Creation vs. Evolution II

patrick jane · Aug 29, 2016

Moving this post to give ownership of this thread to Patrick Jane.

Micheal is transferring Ownership to Patrick. This is his decision.

Please stay on topic. No dragging out the personal histories of the participants or attacking their families. That behavior will not be tolerated. Derailing the thread in this fashion will result in a ban from the thread and an infraction.
---Sherman

MichaelCadry · Oct 20, 2016

Creation vs. Evolution II

Hi All,

This is the new Creation vs. Evolution Thread, called Part II from MichaelCadry. Well, I have to start from scratch here, I suppose. I don't know who was complaining that my thread was too long. I didn't see any problem still using it. It worked fine for me. Anyway, I will try to incorporate your posts here, so that you can get back to your conversations. Thanks a lot all. I'll see if I can copy your posts to this Thread.

Much Love, In Christ {His Example For Us},

Michael

MichaelCadry · Oct 20, 2016

These Posts are from 6days, Not Me! It is from the Creation Thread; Page 1430, Post #21436

Quote Originally Posted by popsthebuilder View Post
So the first and second day are to be considered 24 hour periods prior to the formation of the sun moon or earth which determined the 24 hour cycle.
This is nonsensical.
Genesis 1
5*God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
8 And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
13*And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
19*And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
23*And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
31 And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day

Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Thanks Blog this Post
The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

Tambora (Yesterday)

Yesterday, 07:58 AM #21437
6days
6days is offline
Silver Member
6days's Avatar

Join Date
Nov 2013
Posts
4,115
Thanks
468
Thanked 1,370 Times in 896 Posts
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
0 Thread(s)

Rep Power
676269

Quote Originally Posted by popsthebuilder View Post
Quote Originally Posted by 6days
Jesus referred to the Genesis more often than any other scripture, and always as true history...which you reject.
Luke 11:50, 51 "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
You are making no sense whatsoever.
The words are from scripture... They are the words of Jesus.

Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Thanks Blog this Post
The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

Tambora (Yesterday)

MichaelCadry · Oct 20, 2016

Posting threads from the old Creation vs. Evolution, to the new Creation vs. Evolution II is not going to work. Just refer back to your posts on the old thread and put them on this new thread.

Thanks All!!

God Bless Your Hearts!

Michael

MichaelCadry · Oct 20, 2016

This is from Popsthebuilder from Page 1428; Post 21406. I told him that I would answer it tonight, and have every intention of doing that. It follows on the next Post No. 5. Thanks!

MichaelCadry · Oct 20, 2016

popsthebuilder said:
MichaelCadry,

So you accept that things can change over time.

Sure, but not in the way that you propose.

popsthebuilder said:
I didn't say that evolutionist were right; I simply stated that they do not contend that man came from chimps. I also never said I believed that or not.

That's because the evolutionists were wrong. You said that they contend that man came from an ancestor of the chimps.

popsthebuilder said:
Chicken before the egg; got it.

And though you don't intentionally make GOD out to be a liar, it is insinuated by your claims. If the earth is only 6000 years old, but seams exponentially older than that then there is deception a foot on some level. You can deny that this is what you meant, and I'm certain you didn't mean that God is a liar. It just doesn't change anything though.

I'm not saying that God is a liar. He created the Earth in the same six days that He created man. He created the 'Host of Heaven' during those six days. That means the stars and planets, etc. Our galaxy is called the Milky Way. See Gen. 1:19KJV. On the Fourth Day. That is when He created the stars. He created everything just as He said. He made the young Earth appear older to confound men like you. You can't see how He could create things that are aged, but new. Man was created aged, even though it was a young Earth. The birds and animals were created aged, not in the egg. He created trees that bore fruit and He created them without waiting for them to start from scratch as a sapling. You just can't see what was going on, because you limit what God can do.

popsthebuilder said:
Woe, what won't work?

Do you deny that GOD is spirit? Do you deny that the Holy Spirit indwells in those GOD so chose before the foundation of the earth? Likeness is in spirit and not flesh. If you refute this then you are more lost than you seemed to be initially. So explain why that doesn't cut it please, and why I must conform to your opinion that likeness is a physical likeness.

