God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dhchristian]

12 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You've been reminded that ancient Christians like St. Augustine demonstrated that the "yom" of the creation story could not represent literal days.   No point in denying the fact.

Augustine is not an apostolic era Christian, for one, For Two he grew up in the North African gnostic schools in Alexandria and Carthage, and therefore has Deist leanings. Some even claim he is a Gnostic heretic, Primarily amongst our Wesleyan Brothers. 

As hard as you scream Augustine, he is the exception, not the rule. And the fact that he is several centuries after the Apostolic church when the church itself is being corrupted should tell you something. So I am not denying the fact, although there is dispute about that fact, but I am denying the relevance of that fact to this discussion on the fact that creationism (6 Day literal creationism) Was the standard view of the culture at the time of Christ therefore any mention of creation in his writings was affirming the genesis account, and not negating it as you claim. You made the asinine claim that creationism is "Modern Invention" Obviously not knowing the real history.

But alas you will not admit your error, just like one opinion because you live in the post modern mindset of self deception and are content being there, as the old saying goes "ignorance is bliss".

26 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Nor did He say that there were six literal days.  If we want to know that, we need to look to the evidence.   Which as you know, shows that they were not literal days.

He Did not have to because that was understood and accepted by the Jewish People as a fact.

 

26 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Most creationists are not deists.    And of course, theistic evolutionists are theists.   Do you have a point?

They call themselves theistic evolution, but all it is. is deism in disguise. I Know, because I was one, until I woke and saw howI was denying Almighty God teaching this.

 

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry, you have that wrong.   St. Augustine, as orthodox a Christian as you could hope for, pointed out that Genesis itself says that there could not be literal days.   However, there have always been dissenters from the prevailing view of Christians, and those dissenters are no less orthodox; the nature of the creation story is not a required doctrine for Christians.    You can hold either view and still be considered an orthodox Christian.

No You can't, God will Judge you, and then it will be too late to find out... Back to St Augustine again. Next thing you know, your revisionist history is going to claim that he believed in evolution.... Here is a direct quote from Augustine himself....

Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.

 https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/augustine-on-the-days-of-creation/

Read the link if you dare?

26 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

80% of rapists come from fatherless homes

Actually, it's 60%.

Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987

You're right, that was a fact in 1987, The source I used was 1978 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless
homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)  

I Had Old data, as do you, I read somewhere the most recent number is 75% and I can't find that article now, The fact being this is significantly higher than the # of rapists that come out of whole family units. The fact that 60 to 80% of rapist come out of this demographic which is approximately 26% of the children in the U.S. is amazing to me, and is not a stat the feminist likes. 

42 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

No, it's not a fact.   It's an error on your part.   You are denying a fact.

Yes,it's an error on my part for not checking the date of my statistics, and posting a more current one up, But as you can see, You made the same error as I am sure this stat is different today.  

You see, it is easy to admit your errors, and is a healthy thing to do. Your errors in this debate are far greater though, as you are rewriting historical facts and saying that YEC is a modern invention, which clearly it is not. You are also making a claim about Augustine that is questionable at best That he supports Old earth, and was some sort of proto evolutionist. Evolution did not come tobe until the 19th century creationism (6 day) has been around for millennia, so you are WRONG.... Come on it is easy to say "I......I am wrong".... But alas the Proud heart gets in the way....  

[dhchristian]

35 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Another Logical fallacy on your part here.

I'm afraid you don't know what a "logical fallacy" is. I made a true statement about historical misinterpretation of the Bible. If I had said "others were wrong in the past, therefore evolution is true", now THAT would be a logical fallacy. 

Historical misinterpretation is one thing, Interpretation comes from man, the Word of God comes from God. He does not lie. He may use an analogy that the culture of the time could understand, But the interpretation of man is not the testimony of God. the error you make is that because one concept is allegorical and another is allegorical, does not mean the third is allegorical. Which is what you presume, and is why you support theistic evolution. I Am saying the six day creation is not allegorical but literal, and that the Apostolic church understood it as such, In Order to Mock Barbarians assertion that creationism is a "modern invention".

