God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

44 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Comparing God to Man's creations again I see.

That’s a foolish accusation. Arguments like these are why I asked if you were a juvenile.

A mature teen would recognize the difference between an illustration and and a comparison.

I believe you know the difference, but are arguing just to argue.

50 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

You see, Your Hero

Please show me any post where I have referred to Augustine. A good sign that you are arguing just to argue is that you don’t track your arguments.

54 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Omnipotence of God Almighty, and He believed the genealogies as written in scripture that trace the Lineage of Jesus to Adam and Eve. 

Show me anywhere I have argued against this. In the contrary, I have argued for both of these points several times.

57 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

So You can remove him from your list of Old Earth theologians

What did I ever say that made you think he was in my list?

What are you trying to accomplish with erroneous and pointless arguments?

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

As For Charles Spurgeon, From what I can tell about his beliefs reading his commentary on Genesis 1 Is that he believed in a long first day,

And an Earth millions of years old.   As you now realize, until the Seventh-Day adventists invented YE creastionism, most creationists were Old Earth.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

By The Above Quote, He obviously did not believe in the theory of Evolution.

That would have been unlikely, since Darwin had only recently discovered the mechanisms of evolution.    Even many scientists of the time were not familiar with the evidence.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

So I think it is safe to remove him off your list of Pro evolution theologians, and he was no Theistic evolutionist either.

Most of your difficulties are due to you imagining the opinions of others.   No one here suggested he accepted evolution.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

Go to the original sources, and the Truth will come to light. For example, I doubt whoever promoted the Quotes of Spurgeon ever wen and looked at the Original documents,

I linked you to the original documents.   Which you did not check.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

So Another so called theologian who denounces evolution

You're wrong there, too.  He was a well-respected theologian, and remains so.   His error in evolution notwithstanding.  

Oh, and Augustine was never an old-Earther.   The science of his time did not have evidence for an ancient Earth.  So he assumed it was only a few thousand years old.   You've again assumed things without checking the facts.

 

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

You see, Your Hero

Please show me any post where I have referred to Augustine. A good sign that you are arguing just to argue is that you don’t track your arguments.

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Omnipotence of God Almighty, and He believed the genealogies as written in scripture that trace the Lineage of Jesus to Adam and Eve. 

Show me anywhere I have argued against this. In the contrary, I have argued for both of these points several times.

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

So You can remove him from your list of Old Earth theologians

What did I ever say that made you think he was in my list?

What are you trying to accomplish with erroneous and pointless arguments?

Sorry, I was referring to the other one here who has made these claims. I Am just refuting his claims without addressing him Personally and since Augustine came up I thought that was as good a time to express this. I should have made a separate comment like I did regarding Spurgeon.  

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That’s a foolish accusation. Arguments like these are why I asked if you were a juvenile.

A mature teen would recognize the difference between an illustration and and a comparison.

I believe you know the difference, but are arguing just to argue.

It is as Juvenile as you making the following claim...

"I’m sure there are many people who once thought the same about a flat earth and geocentricism. Some still do today. "

I Hear this refutation from teenagers who are atheists all the time... Here is my full quote so you can see there is some thought involved in this other than the childish belittling of a Creationist as a flat earther, Like teenager evolutionists like to do.... I Expected more from you.

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Comparing God to Man's creations again I see. Look at it this way. Science says given enough time and chance you can create anything. Well God is so great, he didn't need time he just Spoke it into existence. As Soon as he created Matter, Time began. Then He proceeded to take His Time and create everything over the course of six days. He could have done it all in One Day if he wanted to in one Moment, as Augustine Later concluded in His life and teachings.

 

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Hear this refutation from teenagers who are atheists all the time... Here is my full quote so you can see there is some thought involved in this other than the childish belittling of a Creationist as a flat earther

You are missing the point here. Obviously, we now have the evidence that shows the earth is not flat and the solar system is not geocentric. I am not comparing young earth creationists to flat-earthers. I am saying that there were clearly people that believed those things because they believed that’s what the Bible taught. At some point, evidence outweighs a literalistic interpretation of the Bible.

