JohnD Posted April 10, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 0 Topic Count: 907 Topics Per Day: 0.19 Content Count: 9,650 Content Per Day: 2.02 Reputation: 5,833 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/07/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted April 10, 2020 I find it difficult to attribute the the failed, inadequate theory of evolution to the God who created all things. For another thing, he created all species "after their kind." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Christian 1985 Posted April 10, 2020 Group: Junior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 105 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/22/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted April 10, 2020 amazon.com/s?k=9781641407922&ref=nb_sb_noss youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=rVEJNRDsIL0 truthseekersasciencespiritual.blogspot.com/ What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will. 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. If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one? Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145 The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7) What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): ... “The first man Adam became a living soul.... The first man is of the earth, earthy:”... What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls‑ what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions). Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ‑have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153 The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain‑to‑body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements. It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167 The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences? It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man's intellectual powers gave him a free will. This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre‑Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait. How did God solve this problem? The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X‑chromosome and the Y-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X‑chromosome and 1 Y‑chromosome; normal females have 2 X‑chromosomes. 178 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21‑23) It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring. The sixty‑four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife? It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ‑ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she? Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries! Adam and Eve were the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit. Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man. What does the scientific record say? The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.149 Scientific evidence and Scripture concur! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted April 10, 2020 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted April 10, 2020 On 4/9/2020 at 4:18 PM, The Barbarian said: Nope. It's observed working daily. You've confused the phenomenon of evolution with a consequence of evolution, common descent. Common descent is one of evolution biggest frauds, There is no way it can be proved, and the only thing we see working daily is what God tells us--after the kind for plants, land life, sea life and human life. You don't even know what it was or its origin. God certainly did say let us create one celled blobs after their kind. To think a single celled life for has all of the necessary genes for all of the great variety we see in the millions of species is laughable and cant be proved. Actually, it's very well documented. Would you like to learn more about how we know this? I have told you what I want --- the evidence that supports the absurd, unscientific fairy tales evolution invents to try and support the TOE. But you are unwilling to take 5 minuets and cut and paste that evidence. You can't because you are ignorant of what constitutes scientific evidence. You've assumed what you proposed to prove. I'm merely pointing out that "morning" and "evening" do not mean "day" and "night." If you have to redefine words to make your point,that's a pretty good clue for you. You are pointing out only your OPINION. Not only do you not understand science, you don't even understand simple English.I would explain Gen 1:5 to you again, but but seems to er over your head. I guess, since you aren't going to tell us, I should tell you: Allegory is a figure of speech in which abstract ideas and principles are described in terms of characters, figures, and events. It can be employed in prose and poetry to tell a story, with a purpose of teaching or explaining an idea or a principle. The objective of its use is to teach some kind of a moral lesson. That is not the best definition of allegory, but is close enough, but does not include all of its functions. First of all allegories do not teach moral lessons. They are used in the Bible to teach spiritual truths. Your definition did not include that allegories ALWAYS based on a literal event. I continue to ask you what moral or spiritual truth does Gen 1 and 2 teach. You keep avoiding answering that question, because there is moral teaching in those chapters of Genesis. You also keep forgetting or ignoring The other truth about allegories. So If you understand allegories are based on literal events, then Gen 1 & 2 make those chapters literal, not figurative. Do you think God is obligated to do whatever it is possible for Him to do? Do you think it is possible for you o answer the question instead of changing he subject Let Him do it His way. I am willing, you are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted April 11, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,053 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted April 11, 2020 4 hours ago, omega2xx said: Common descent is one of evolution biggest frauds, There is no way it can be proved, and the only thing we see working daily is what God tells us--after the kind for plants, land life, sea life and human life. You don't even know what it was or its origin. God certainly did say let us create one celled blobs after their kind. To think a single celled life for has all of the necessary genes for all of the great variety we see in the millions of species is laughable and cant be proved. Your fellow creationists disagree with you. For example, the ICR and AIG both admit to a degree of common descent, ton include new species, genera, and families of organisms, sometimes even beyond that. They really had no choice, given the evidence. 