 

41 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

There is no way any person with half a brain could make this assertion do, and as is the case with atheists, they Love making this one. Talk about absurd, and not very good science at that.

You are amusing :-) I'll be happy to discuss the scientific evidence for evolution with you, if you are interested.

What's the matter, don't like debating the theological merits of YEC over "Deistic evolution"? The Atheists that I have debated always bring this one up so I already had the comeback for it. The fallacy is known as generalization. It is the same one white supremesists use to justify racial superiority. The Atheists hate it when I bring that up. Only They paint all Christians as flat earthers in their bigotry. 

 

49 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

In Fact the very science you worship

You sure don't shy away from making false statements, do you? I worship the One True God, who died for me and offered me reconciliation through the death of Jesus Christ and eternal life through His resurrection - no other.

If You Know him, you would not doubt his Omnipotence like you do... Just sayin' The way I see it is there are those who are outside the pasture, there are those inside the pasture and then there are those that sit on the fence. I Was a fance sitter and part of that fence sitting was the compromise between creation and evolution which is theistic (or rather deistic) evolution. The same can be said of those who Trust in the finished work of Christ on the cross, there are those who are outside the pasture, and those inside who are fully trusting in his work, and then there are those that are trusting in a compromise between grace and their own works to save them. To Me, having been one that sat on that fence, it becomes very uncomfortable.

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

I Know Him who is the creator, because he dwells within me.

The same is true of me. Perhaps the issue of when and how creation occurred is not as important spiritually as the acknowledgement of God as sole Creator.

Again, I agree with this in part, But IMO it is sitting on the fence. Partial belief and unbelief. What I Invite you to do is explore the prophetic scriptures on this some of which I quoted on here, and also watch a series of vids on YouTube called the "War on truth" by the Fuel Project. This will help you understand postmodern Christianity And Why I feel this is the terminal age for the church, and which side of the fence you want to be on. It's a multi video series all of which are between 5 and 15 minutes or so, and they are easy to watch.

Seriously do watch those videos, as they are well done, and you will learn something. 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

You've been reminded that ancient Christians like St. Augustine demonstrated that the "yom" of the creation story could not represent literal days.   No point in denying the fact.

 

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Augustine is not an apostolic era Christian, for one

No one said he was.   I'm just pointing out that Augustine, an ancient Christian showed that the "yom" of the creation story could not be literal days.   His views were widely published, and no one thought to contradict him.    He is now considered an authoritative theologian by all three major branches of Christianity.   And of course, it shows that your assumption that creationism was an orthodox belief, is incorrect.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

on the fact that creationism (6 Day literal creationism) Was the standard view of the culture at the time of Christ

Show us a theologian of Jesus' time or an apostle who says the days are literal 24 hour days.   Hint: arguing that they meant it, when they didn't actually say it, will not work for you.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

You made the asinine claim that creationism is "Modern Invention" Obviously not knowing the real history.

YE creationism is a modern invention, of the Seventh-Day Adventists.   Until mid 20th century, most creationists were OE.   That was the creationism at the Scopes Trial, for example.   Would you like me to show you?

Barbarian observes:

Most creationists are not deists.    And of course, theistic evolutionists are theists.   Do you have a point?

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

They call themselves theistic evolution, but all it is. is deism in disguise.

You've been badly misled.   If you have to argue that theists are deists, isn't that a pretty good clue for you?   If you were actually a theistic evolutionist, you would have known this.   Someone taught you deism and convinced you that was Christianity.

Augustine, as orthodox a Christian as you could hope for, pointed out that Genesis itself says that there could not be literal days.   However, there have always been dissenters from the prevailing view of Christians, and those dissenters are no less orthodox; the nature of the creation story is not a required doctrine for Christians.    You can hold either view and still be considered an orthodox Christian.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

No You can't, God will Judge you, and then it will be too late to find out... 