I believe we are at that point, but I can understand why some still disagree.

Now, the reason I called out your argument is because it was completely childish. Do you or do you not understand the difference between a comparison and an illustration?

[dhchristian]

Just now, one.opinion said:

You are missing the point here. Obviously, we now have the evidence that shows the earth is not flat and the solar system is not geocentric. I am not comparing young earth creationists to flat-earthers. I am saying that there were clearly people that believed those things because they believed that’s what the Bible taught. At some point, evidence outweighs a literalistic interpretation of the Bible.

I believe we are at that point, but I can understand why some still disagree.

Now, the reason I called out your argument is because it was completely childish. Do you or do you not understand the difference between a comparison and an illustration?

I Thought you were capable of correction, Apparently Not, Instead you defend your childish Flat earth comparison.... You see what I am getting at here? Shall we use a simile, using like or as to Illustrate and or compare this to? I Compare it to a racial slur based on a generalization of the race of the person being discussed. So, For example, Like Racial profiling. The Cop has no reason to pull some one over other than the fact that he is an African American. You had no reason to make such an asinine statement, But you assumed it would work, Because I am a Young earth creationist. So Was that an illustration or just a comparison? 

Now mind you I am not the sensitive type as to get all worked up about this, I do not get easily offended, But you could have shown some more class before bringing that up.   

To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? (Isa. 46:5) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

4 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Thought you were capable of correction, Apparently Not, Instead you defend your childish Flat earth comparison....

So a young Earth creationist, a geocentrist, and a flat Earther walk into a Chick-Fil-A. And the young Earth creationist says, “If you take the Bible literally, and I do, then you have to believe that ‘day’ means 24-hour day. I am a young Earth creationist. I am the most literal of them all, in contrast with old Earth creationists, who have sold out to the secular scientific establishment.”

The geocentrist responds, “Not so fast. If you take the Bible literally, and I do, then you have to believe that the sun revolves around the Earth. I not only believe in a young Earth, but I also believe the Earth is at the center of the universe. I am the most literal of them all, and it turns that you, young Earth creationist, have sold out to the secular scientific establishment.”

But the flat Earther responds, “I have both of you beat. If you take the Bible literally, and I do, then you have to believe that ‘firmament’ refers to a hard dome over the Earth. I not only believe in a young Earth, I not only believe that the Earth is at the center of the universe, but I also believe in a flat Earth. I am the most literal of them all, and it turns out that both of you, young Earth creationist and geocentrist, have sold out to the secular scientific establishment.”

Something like this happened this past November at the Second Flat Earth International Conference in Denver. As reported by young Earth creationist Danny Faulkner, resident astronomer for Answers in Genesis (AiG), the highlight was a debate between flat Earther Rob Skiba and geocentrist Robert Sungenis over “whether the Bible teaches that the earth is flat.” According to Faulkner, Skiba argued that raqia, which the King James Version translates as “firmament” in Genesis 1: 6-8 is best understood as a “hard dome over the earth.” In response, Sungenis argued that “if the raqia  were a solid dome, then the placement of the sun and moon in the solid dome on Day Four would inhibit the sun and moon from moving, [even though], in anyone’s model, they must move.” 

...

You can stand on the authority of the Bible. You can claim that the Bible is errorless, clear, and best  understood by a common sense reading of the text. But none of that resolves the innumerable and ever-expanding disagreements over what the text means.

But among the creationists arguing in Chick-Fil-A, the flat Earthers have one great rhetorical advantage. They can claim they are the most literal. 

https://rightingamerica.net/so-a-young-earth-creationist-a-geocentrist-and-a-flat-earther-walk-into-a-bar/

[one.opinion]

11 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Thought you were capable of correction, Apparently Not, Instead you defend your childish Flat earth comparison....

The “I know you are, but what am I” rebuttal isn’t doing you any favors.

 

14 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

So Was that an illustration

Yes. I was giving examples of what people once believed because of literalistic interpretations of Bible passages. The comment was not meant as a slight. You are being overly sensitive. I know you don’t read everything I write, so I will repeat what I wrote earlier:

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I believe we are at that point, but I can understand why some still disagree.