5 hours ago, omega2xx said: I have told you what I want --- the evidence that supports the absurd, unscientific fairy tales evolution invents to try and support the TOE. You've been given all sorts of evidence. Your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise gave cited many such cases, and gave you links. You just refuse to look at them. You've assumed what you proposed to prove. I'm merely pointing out that "morning" and "evening" do not mean "day" and "night." If you have to redefine words to make your point,that's a pretty good clue for you. 5 hours ago, omega2xx said: You are pointing out only your OPINION. Nope. Check a dictionary. You've just redefined the words to fit your new doctrines. 5 hours ago, omega2xx said: Your definition did not include that allegories ALWAYS based on a literal event. No,that's wrong, too. Sometimes allegories are about fictional events. Genesis 1-3 is about actual events. (Insists that if God is capable of doing something, then He must have done it) Do you think God is obligated to do whatever it is possible for Him to do? 5 hours ago, omega2xx said: Do you think it is possible for you o answer the question instead of changing he subject If you didn't want to talk about it, you shouldn't have brought it up. If you don't want to answer, we'll note that and go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted April 11, 2020 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted April 11, 2020 11 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Your fellow creationists disagree with you. For example, the ICR and AIG both admit to a degree of common descent, ton include new species, genera, and families of organisms, sometimes even beyond that. They really had no choice, given the evidence. They do not and I challenge you to post where they do. In fact the both call it "common design." In fact ICR says if we accept common descent we are just evolutionists. It seems you need a refresher course in remedial reading. You've been given all sorts of evidence. Your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise gave cited many such cases, and gave you links. You just refuse to look at them. Wrong. You have posted what you consider evidence which just reinforces what I have been saying--you have no idea what constitutes scientific evidence. So I will challenge you again to post some specific evidence that supports evolution. Something that will only take 5-10 minuets, and which you must be afraid to do. Perhaps you trying to find some real evidence you have seen what you accept as evidence, is not even close. You've assumed what you proposed to prove. I haven't assumed anything. I say and will continue to say that "after their kind" is the only thing that can be proved., and that the only evidence we have about the length of a day, is based on its use in the whole Bible---when yom is used with number it ALWAYS means a 24 hour day. You have absolutely no evidence to support yom means billions of years. That is only you attempt to show what evolution needs to be kept yom being exposed as the scientific fraud it is. You also keep avoiding how plant life survived billion of years without the sun. I'm merely pointing out that "morning" and "evening" do not mean "day" and "night." If you have to redefine words to make your point,that's a pretty good clue for you. Nope. Check a dictionary. You've just redefined the words to fit your new doctrines. YAWN. Why do you keep ignoring Gen 1:5? No,that's wrong, too. Sometimes allegories are about fictional events. Genesis 1-3 is about actual events. Not true. If it is about fictional events, it is not an allegory, and I challenge you to post an allegory that is based on a literal event. ALLEGORY: FIGURATIVE treatment of one subject under guise of another; a presentation of an abstract or SPIRITUAL meaning under concrete or material forms.* *The American College "Encyclopedic Dictionary. 11 hours ago, The Barbarian said: (Insists that if God is capable of doing something, then He must have done it) Do you think God is obligated to do whatever it is possible for Him to do? If you didn't want to talk about it, you shouldn't have brought it up. If you don't want to answer, we'll note that and go on. I do want to talk about it. You don't so you changed the subject. You don;t answer a question with a question. So I will ask you again: Could God have created the universe in 6 days? I still have my prophecy hat on and I predict you will again avoid answering that question, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted April 11, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 11, 2020 On 4/9/2020 at 7:22 PM, JohnD said: I find it difficult to attribute the the failed, inadequate theory of evolution to the God who created all things. How is it possible to describe something you don't understand as a failure? Yes, God did create all things. The evidence strongly suggests that He did this through the process of evolution. On 4/9/2020 at 7:22 PM, JohnD said: For another thing, he created all species "after their kind." Of course He made them after their kind. Parents produce progeny very much like themselves. However, there is nothing in the Bible and nothing in the evidence God has left for us in His creation to believe that kinds are unable to change over time. It is a human interpretation (that is in contradiction to evidence in God's creation) to believe that "after their kind" somehow refutes evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted April 11, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,053 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted April 11, 2020 Your fellow creationists disagree with you. For example, the ICR and AIG both admit to a degree of common descent, ton include new species, genera, and families of organisms, sometimes even beyond that. They really had no choice, given the evidence. 