You aren't God, and you don't speak for Him.   God makes it clear what you need to do to be saved, and your opinion on evolution isn't one of those things.   You're adding doctrines to His word, and that is a very, very unwise thing to do. 

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Back to St Augustine again. Next thing you know, your revisionist history is going to claim that he believed in evolution.... Here is a direct quote from Augustine himself....

  Th[e] tree surely did not spring forth suddenly in [a mature] size and form, but rather went through a process of growth with which we are familiar. ...[It] took its shape as it [gradually] developed with all its parts. ... One [form of tree] comes from the other [form of tree], therefore, in succession, but both come from earth and not earth from them. Earth, then, is prior and is their source. The same is true ofanimals.”

St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

Remarkably consistent with the evidence we now have.   Not modern evolutionary theory, but Augustine was aware of Genesis as a description of a creative process, developing from the initial, instantaneous creation event.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Your errors in this debate are far greater though, as you are rewriting historical facts and saying that YEC is a modern invention, which clearly it is not.

I already showed you that YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the 20th century.   In the 1800s, we see evangelicals like Spurgeon (Baptist) describing the traditional Christian understanding...

But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.

C.H. Spurgeon Sermon #30

Even well into the 20th century, evangelicals continued to think in terms of an old Earth.   This was the creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for example:

The trial judge had prohibited the defense from using scientists as witnesses. So, on the trial's seventh day, the defense team called Bryan to testify as an expert on the Bible. Darrow subjected Bryan to a withering cross-examination. He got Bryan to say that Creation was not completed in a week, but over a period of time that "might have continued for millions of years."

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3390

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Evolution did not come tobe until the 19th century creationism (6 day) has been around for millennia

See above.   You're wrong.    Now that you realize it, set your pride aside, let the truth in.

Edited December 7, 2019 by The Barbarian

[one.opinion]

56 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

the error you make is that because one concept is allegorical and another is allegorical, does not mean the third is allegorical. Which is what you presume, and is why you support theistic evolution.

No, as I've made clear before, you really don't know me. You are only guessing what I believe and why I believe it, based on your own experience, but I'm a different person. I readily admit that other allegorical language in the Bible is insufficient to assume that the Creation account is also allegorical. My belief is based on much more than that.

The book of God's Word and the book of God's works must both be true. In the words of Francis Bacon,

Quote

“God has, in fact, written two books, not just one. Of course, we are all familiar with the first book he wrote, namely Scripture. But he has written a second book called creation.”

As a PhD biologist, I have taken a deep look at the evidence supporting evolution, and am convinced that since both "books" must be true, that the Genesis account does not describe a 144-hour event roughly 6,000 years ago. Additionally, none of the NT passages referring to creation concretely affirm a 144-hour creation period. 

 

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

I Am saying the six day creation is not allegorical but literal, and that the Apostolic church understood it as such, In Order to Mock Barbarians assertion that creationism is a "modern invention".

Why do you feel you must mock opinions that differ from yours? Is mockery some sort of defense mechanism for you? I urge to you find healthier ways to deal with conflict. Historically, it cannot be denied that the modern YEC movement has its roots in the teaching of 7th Day Adventist, George McCready Price. Much of Price's work was adopted by Henry Morris, who I assume you are familiar with.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

What's the matter, don't like debating the theological merits of YEC over "Deistic evolution"?

We've debated it for about 4 pages of this thread. You are the one that brought up science.

I have made it very clear that I do not have a deistic view of God, so an honest conversation would be welcome.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

The Atheists that I have debated always bring this one up

You haven't made clear what "this one" is, so I don't know how to respond to it.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

If You Know him, you would not doubt his Omnipotence like you do...

You are again making a false statement. I think having an honest discussion would clearly be preferable to a conversation complicated with falsehoods.

I do not doubt His omnipotence in the least. I believe God could have created everything in the universe in any way He wished. However, based on the evidence He has made available, it certainly appears that He created through evolution.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Again, I agree with this in part, But IMO it is sitting on the fence.

