know it all in this life. Peace and joy

"Thank you for the kind words and well-meant advice. However, there is abundant and substantial scientific evidence for evolution. I would be willing to have a peaceful discussion about the evidence, if you wish." I am willing. Let's start with the evidence for any doctrine of evolution you choose. Keep in mind that real scientific evidence can be repeated and observed, like "after their kind." can be. The progeny being slightly different is the result of which genes in the gene pool of the parents are dominant and which are recessive. This results in different skin color, eye color, etc., but never results in a change of species. Actually speciation does not change the species. The inability go reproduce does not result in a new species. The salamanders remained salamanders, and the gulls remained gulls. Those are the only 2 studies I am familiar with. Also every population of salamanders can't be studied, and reliable conclusion can't be guaranteed with such a limited population. "There is no Biblical reason to reject that "kinds" could not change over time. " Let's stick to science instead of the Bible, which has almost no science to speak of. There is no scientific evidence to support a kind has ever evolved into a different kind. If there is, now would be a good time to present it. Why do you think "after their kind" does not refute evolution? Peace and joy

I have not yet figured out how to distinguish your remarks from mind, so I have put yours in quotes. " As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing‑ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the "big bang" theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence." The BB theory has not been verified by any concrete scientific evidence. In fact many evolution scientist are starting o question if it ever happened. One main problem for the theory is that it offers no evidence for the source of the matter that went bang and no explanation for the energy that caused the bang. Its biggest problem is explaining how liff originated from lifeless elements. "If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man." God created" tells us that what happened in Genesis was not a restoration. Man's free will has nothing to do with the creation of man and the Bible clearly refutes man coming into existence by natural progressive means. Being made, not created from dust is not the natural progression for life to start naturally. "It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167" Man was created intelligent. That was the "image" we see in Gen 1:27. Also Cain's sons developed music and metallurgy. "Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries!" Cain's wife was one of his sisters. There is no Biblical evidence for contemporaries. "If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit." The Bible refutes those comments and why should we believe you instead of God? Peace and joy

I am glad you accept Adam and Eve as literal persons. There is no reason not to. Let me give you one bone to chew on---there is no scientific evidence for evolution. "After the kind" is proved thousands of times every day and that scientific proven truth, refutes evolution. Peace and joy

I am late to the dance but maybe not to late. Spiritual concepts can't be proved. The must be accepted by faith alone. Nothing in the Bible can be disproved. That belief must also be accepted by faith alone. I can prove more from the Bible than you can disprove. Peace and joy .

I am an ultra conservative Presbyterian(PCA) Bible thumber. I believe even the jots and titles were inspired by God, there are no errors or contradictions in the Bible, and all doctrines must be supported by Scripture from a reliable translation. I use the New American Standard translation. Thanks for the welcome

Thank you for you welcome. I hope we can have some fruitful discussions. Let me suggest that Jehovah is not a mistranslation. Surely the scholars who translate the Hebrew into English know the Hebrew word is not literally Jehovah. They use "Jehovah" to give those who study the Bible a way to pronounce a word that cant be pronounced in English. In the final analysis, the word used is not that important. What is important is what the word says about God. I said "Elohim" emphasis God's love and Jehovah reveals God's as truth and emphasizes God's laws. Actually both put us under the law and both love us. The first commandment in the Bible is from the LORD God. WE put our children under our laws of don't play in the street, eat your vegetables, don;'t do drugs, etc., out of love. One thing believers in Jewish theology or Christian theology is that God never stops loving us no matter how sinful we might become. He even loves those who do not believe in Him. Isa 53:10 - It was Jehovah who sent Jesus to he cross to die for man's sins. Thanks again for you welcome. Peace my friend.

4 times in the OT Jesus is call ed "the branch which can be linked to the 4 gospels and are the same as the faces on the faces of the Cheribum in Ezekiel. In Jer 23:5 the Branch will be a righteous King. This points to the gospel of Matthew. In Zech 3:8 - the Branch will be God's Servant. This points to the gospel of Mark. In Zech 6:12 the Branch will be a man. This points to the gospel of Luke. In Isa 4:2 the Branch will be beautiful and glorious. While it is not a clear cut as the other references., it seems likely this is a reference to Christ, who is God and this points to the gospel of John.

Sooner or later a Sunday School Teacher will have a study called "The names of God." They will use a study of El Shaddai, El Nisse. etc. While such studies are interesting and useful, those are not names of 'God, they are some of His attributes. God has 3 basic names. God, which is Elohim, LORD in all caps, which is Jehovah and Lord, which is Adonai. Elohim comes from a word that means "to swear." From this name we see God's covenant relationship with man. This name emphasis His love for man. Elohim is a singular noun with a plural ending. This name contains the mystery of the Trinity. When you see LORD all in caps, it is Jehovah. This name comes from the verb "to be", and means "one who is what He is,." It was translated to Moses as "I am that I am. Jehovah reveals "God as truth. It shows One who being love is also righteous and holy and therefore must judge evil. It is also "God's memorial name. When we see Jehovah in the Bible, the emphasis is on the law. When we see Lord, it is Adonai and means "master," and expresses a personal relationship between God and man. Adonai is the plural of "Adon and also contains the mystery of the Trinity.