7 hours ago, omega2xx said: They do not and I challenge you to post where they do. Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view. Darwin showed how the fixity of species ran counter to all the evidence he had been collecting for twenty years. His book managed to convince most scientists that species were not fixed or unchangeable. In the process, the church was proved wrong, with tragic consequences. https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/ In fact, fossils indicate that the giraffes on Noah’s Ark produced a big variety of species as they spread over the earth. The only survivors are the modern giraffe and okapi. The minor differences among modern giraffes are puny compared to the differences among their fossil forbears. New studies, such as the recent report on giraffes, remind us that the Creator placed incredible information within each created kind. Because these species can still interbreed, we know they came from the same parents in recent times, not millions of years ago. https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/one-of-a-kind/ The Giraffidae are a family of ruminant artiodactyl mammals that share a common ancestor with cervids and bovids. This family, once a diverse group spread throughout Eurasia and Africa, presently comprises only two extant genera, the giraffe and the okapi. Wikipedia https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Giraffidae/ Now, let's look at the Institute for Creation Research: They endorse (in fact, they are selling) John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study. https://store.icr.org/search/woodmorappe/ In it, Woodmorappe claims that all of today's animals descend from just a few "kinds" on the Ark. In an email exchange with me, he argued that this would include new species, genera, and families,but not much more. For example, he writes that all cats descended from a pair of the "cat kind." He is aware that this means everything from a lion to a house cat. Which means all of the family Felidae, the genera felis and panthera, and the many species within those two genera. I can give you more examples, if you like. You've been given all sorts of evidence. Your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise gave cited many such cases, and gave you links. You just refuse to look at them. 7 hours ago, omega2xx said: Wrong. No point in denying the fact. It's on this forum. Not only did I link you to Wise's list of sources for evidence, I actually listed them here for you. You just refused to look at them. You've assumed what you proposed to prove. (confusing "night" and "day" with "evening" and "morning." I'm merely pointing out that "morning" and "evening" do not mean "day" and "night." If you have to redefine words to make your point,that's a pretty good clue for you. (Denial that allegories can be about real or fictional events) No,that's wrong, too. Sometimes allegories are about fictional events. Genesis 1-3 is about actual events. 7 hours ago, omega2xx said: Not true. It's very true. There was a real Adam, and he did disobey God, and the allegory of Genesis describes it. It's about a real person and a real event. We'll just have to disagree on that. (Insists that if God is capable of doing something, then He must have done it) Do you think God is obligated to do whatever it is possible for Him to do? On 4/10/2020 at 4:23 PM, omega2xx said: Do you think it is possible for you o answer the question instead of changing he subject If you didn't want to talk about it, you shouldn't have brought it up. If you don't want to answer, we'll note that and go on. 7 hours ago, omega2xx said: I do want to talk about it. Then answer the question. Do you think God is obligated to do whatever it is possible for Him to do? If not, just admit that if He could have done creation differently, that's not evidence that He did. One or the other. Or if you don't know, just say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted April 14, 2020 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) On 4/11/2020 at 6:40 PM, The Barbarian said: Your fellow creationists disagree with you. For example, the ICR and AIG both admit to a degree of common descent, ton include new species, genera, and families of organisms, sometimes even beyond that. They really had no choice, given the evidence. Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view. Darwin showed how the fixity of species ran counter to all the evidence he had been collecting for twenty years. His book managed to convince most scientists that species were not fixed or unchangeable. In the process, the church was proved wrong, with tragic consequences. https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/ In fact, fossils indicate that the giraffes on Noah’s Ark produced a big variety of species as they spread over the earth. The only survivors are the modern giraffe and okapi. The minor differences among modern giraffes are puny compared to the differences among their fossil forbears. New studies, such as the recent report on giraffes, remind us that the Creator placed incredible information within each created kind. Because these species can still interbreed, we know they came from the same parents in recent times, not millions of years ago. https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/one-of-a-kind/ The Giraffidae are a family of ruminant artiodactyl mammals that share a common ancestor with cervids and bovids. This family, once a diverse group spread throughout Eurasia and Africa, presently comprises only two extant genera, the giraffe and the okapi. Wikipedia https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Giraffidae/ Now, let's look at the Institute for Creation Research: They endorse (in fact, they are selling) John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study. https://store.icr.org/search/woodmorappe/ In it, Woodmorappe claims that all of today's animals descend from just a few "kinds" on the Ark. In an email exchange with me, he argued that this would include new species, genera, and families,but not much more. For example, he writes that all cats descended from a pair of the "cat kind." He is aware that this means everything from a lion to a house cat. Which means all of the family Felidae, the genera felis