Thank you for admitting this is your opinion. I understand this opinion because I spent the first 20 years of my life firmly believing in a young earth creation, until I saw that what I was taught was full of errors and what I wasn't taught about evolution was factual. It took me years to come to the position I now take on evolution, it was not a snap decision based on pressure in academia.

 

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Seriously do watch those videos, as they are well done, and you will learn something. 

I have a proposal. I'll watch the videos if you agree to dialogue without malice, mockery, and falsehood. Assume that those here that confess Jesus Christ are genuine in their faith, even if you disagree with us. What do you think?

[Eman_3]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 I don't think you're intentionally dishonest.    I think you're so invested in your new doctrines that you can't even tolerate other Christians not agreeing with you.

 

I hope you understand that I have the right to my own opinion, as do you. I also hope you understand the difference between disagreeing and being intolerant. I hope you mend your ways and be less intolerant and calling others "intolerant" just because they disagree with you.

It is not a matter of tolerance, but choosing what constitutes good evidence. The bible is good inspiration, but it does not constitute valid evidence compared to the hard work of many years of diligent researchers and the evidence in the ground and DNA.

[dhchristian]

Just now, The Barbarian said:

Show us a theologian of Jesus' time or an apostle who says the days are literal 24 hour days.   Hint: arguing that they meant it, when they didn't actually say it, will not work for you.

Show me one that says it supports Old earth. You obviously are very thick and cannot see my simple logic in that all of the apostolic church leaders believed in a six day creation, because that was the only model accepted in first century Israel. 

 

Just now, The Barbarian said:

YE creationism is a modern invention, of the Seventh-Day Adventists.   Until mid 20th century, most creationists were OE.   That was the creationism at the Scopes Trial, for example.   Would you like me to show you?

Adventism did not come into being until the 19th century. Jesus and His apostles were around in the first century. Darwin Proposed his theory in the 19th century, the scopes monkey trial was in the 20th century, right when evolution was at its high point in acceptability and viability. Today because of science evolution as a theory is a dying theory, only a handful of theistic evolutionists like yourself and a bunch of Atheists are die hard supporters of it. We have already been over this here before so no need for me to rehash these facts of evolution being a dying theory. Biochemistry, DNA and other advances have virtually discredited evolution. These are scientists, and not creation scientists or ID'ers that are telling me this. 

1 minute ago, The Barbarian said:

You've been badly misled.   If you have to argue that theists are deists, isn't that a pretty good clue for you?   If you were actually a theistic evolutionist, you would have known this.   Someone taught you deism and convinced you that was Christianity.

Now You cannot read correctly, I said, theistic evolution is nothing more than deism in disguise as theism. I am saying you are nothing more than a Deist who claims to be a theist. I Know because I was like both of you, and what you are expressing as your beliefs are the same ones I held. You do not believe God works supernaturally in a natural world. This in theological circles is also known as cessationism… Look it up.

 

8 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Th[e] tree surely did not spring forth suddenly in [a mature] size and form, but rather went through a process of growth with which we are familiar. ...[It] took its shape as it [gradually] developed with all its parts. ... One [form of tree] comes from the other [form of tree], therefore, in succession, but both come from earth and not earth from them. Earth, then, is prior and is their source. The same is true ofanimals.”

And supernaturally it happened in one day, how is this possible? because God is omnipotent and he spoke  a garden into existence with fully mature plants and animals and Humans. Your taking the thoughts of Augustine and making them his beliefs, Beliefs change over the course of a lifetime If You found some of my writings from when I was a theistic evolutionist, you could make the case I Am an evolutionist this way as well, But again, this is not good hermeneutics. There are many Christians who once considered evolution as viable, and now reject it, You need to look at the body of his work, and compare the whole thing. The consensus on Augustine is that in his later work he rejected what he had theorized in his early works and commentaries on Genesis, so much that he leaned toward creation happening in one day, at an instant. In that respect he was also unorthodox. 

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/augustine-on-the-days-of-creation/

It is all right there in the link,but you won't read it because of your Hatred for AIG.

26 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I already showed you that YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the 20th century.   In the 1800s, we see evangelicals like Spurgeon (Baptist) describing the traditional Christian understanding...

But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.

C.H. Spurgeon Sermon #30

Even well into the 20th century, evangelicals continued to think in terms of an old Earth.   This was the creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for example:

The trial judge had prohibited the defense from using scientists as witnesses. So, on the trial's seventh day, the defense team called Bryan to testify as an expert on the Bible. Darrow subjected Bryan to a withering cross-examination. He got Bryan to say that Creation was not completed in a week, but over a period of time that "might have continued for millions of years."

And I already told you this is a lie. A false statement on your part that denies millennia of eyewitness testimony from Both Israel and the church age. The same argument applies to Spurgeon. Here is what he wrote and believes about science and faith.

We are invited, brethren, most earnestly to go away from the old-fashioned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. You are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the evershifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles. C.H. Spurgeon, The Sword and the Trowel, 1877, 197.

All that we see happening here is the propaganda of theistic evolutionists coming to the forefront, and quoting theologians out of context to prove their point. As for the scopes monkey trial, as I said earlier, the time frame when this occurred, was when Darwinism was most popular and accepted, because the advances in science had yet to draw counter arguments to the theory, that did not start to happen until the late 20th century. 

45 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

See above.   You're wrong.    Now that you realize it, set your pride aside, let the truth in.

No, You are wrong, Creationism started when genesis was written Evolution came in the 19th century, therefore, YEC predates evolution by millennia. Your statement is simply not factual and downright dumb. That statement being the YEC is a modern invention. I Honestly cannot believe you are arguing this it is so obvious. But as P.T. Barnum used to say, "a sucker is born every minute". 

[dhchristian]

36 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

the error you make is that because one concept is allegorical and another is allegorical, does not mean the third is allegorical. Which is what you presume, and is why you support theistic evolution.

No, as I've made clear before, you really don't know me. You are only guessing what I believe and why I believe it, based on your own experience, but I'm a different person. I readily admit that other allegorical language in the Bible is insufficient to assume that the Creation account is also allegorical. My belief is based on much more than that.

The book of God's Word and the book of God's works must both be true. In the words of Francis Bacon,

Quote

“God has, in fact, written two books, not just one. Of course, we are all familiar with the first book he wrote, namely Scripture. But he has written a second book called creation.”

No, I disagree, Nature is not the 67th book of scripture that is superior to the Word of God, But rather The Word of God is the authority to which nature is subservient. Just like Jesus said "Lazarus come forth", and he did from being several days in the grave. Creation is not greater than the creator, and creation worshipped as greater is an idol. Paraphrasing Isaiah, a man cuts down a tree, and uses part of it to heat his food, and another part to warm his home, and then takes another part an carves an image therein, and calls it God, such is what you are doing and Francis Bacon are doing equating creation with the Word of God. Romans 1:18-end of chapter discusses this as well.

 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things....Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Rom. 1;21-23, 25) 

The end result of this attitude is a reprobate mind, As I wrote about here before regarding the prophetic implications of this attitude.

51 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

As a PhD biologist, I have taken a deep look at the evidence supporting evolution, and am convinced that since both "books" must be true, that the Genesis account does not describe a 144-hour event roughly 6,000 years ago. Additionally, none of the NT passages referring to creation concretely affirm a 144-hour creation period. 

Then you deny that God is omnipotent. (Emphasis on the period)

53 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

I Am saying the six day creation is not allegorical but literal, and that the Apostolic church understood it as such, In Order to Mock Barbarians assertion that creationism is a "modern invention".

Why do you feel you must mock opinions that differ from yours? Is mockery some sort of defense mechanism for you? I urge to you find healthier ways to deal with conflict. Historically, it cannot be denied that the modern YEC movement has its roots in the teaching of 7th Day Adventist, George McCready Price. Much of Price's work was adopted by Henry Morris, who I assume you are familiar with.

