Science Disproves Evolution

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not talking about requirements for salvation.

Although you have not outright denied our brotherhood in Christ, you have not admitted it, either. Would you agree that we are brothers in Christ? We may not see eye-to-eye on some things, but we do see eye-to-eye on the saving grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

That's not how it works.  You cannot argue that portions of the account are allegory and other parts are not.   Allegory doesn't operate that way.

You are correct that what I believe could not be categorized as allegory if we use a strict definition. Maybe I should rephrase and say that I affirm Adam and Eve as historical figures, but add that there is a significant amount of figurative language in Genesis 1-3.

[Guest shiloh357]

35 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Although you have not outright denied our brotherhood in Christ, you have not admitted it, either. Would you agree that we are brothers in Christ? We may not see eye-to-eye on some things, but we do see eye-to-eye on the saving grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.

I have never said you were not a Christian and I really don't know.   You seem to put more faith in science when science the Bible don't agree.   You accept the Bible where it suits you, but disbelieve the parts that don't jive with your evolutionary narrative.  Parts of the Bible are tales and myths and allegories when you need them to be.  So, you have a selective acceptance of the Bible.  You treat parts of the Bible as expendable and that is not the fruit of someone who claims to trust the Lord.  

Quote

You are correct that what I believe could not be categorized as allegory if we use a strict definition. 

What you believe isn't allegory at all.  There is no such thing as a 'strict' definition.  It's either allegory or it's not and you have no textual evidence for allegory.   And I don't think you really understand what allegory is or how it is used based on the fact that "allegory"  is just a liberal talking point for explaining away parts of the Bible that liberals don't like.    Everything that they cannot reconcile with their views, they fell they can just brush aside with the "allegory" canard and unfortunately, are never forced to support that claim with textual evidence.

Quote

Maybe I should rephrase and say that I affirm Adam and Eve as historical figures, but add that there is a significant amount of figurative language in Genesis 1-3.

Well, no it is not.  There is some idiomatic language in the description of Satan's punishment, but the presence of figurative device does not mean the text isn't literal history.    The historical account is written as serious history, not a mythological tale.  The sequential method is denoting a historical text.  

"Figurative" doesn't mean, "non-literal."  Figurative devices are employed to help the reader get to the literal meaning, because there is no such thing as a figurative interpretation  and that is true if you are talking about any kind of literature, like the Bible, a newspaper, a biography, etc.   We always seek the literal meaning.   It's only the Bible that people try to foist this notion of a "figurative interpretation.

The other problem is your approach to Adam and Eve as historical doesn't match what the Bible says about their historicity.  You are still having to modify the Bible to make room for your evolutionary narrative, because the Bible can't be right if Adam and Eve were literally the first people on earth and were made from the dust of the earth, separate from the animal kingdom, and made in God's image.  

Edited March 20, 2018 by shiloh357

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Although you have not outright denied our brotherhood in Christ, you have not admitted it, either. Would you agree that we are brothers in Christ? We may not see eye-to-eye on some things, but we do see eye-to-eye on the saving grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.

I have never said you were not a Christian and I really don't know.

Let's try this one more time. This is what the Bible says in Romans 10:

" ⁹ that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. ¹⁰ For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. ¹¹ For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”^{[f] 12} For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. ¹³ For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” "

And this is what the Bible says in Acts 16:

"²⁹ Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. ³⁰ And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

³¹ So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” ³² Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. ³³ And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. ³⁴ Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."

I confess my Lord Jesus quite frequently and I believe in my heart that God raised Him from the dead.

Are we brothers in Christ?

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Let's try this one more time. This is what the Bible says in Romans 10:

" ⁹ that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. ¹⁰ For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. ¹¹ For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”^{[f] 12} For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. ¹³ For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” "

And this is what the Bible says in Acts 16:

"²⁹ Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. ³⁰ And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

³¹ So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” ³² Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. ³³ And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. ³⁴ Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."

I confess my Lord Jesus quite frequently and I believe in my heart that God raised Him from the dead.

Are we brothers in Christ?

If you are saved, then yes. But that is really a distraction.  You can't offer much of any kind of substantive refutation to the substance of my claims, so you try to refute an issue that I never raised.   

What you want to do, since you don't have the ability to refute the points I have raised, is to deflect to an issue I never raised.  I never said that anyone who believes as you do isn't saved.  But that is what you  run to because what you need for me to do is tell you, that you are not saved.   That has never been an issue for me. You are trying to make it an issue so that you can avoid having to address the obvious problems with your approach to the Bible that I did raise. 

The point is that you have an inconsistent, irrational and incoherent theology that is not the fruit of that kind of confession due to the fact that you try to disconnect salvation from Genesis and that when science and the Bible collide, you make the science the infallible standard by which you judge the Bible.   And you can't really defend it, and that is getting more obvious with each post.

You will stand before the Lord and have to sputter up a reason why you attempted to erode faith in what His word says in Genesis.  Saved or not, I would not want to be in your shoes. 

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by shiloh357

[Pahu]

Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways

Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, virtually miraculous, events have happened for each of millions of species (a)?

All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal, if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system (b).

a.    This delicate chemical balance, upon which life depends, was explained to me by biologist Terrence R. Mondy.

b. Behe, pp. 77–97.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, Pahu said:

If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions

This may be a reasonable argument against atheistic evolution, but with God in control, these things are certainly be possible.

[Guest shiloh357]

25 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This may be a reasonable argument against atheistic evolution, but with God in control, these things are certainly be possible.

An all-knowing, all-powerful God would not use such things.

Edited March 24, 2018 by shiloh357

[Pahu]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This may be a reasonable argument against atheistic evolution, but with God in control, these things are certainly be possible.

That is the point. 

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, Yowm said:

It may be 'possible' but it is not what has been revealed in God's Word like a 6 Day creation has. So why go with 'what's possible' and not with 'what has been clearly revealed'?

I believe the Creator has clearly revealed that the earth and universe that He made are far greater than 6,000 years old.

[Guest shiloh357]

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 4:47 PM, one.opinion said:

Quick comment to add here -- an allegorical approach does not mean that none of the account is historical. I believe in a historical Adam and Eve and their union in marriage before God.

The allegorical approach has nothing to do with the account being historical.   Allegory is a teaching tool, not an interpretative method.  No one uses allegory to interpret anything.   People who claim that part or all of a given account in Scripture is allegorical don't really understand how allegory works and it demonstrates that they are simply repeating a liberal talking point and have not really studied out the text.

You believe in a historical Adam and Eve, but you don't accept the biblical account about them, as written.  You have to find a way to re-interpret the text to make Adam and Eve (whose very existence is completely contrary to the evolutionary narrative) fit the way you need them to, so you can pretend you believe what the Bible says.    You claim to believe the Bible, but only in the light of the artificial narrative you have tried to assign to its pages regarding Genesis.