and panthera, and the many species within those two genera. I can give you more examples, if you like. You've been given all sorts of evidence. Your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise gave cited many such cases, and gave you links. You just refuse to look at them. No point in denying the fact. It's on this forum. Not only did I link you to Wise's list of sources for evidence, I actually listed them here for you. You just refused to look at them. You've assumed what you proposed to prove. (confusing "night" and "day" with "evening" and "morning." I'm merely pointing out that "morning" and "evening" do not mean "day" and "night." If you have to redefine words to make your point,that's a pretty good clue for you. (Denial that allegories can be about real or fictional events) No,that's wrong, too. Sometimes allegories are about fictional events. Genesis 1-3 is about actual events. It's very true. There was a real Adam, and he did disobey God, and the allegory of Genesis describes it. It's about a real person and a real event. We'll just have to disagree on that. (Insists that if God is capable of doing something, then He must have done it) Do you think God is obligated to do whatever it is possible for Him to do? If you didn't want to talk about it, you shouldn't have brought it up. If you don't want to answer, we'll note that and go on. Then answer the question. Do you think God is obligated to do whatever it is possible for Him to do? If not, just admit that if He could have done creation differently, that's not evidence that He did. One or the other. Or if you don't know, just say so. As usual the whole first part of your post is just your parroting the same nonscientific taking points with your usual non evidence pontification. Why will you not answer my question? I ask it first and for some reason, you are afraid to answer it because you know it will expose your non- Biblical theology, and it will diminish God's omnipotent power and your low view of God. Pitiful! If you don't know just say do. So you can't use some flimsy excuse, here it is again: Could God have created the universe and everything in it in 6 days? Edited April 14, 2020 by omega2xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted April 14, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,053 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) I was just showing you that your fellow creationists disagree with you. I cited the evidence for that, and linked to it. No one is going to be persuaded by your denial. You suggested that since it was possible for God to create things as YE creationists believe, it was so done. I asked you if God was obligated to do everything He is capable of doing. You declined to answer; for some reason, you are afraid to answer it because you know it will expose your non- Biblical theology, and it will diminish God's omnipotent power and your low view of God. . I can only assume that you have taken fact that all things are possible for God and assumed that He must therefore do everything that is possible for Him to do. 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: Pitiful! Yep. Could God have created the universe and everything in it in 6 days? He could have done it in one day. I tend to think, like St. Augustine, that He did it in an instant. But He could have taken as much or as little time as He liked, or even done it before there was time. Since, (as you learned earlier) the "yom" of Genesis 1 are not literal days but descriptions of different parts of creation, the Bible only offers us the fact that God spoke the universe into existence,from which everything else appeared as He intended. Edited April 14, 2020 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted April 15, 2020 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted April 15, 2020 21 hours ago, The Barbarian said: I was just showing you that your fellow creationists disagree with you. Some do, most don't. You tend to ind 3 or 4 Christians that disagree with conservative theology and take that to mean most. That is also pitiful. I cited the evidence for that, and linked to it. No, you took their opinions as evidence. Thanks for continuing to expose your lack of what constitutes. evidence, No one is going to be persuaded by your denial. You suggested that since it was possible for God to create things as YE creationists believe, it was so done. I asked you if God was obligated to do everything He is capable of doing. I am not trying to persuade anyone. I simply post facts that can be checked, like after their kind and why evolution is based on science. Since you finally answered my question, I will answer yours: God not obligated to do anything except fulfill His promises---I will never leave you or forsake you for example. You declined to answer; for some reason, you are afraid to answer it because you know it will expose your non- Biblical theology, and it will diminish God's omnipotent power and your low view of God. . I can only assume that you have taken fact that all things are possible for God and assumed that He must therefore do everything that is possible for Him to do. Now do you know that your assumption was wrong? Yep. Could God have created the universe and everything in it in 6 days? He could have done it in one day. Then why didn't He say so? Why did he give us this elaborate story telling what He specifically each day. I tend to think, like St. Augustine, that He did it in an instant. < There is no Biblical evidence that He did in an instant. That is taking away from God word,k which is not allowed. But He could have taken as much or as little time as He liked, or even done it before there was time. Since, (as you learned earlier) the "yom" of Genesis 1 are not literal days but descriptions of different parts of creation, I learned no such thing. The FACT is that when yom is used with a numb er it ALWAYS mean a 24 hour day. A truth your unBiblical agenda will not allow you to accept, but can't refute it. That is illogical. the Bible only offers us the fact that God spoke the universe into existence,from which everything else appeared as He intended. You have a very limited view of the Bible. It teaches us much more than God spoke the universe into being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts