Questions for evolution believers

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Sometimes, depending on the position of the earth.  However, the moon is NEVER used to signify a new day.

So "big light in the sky" is not what morning means.   Which is what I told you.   This is how we know the Genesis account is not a literal one.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Nothing observed today invalidates either the six day creation or the flood. 

As you learned, scripture itself rules out literal creation days.    And of course, as I showed you, there is evidence for great flood.    Of course, it's not global, but then the Bible doesn't say it was global.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Your false religion is called evolution. 

Because you confuse natural phenomena with religion, you're constantly tying yourself into knots.    As you conceded, evolution is directly observed.    Try to find a way to accept it His way.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I prefer facts and knowledge to hopeful guesses. 

These examples of human populations evolving are well-documented.  No point in denial.   The human populations I cited evolved to better fit their environments.   That's a fact.  

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

The documentation in which I put my faith is God's word.

You say so, and yet you won't accept it as it's written.   C'mon.

 

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Why don't you at least READ the 5 English translations that I have provided?

None of them support your claim.  None of them include the word BECAME.  None of them indicate a previous state.

 

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I have no idea when these translations were done, but they sure aren't new.
American Standard Version published 1971

Aramaic Bible in Plain English Copyright © 2012

Brenton Septuagint Translation published 1884

English Revised Version published 1895
 

Young's Literal Translation published 1862

As opposed to the King James Bible, Published 1611.  They all look a lot newer to me.

 

 

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Take a blob of something.  No definite shape, but everyone understands the shape of a blob.

You obviously do not understand the definition of "formless," despite hiving it given to you.

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

No, you wouldn't take anything I say "more seriously" because of your extreme bias against an old earth.

If there was anything in the Scriptures that supported an old earth I would believe it.  Since NOTHING in the Scriptures agrees with your claims, I reject them.

[RV_Wizard]

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

So "big light in the sky" is not what morning means.   Which is what I told you. 

Evening and morning were exactly as they are now; a single rotation of the earth.  God created light on day one.  On day four, He replaced it with the sun.  On day six, He created all the animals that inhabit the land.  These are the days of creation which you reject.

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As you learned, scripture itself rules out literal creation days.

Nobody ever learned anything of the kind.  Peddle your satanic lie elsewhere.  God Himself recorded on stone tablets that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.  You refuse to believe the only part of the Bible written by God Himself.

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

but then the Bible doesn't say it was global

Genesis 7: 

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Local flood?  There is no possibility of that being the case.  Once again you make claims that are in direct contrast to the Scriptures.  Once again you spread false doctrine.

 

[The Barbarian]

41 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Evening and morning were exactly as they are now; a single rotation of the earth. 

That's not what morning and evening are.   Those require a sun, as you learned.    The text shows you that the days are not literal ones, since it refers to mornings and evenings which by definition, require a sun to have them.  These are the days of creation which you reject.

43 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Peddle your satanic lie elsewhere. 

As you know, well-respected Christian theologians like Augustine shows that God's word is correct; the days are not literal ones.    You're not lying; you're merely stubbornly in error.   You refuse to believe the only part of the Bible written by God Himself.

45 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

Local flood?  There is no possibility of that being the case.

Regional, if the Bible and the evidence can be believed.    Global is your addition to God's word.   The Bible never says it was global.   Once again you make claims that are in direct contrast to the Scriptures.

 

[RV_Wizard]

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

That's not what morning and evening are.   Those require a sun, as you learned.  

No, as you may have learned, the sun doesn't go around the earth.  The sun is simply a light.  It's kind of like.... light.  So as the earth turns we get evening and morning, day one, evening and morning, day two, and so on.  Then light tags out and in comes the sun.  Maybe light and the sun were the same thing; maybe not.  Maybe the light was the source of all the universe like the Big Bang theory promotes.  Maybe not.  In any respect, and I know this will come as a shock to you, but evening and morning comes from the earth's rotation.

25 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

These are the days of creation which you reject.

I believe you are the one who rejects the entire first chapter of Genesis.  You talk about the creation, but you don't believe it.