Why do I mock? Because his argument is illogical, and denies millennia of Judeo Christian teaching and culture as if they never existed. His arguments are asinine,and I am surprised you as a Phd have not stepped in and said something to him about it, because he is making all theistic evolutionist look foolish.

Modern day YEC was a product of the fundamentalist movement, not the SDA, though they had added contributions to these theories. Fundamentalism came as a response to the liberalizing of the World via the industrial revolution and boom in cities over the agrarian life of the centuries before. Approx. 1750's or so, That is when the Modern YEC community was born, It had waves of popularity and declines, and the largest decline was in the early 20th century when Darwinism was at its peak., It has had a modern resurgence since ID came around, But YEC as a teaching in the church and in Judaism has been around since Genesis was written and even earlier than that if the bookof Enoch and the book of Noah contained therein are legit. Actually, the Book of Enoch confirms the genesis account of 6 days of creation as well, and if it is written by Enoch then he was handed down the story from his great, great Grand parents...., the sons of Adam. We Know it predates Christ, as fragments of it were found in the dead sea scrolls, which also proves my point that 6day creationism was the cultural belief during the time of Christ, and that everything he and the apostles spoke regarding creation were confirming the six day creation. Yes other cultures around them had old earth beliefs, But the Hebrew peoples as a whole did not hold to those beliefs.

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

What's the matter, don't like debating the theological merits of YEC over "Deistic evolution"?

We've debated it for about 4 pages of this thread. You are the one that brought up science.

I have made it very clear that I do not have a deistic view of God, so an honest conversation would be welcome.

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

The Atheists that I have debated always bring this one up

You haven't made clear what "this one" is, so I don't know how to respond to it.

Self deception is the name of the game here. I am trying to "Honestly" point out your self deception, but you are still blind to it.

Atheists always come back with the saying that all YEC are nothing more than flat earthers, which is a bigoted statement based on the fallacy of generalization, which is the same fallacy used by racists and Nazi's and what not.

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

If You Know him, you would not doubt his Omnipotence like you do...

You are again making a false statement. I think having an honest discussion would clearly be preferable to a conversation complicated with falsehoods.

I do not doubt His omnipotence in the least. I believe God could have created everything in the universe in any way He wished. However, based on the evidence He has made available, it certainly appears that He created through evolution.

I Stand behind that assessment. I Believe that God did as he said, in six literal days despite man's science that says otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Again, I agree with this in part, But IMO it is sitting on the fence.

Thank you for admitting this is your opinion. I understand this opinion because I spent the first 20 years of my life firmly believing in a young earth creation, until I saw that what I was taught was full of errors and what I wasn't taught about evolution was factual. It took me years to come to the position I now take on evolution, it was not a snap decision based on pressure in academia.

 

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Seriously do watch those videos, as they are well done, and you will learn something. 

I have a proposal. I'll watch the videos if you agree to dialogue without malice, mockery, and falsehood. Assume that those here that confess Jesus Christ are genuine in their faith, even if you disagree with us. What do you think?

You just jumped off the fence and outside the pasture, and we will find out when the Goats are separated from the sheep, which side of the fence is the right side.

Sorry, But I cannot agree to withhold the Truth he has shown me, as that would violate my calling as a watchman. Mockery is spoken when its deserved, There is no malice in my heart I can assure you of that as these conversations are motivated by Love for you and your soul, And your claims of falsehood are subjectively based on your opinion and interpretations of the facts. The Only assumption I have made and spoken to you all about is living in Partial unbelief, and like I said I have compared you to the Laodicean church. The Laodicean church is still a church, But soon, very soon the people therein will either be spued out or overcome their partial unbelief. The Question you need to ask is are you living in denial and self deception, or are you overcoming?  

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:

Show us a theologian of Jesus' time or an apostle who says the days are literal 24 hour days.   Hint: arguing that they meant it, when they didn't actually say it, will not work for you.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Show me one that says it supports Old earth.