What I mean is, the evidence (particularly genetic evidence) is still young and not nearly as obvious as evidence for a spherical earth and a heliocentric universe.

[dhchristian]

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I believe we are at that point, but I can understand why some still disagree.

What I mean is, the evidence (particularly genetic evidence) is still young and not nearly as obvious as evidence for a spherical earth and a heliocentric universe.

There You go again, comparing those who believe in a Young earth to those who believe in a flat earth. I Now know you are consciously making this comparison, and it is disturbing and childish.

1. It is a Logical Fallacy.

2. It is deliberately berating YEC as uneducated or ignorant. 

Let me explain The Logical fallacy. First of all it assumes that flat earth is a literalist interpretation. It is not, despite what the Flat earthers say. Second, It makes the fallacy that If The Bible does not address the shape of the earth Literally, it does not Address creation literally. Jesus said we must eat of His body, and drink of His blood.... Jesus Was clear that this was Metaphorical when he said that. So, When we take communion in the church we are not drinking literal blood and eating literal flesh, But we are doing so "in remembrance of Him" and His sacrifice on the cross. But Jesus Never, and I emphasize never, Spoke of creation as metaphorical. He Spoke as an Eyewitness, Because He was there, All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)

He Did not speak of Adam and Eve as Metaphorical People, But as real People he formed as fully grown adults. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; (Mark 10:6-7),  Saying they were of Marrying age when Created and were commanded to be "fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Thus they were of child birthing age when created, capable having dominion over living things.

Let me give you an example of the difference. Here is a favorite verse of the Flat earthers. 

He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them. (1 Sam. 2:8) 

The Word for Pillars is Matsuwq, which is rooted in the word Tsuwq. The Meaning of the Word Tsuwq is "compress, oppress, distress, to press or straighten". It Is said the earth sits on four such Pillars. Notice the verbiage that this is rooted in is about placing varying pressure on an object, thus a Pillar bears things under tension either pushing or Pulling. Turns out, that all matter is held together or pulled on By Four forces, The Weak, the Strong, Electromagnetic, and gravity. These are the forces that are under distress, Either compression or tension that Bear all matter together, and allow them to expand and compress. In other Words, four Pillars. There are no such Verses in scripture, as Myself and others here have been trying to point out to you that could even allude to evolution as this does to the four forces that "Hold up the Heavens and the earth". Well, Even these Pillars are the LORD'S, as the verse expresses. He commands these forces, Or as Isaiah Puts it....

Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. (Isa. 40:12)

God is well beyond our ability to Know Him, Let alone to explain how he does what He does as evolutionists are apt to do. Science has given names to these four forces (Pillars) that Hold the heavens and the earth together, But they barely comprehend them. But God commands them.

Again, there no similar verses in scripture that point to anything even remotely resembling evolution, as written of in scripture, and there is especially nothing to get me to even Question the concept of a young earth in the presence of an almighty God who is somuch greater than I can even begin to explain to you, And to attempt to fit God in a box of human understanding is a mistake. A mistake that leads to idolatry. Even the Genome, which we are beginning to grasp is far beyond our understanding.... And God Commands this as well.  

  Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. (Isa. 40:28)

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

12 hours ago, dhchristian said:

I Thought you were capable of correction, Apparently Not, Instead you defend your childish Flat earth comparison....

The “I know you are, but what am I” rebuttal isn’t doing you any favors.

I heard all you Academics have a hard time with sarcasm, so let me explain this one for you...

12 hours ago, dhchristian said:

I Thought you were capable of correction, Apparently Not, Instead you defend your childish Flat earth comparison.... You see what I am getting at here? Shall we use a simile, using like or as to Illustrate and or compare this to? I Compare it to a racial slur based on a generalization of the race of the person being discussed. So, For example, Like Racial profiling. The Cop has no reason to pull some one over other than the fact that he is an African American. You had no reason to make such an asinine statement, But you assumed it would work, Because I am a Young earth creationist. So Was that an illustration or just a comparison? 

Two things that should tip you off of this, One is the rhetorical question implying the sarcasm In Bold In my comment. Obviously you did not "see what I am getting at", Or else you would not have responded as you did. The Next clue should be the emoji following the second rhetorical question, Underlined this time.  I Know you do not understand my sense of Humor, as it is very dry.... Look up Dry Humor when you get a chance.... This may, (Or may not?) Get you to understand my "mocking Tone" in my comments.

ALL that being said, I disagree with you that we are at that point where the evidence for evolution will outweigh the Literalist interpretation of the Creation Account. I Think, with The Human Genome coming into focus, that Evolution will begin to diminish as a viable theory. Oh, of course there will be die hards, that Hold onto the theory, Just like we still have flat earthers out there today, (Did you see what I Just did there?) But they will fall by the wayside, when the LORD comes with Power and Great Glory, and sets the Record straight.

**NOTE: Green text was meant as sarcasm. 

 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (John 20:29)   

Edited January 5, 2020 by dhchristian

[omega2xx]

19 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Here is another one that has been posted here as being pro evolution. He said the following:

Spurgeon on evolution

The great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his sermon ‘Hideous Discovery’, preached on July 25, 1886, made the following comment on evolution:

‘In its bearing upon religion this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter: this is not the time for soft speaking.’

https://creation.com/spurgeon-on-evolution

 

As For Charles Spurgeon, From what I can tell about his beliefs reading his commentary on Genesis 1 Is that he believed in a long first day, which is the realm of what we Know as Gap Theory. He believed in the six days of creation. By The Above Quote, He obviously did not believe in the theory of Evolution. Here is the link to the commentary. So I think it is safe to remove him off your list of Pro evolution theologians, and he was no Theistic evolutionist either.

 

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/spe/genesis-1.html

 

The Point of all of this is to show that you all are just spouting evolutionist talking points based on misinformation that has infiltrated the WWW. Go to the original sources, and the Truth will come to light. For example, I doubt whoever promoted the Quotes of Spurgeon ever wen and looked at the Original documents, and instead passed along the Quote without reading the entirety of the document. They probably do not even know what Gap theory is, and that despite this allowing for a long earth, still promotes the Biblical creation, a conjecture at best, One that I do not agree with, but one that does not defy the literal Scriptural account. 

 

So Another so called theologian who denounces evolution, and not a supporter as you all have claimed. 

 

So That is now two points of yours I have debunked. These things take time so bear with me as there are more likely coming. 

 

 

 

I am sure you know but most Christians are not familiar with the "Gap Theory."  When the TOE was gaining popularity, some theologians were afraid  science would show the Bible to be wrong, so they invented the "Gap "theory."  To do this they had to change a word in Gen 1:2.  They changed "was" to "became".   If  it is necessary for man  change a word in God's word, what they are trying to prove  can automatically be dismissed as being  true.

Love, peace,  joy

[omega2xx]

On 1/3/2020 at 12:40 AM, one.opinion said:

You could try reading what is written to you. I’ve mentioned this twice previously.

This is why I’m insisting that you come to the full realization of just how bad that first article was. It seems that telling you straight facts once or twice is not enough for them to sink in.

It was a horrible essay and I want to make sure you never try to use it as evidence against evolution ever again. When one Christian makes ridiculous claims like those in the essay, it makes us all look bad.

Please show me any facts I have falsified. Unlike you, I welcome correction so I can make better arguments in the future. I am fairly certain I have not made any, but I have been wrong before :-P

I honestly do not want you to come around to my way of thinking. You have exhibited tremendous intellectual laziness. I want you to be able to recognize and reject horrible arguments, even if they are “on your side”. You have not exhibited the sincerity and honesty yet to do that.

I have spoken with several YEC Christians that I respect a great deal because they can be honest enough to recognize and reject poor arguments. You are not in that group.

IYO, all who reject your view have a poor argument.  That is the usual comment of those who reject a  literal view of Genesis, but have no evidence to support their poor argument.  You said you could prove "natural selection," I said you could not and you never did.  To  try and hide that fact, and be shown wrong, you had to move the goal post.

I will give you another problem for evolutionists that has never  been solved---How did plant life survive million  of years without the sun?

 

Love,  peace, joy