27 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

As you know, well-respected Christian theologians like Augustine

As I proved, the early church rejected Augustine's heresy about the creation days until well into the 17th century.

But it is unfair for progressive creationists to make their case using Augustine. Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively, and was, according to Scripture, less than 6,000 years old.

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old....

The Westminster Confession (1647) clearly affirmed that God created the world and all things in it “in the space of six days” (chapter 4, paragraph 1). “In the space of six days” was based on Calvin’s Genesis 1:5 comment. In Annotations upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (the Westminster Annotations, 1645), the Westminster authors specified concerning Genesis 1:5 that in the latter part of the verse, the word day is the natural day, consisting of twenty-four hours. This Presbyterian Confession, with its traditional view of creation, was also adopted by British and American Congregational and Baptist denominations.  source

41 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Regional, if the Bible and the evidence can be believed. 

What part of all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, escapes your grasp?

The Fathers believed that the Flood submerged the entire earth. For example, Justin Martyr (c. 100/110–159/165) and Augustine said that the Flood rose 15 cubits above the highest mountains. Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115–168, 181) argued, against Greek local flood theories, that the water overtopped every high hill by at least 15 cubits.  ibid

 

 

[The Barbarian]

You're starting to just repeat yourself now.   I think you're done here.

 

[RV_Wizard]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You're starting to just repeat yourself now.   I think you're done here.

 

Yes, you've lost the argument. 

You've conclusively proven that the only way to believe in evolution and the Bible is to misrepresent everything in the Bible that disagrees with the master you serve; naturalism.  You've shown that one must be oblivious to the obvious; to deny how light works; to not comprehend how days are determined by the earth's rotation; to deny gravity and pretend that low lying ground with easy run off to the sea can have a local flood over the mountain peaks.  What you have said is harder to believe than any miracle of God.  You claim that these miracles of yours had to happen on their own, and that a perfect God would lie to take credit.

Checkmate.  You lost!

 

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

Why don't you at least READ the 5 English translations that I have provided?

None of them support your claim.

Well then.  You accept the totally irrational idea that God's original creation can be described as "chaos", "waste" and "unsightly" then.  That is pitiful.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  None of them include the word BECAME.  None of them indicate a previous state.

I've already proved that "was" and "became" are synonymous in certain conditions, but why bother with FACTS when you have BIAS?

But, ok, let's go with "was" then.

But, the earth was an uninhabitable wasteland.

You ok with that?  Describing God's creation?  A wasteland?  What kind of God would create a wasteland that required more work to finish?  That is pitiful.

Further, since "tohu wabohu" describes the total destruction of land in the only 2 other occurrences in the entire OT, to use those 2 words in describing creation is just a very pitiful idea.

God doesn't create wastelands.  Or explain why He would?  Not able to get it all done in a single breathe and word?  Well, the Bible says He creates by speaking the heavens and earth into existence.  He doesn't need to do anything in stages.

Your resistance to the literal Hebrew is real sad and reflects how off kilter so many believers are when it comes to FACTS and reality.

And Isa 45:18 SAYS that God did not create the earth "tohu", while the lousy English translation says that God created the earth tohu.

The contradiction is glaring.  Either you are incapable of understanding that, or you are comfortable with it.

Well, I AM capable of understanding it and I AM NOT comfortable with any contradiction in the Bible.  The Bible is inerrant.  That means no errors.  A contradiction is an error.

How can I take anything you say seriously when you are ok with such a contradiction?

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

FreeGrace said: 

Take a blob of something.  No definite shape, but everyone understands the shape of a blob.

You obviously do not understand the definition of "formless," despite hiving it given to you.

I explained WHEN the word works.  It's not the way you think.  It works when used in a comparative sense, and I gave you a good example.  

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

If there was anything in the Scriptures that supported an old earth I would believe it.

No you wouldn't, and you've proved that.  The literal Hebrew SAYS the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland, clearly indicating that there was an unknown period of time where the earth became somethting other than how it was created.

11 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

  Since NOTHING in the Scriptures agrees with your claims, I reject them.

You are rejecting the literal Hebrew that Moses wrote.