No one else can find one, either.   So in the absence of anyone of that time saying old Earth or young Earth, we will have to go with the evidence.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

You obviously are very thick and cannot see my simple logic in that all of the apostolic church leaders believed in a six day creation, because that was the only model accepted in first century Israel. 

But you couldn't find even one person in scripture who said so.  You merely assumed what you wanted to believe.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Adventism did not come into being until the 19th century.

But they didn't invent YE creationism until the 20th century.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Today because of science evolution as a theory is a dying theory, only a handful of theistic evolutionists like yourself and a bunch of Atheists are die hard supporters of it.

In fact, the last time I looked, about three-tenths of a percent of scientists with degrees in biology or a related field, didn't accept evolutionary theory.   You've been badly misled about that.   Would you like me to show you the numbers?

You've been badly misled.   If you have to argue that theists are deists, isn't that a pretty good clue for you?   If you were actually a theistic evolutionist, you would have known this.   Someone taught you deism and convinced you that was Christianity.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Now You cannot read correctly, I said, theistic evolution is nothing more than deism in disguise as theism. I am saying you are nothing more than a Deist who claims to be a theist.

I realize you've confused the two.   Theists are those who believe that God loves us and is directly connected with the world.   Deists think God made the world and then walked away to let it go as it would.   Until you get this clear, you will continue to think theists are deists.   Remember, theism and deism are two different things.

There are deistic evolutionists, such as Michael Denton, an IDer who sees teleology in the world, but thinks it only works by natural laws.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

The consensus on Augustine is that in his later work he rejected what he had theorized in his early works and commentaries on Genesis, so much that he leaned toward creation happening in one day, at an instant.

Augustine thought there was an instantaneous creation, from which everything developed in time.   You've been misled yet again.    He discussed the instantaneous creation, and the development of living things from potentialities in that creation, in De Genesi ad Litteram.   It's available in English.    You should read it, at least the parts you've been misled about.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

And I already told you this is a lie. A false statement on your part that denies millennia of eyewitness testimony from Both Israel and the church age. The same argument applies to Spurgeon. Here is what he wrote and believes about science and faith.

What he had to say about the age of the Earth, is this:

But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.

No point in denying it.   You're surprised, and seeing a lot of this for the first time.   It's a little disorienting to learn that so much of what you were taught is just wrong.   But do yourself a favor and go check those sources for yourself, and learn.

Remember, God is truth.   A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Eman_3 said:

I hope you understand that I have the right to my own opinion, as do you.

I go a bit farther.   Since the question of evolution is not a salvation issue, I acknowledge that creationists can be as good and devout in their faith as other Christians can be.  I'm only cautioning both theistic evolutionists and creationists, that they should not disparage the faith of their fellow Christians.

1 hour ago, Eman_3 said:

I hope you mend your ways and be less intolerant and calling others "intolerant" just because they disagree with you.

You've perhaps confused me with someone else.   As I told you before, many creationists do not disparage the faith of other Christians.    If I've misjudged you, and you recognize that this question does not affect one's salvation, then my apologies.

1 hour ago, Eman_3 said:

It is not a matter of tolerance, but choosing what constitutes good evidence.

As your fellow creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise says, the many series of transitional forms in the fossil record, are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

 

 

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, dhchristian said:

No, I disagree, Nature is not the 67th book of scripture that is superior to the Word of God

I agree, the natural world does not hold the same weight as scripture. But when what God has made evident in the natural world contradicts one interpretation of the Bible, it is worth considering whether that particular interpretation is the correct one.

10 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Then you deny that God is omnipotent. (Emphasis on the period)

Untrue.

10 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Atheists always come back with the saying that all YEC are nothing more than flat earthers

I never made this claim. Your point is irrelevant.

10 hours ago, dhchristian said:

I Stand behind that assessment.

You willingly stand behind a false statement... Ok...

10 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Sorry, But I cannot agree to withhold the Truth he has shown me, as that would violate my calling as a watchman.

So your "calling as a watchman" requires you to make false statements? That doesn't sound like a thing God would call a person to do.