No, I do not deny that God is a spirit. He also can appear in human form if He chooses. Moses saw God's back parts in the mountain where He gave Moses the Ten Commandments written in stone. Moses didn't etch the words on the stone tablets. God wrote them Himself and etched them right at that time. I SAID, God created man in His "IMAGE," different from likeness.

popsthebuilder said:
I do believe the Bible, but find those who take it literally are very lost indeed, similar to the Pharisees in the time of the Christ. They believed their books, but still were way off the narrow path due to misinterpretation and greed.

I take the Bible literally regarding certain parts, but of course, I do see that some things are parables, or symbolism. It's not hard to see these things in the Bible. Yes, I do believe a serpent talked to Eve, not with his mouth, but instead 'telepathically.' And I believe that the serpent's legs were removed in future generations to change from a serpent into a snake. And the snake licks the dust of the Earth, just as the Lord said He would do.

Yes, I believe Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt when she turned around to look at Sodom's demise. She was warned. It's too bad that the devil caused her to do it. Yes, I believe that Moses threw his staff onto the floor and it turned into a snake, and the magicians threw their staffs down and they turned into snakes, but Moses snake Ate their snakes.

popsthebuilder said:
So I won't call change over time due to adaptation to habitat evolution.

I won't be calling it transformation either though, as that is more suited for a fast or immediate change, not something gradual that takes place over 10s of 1000s of years or more.

Your accusations and presuppositions won't frighten me; I don't really care what others think of me and am generally regarded as a heretic anyway. One thing about ones faith not stemming from the doctrines of man; it doesn't waver due to the decrees of man either.

Peace friend, sincerely

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I've answered enough of your premises. I am done with it. You know what I've said about these matters, so why should I write them again? Will chat with you more shortly, I hope.

God's Best For You!!

Michael

popsthebuilder · Oct 20, 2016

MichaelCadry said:
Sure, but not in the way that you propose.

That's because the evolutionists were wrong. You said that they contend that man came from an ancestor of the chimps.

I'm not saying that God is a liar. He created the Earth in the same six days that He created man. He created the 'Host of Heaven' during those six days. That means the stars and planets, etc. Our galaxy is called the Milky Way. See Gen. 1:19KJV. On the Fourth Day. That is when He created the stars. He created everything just as He said. He made the young Earth appear older to confound men like you. You can't see how He could create things that are aged, but new. Man was created aged, even though it was a young Earth. The birds and animals were created aged, not in the egg. He created trees that bore fruit and He created them without waiting for them to start from scratch as a sapling. You just can't see what was going on, because you limit what God can do.

No, I do not deny that God is a spirit. He also can appear in human form if He chooses. Moses saw God's back parts in the mountain where He gave Moses the Ten Commandments written in stone. Moses didn't etch the words on the stone tablets. God wrote them Himself and etched them right at that time. I SAID, God created man in His "IMAGE," different from likeness.

I take the Bible literally regarding certain parts, but of course, I do see that some things are parables, or symbolism. It's not hard to see these things in the Bible. Yes, I do believe a serpent talked to Eve, not with his mouth, but instead 'telepathically.' And I believe that the serpent's legs were removed in future generations to change from a serpent into a snake. And the snake licks the dust of the Earth, just as the Lord said He would do.

Yes, I believe Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt when she turned around to look at Sodom's demise. She was warned. It's too bad that the devil caused her to do it. Yes, I believe that Moses threw his staff onto the floor and it turned into a snake, and the magicians threw their staffs down and they turned into snakes, but Moses snake Ate their snakes.

I've answered enough of your premises. I am done with it. You know what I've said about these matters, so why should I write them again? Will chat with you more shortly, I hope.

God's Best For You!!

Michael

Why would the Lord, GOD wish to confound those who earnestly seek HIM?

Peace friend, might GOD bless you with all good things of HIM in this life and the hereafter.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Interplanner · Oct 20, 2016

"Mitochondrial Eve" was an amazing presentation on Scripture, Science and Salvation recently. Using only the mitochondrial calculus, 1: there is one "Eve" from which we all have come and 2: she's as recent as 100K years ago.

Interplanner · Oct 20, 2016

Yesterday's SSR was on plate catastrophism. The 2006 tsunami was only a slippage of 6 ft, resulting in a platform of inbound water 10ft thick. There are geologic records all over the place of slips and collapses 100x this and a S. African one that was 10,000 ft and over in a moment. See the photo from S. Africa of the 500 ft thick piece standing on edge that broke off intact, but itself has a hundred layers showing and standing perpendicular to the world. Uniformitarianism, schuniformitarianism.

Thus the conclusion that Gen 7:11 is the most coherent explanation for the tectonic array we have today.

gcthomas · Oct 20, 2016

Interplanner said:
"Mitochondrial Eve" was an amazing presentation on Scripture, Science and Salvation recently. Using only the mitochondrial calculus, 1: there is one "Eve" from which we all have come and 2: she's as recent as 100K years ago.

This person could not have been the only female around at the time, since the last common male ancestor did not live in the same age as the last common female ancestor. There was a complete population around at the time this theoretical 'Eve' was born, and had been for a long time before, so the science does not in any way support the biblical tale of origins.

Sherman · Oct 20, 2016

MichaelCadry said:
Hi All,

This is the new Creation vs. Evolution Thread, called Part II from MichaelCadry. Well, I have to start from scratch here, I suppose. I don't know who was complaining that my thread was too long. I didn't see any problem still using it. It worked fine for me. Anyway, I will try to incorporate your posts here, so that you can get back to your conversations. Thanks a lot all. I'll see if I can copy your posts to this Thread.

Much Love, In Christ {His Example For Us},

Michael

This is done all the time when a thread gets too long for some computers to load. An archived thread can still be read and enjoyed. Starting a part II allows the discussion to continue and the thread to survive. The fact that your thread has gotten to the point where we need to start a part II shows how popular it is.

Your thread is now in the Hall of Fame for threads here as TOL's most popular thread--->http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?94434-Creation-vs-Evolution

patrick jane · Oct 20, 2016

Sherman said:
This is done all the time when a thread gets too long for some computers to load. An archived thread can still be read and enjoyed. Starting a part II allows the discussion to continue and the thread to survive. The fact that your thread has gotten to the point where we need to start a part II shows how popular it is.

Your thread is now in the Hall of Fame for threads here as TOL's most popular thread--->http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?94434-Creation-vs-Evolution

Congratulations Michael - You are in the Hall Of Fame !!!!

Sherman · Oct 20, 2016

His thread is there as the most popular thread. I felt it was worth preserving.

6days · Oct 20, 2016

popsthebuilder said:
If you think that the Torah or OT was perfect then why was there the need for the new testament?

The OT is absolute truth. The OT is foundational to the Gospel, and is the foundation to every Christian doctrine. (The OT and NT make one complete unit)

popsthebuilder said:
I do not refute Moses or any before or after Him. What I refute is the literal interpretation of things that are very obviously not meant to be taken literally.

You reject that which Moses relates as history.. Various Bible authors, and even Jesus refer to the Torah as true history.
Jesus asked 'If you don't believe Moses, then how can you believe me?' *Nobody in all scripture refers to creation account as just allegorical teaching, as many modern theists do.

popsthebuilder said:
If it was all meant to be taken as literally then why did the Christ only teach in parables?

Uh....
Nobody said that the parables are literal history. *Are you suggesting that the Bible can't be taken as a historical account because Jesus sometimes taught in parables?

popsthebuilder said:
*I don't deny that GOD could have indeed created all existence as we know it in 6 literal days,

God could have created everything in an instant, or, He could have created over a billion years; but, He told us He created in six days.

popsthebuilder said:
I just can't justify it given the fact that the truths or GOD are direct and simple, and for one to believe in a literal 6*24 hour period of creation they must ignore the plain simple truthful science that shows the earth to be more than 6000 years old.

God does not need you to justify Him, or His Word. Essentially, you are saying you trust secular, constantly changing opinions over God's Word.
BTW... science does not 'show' the age of the earth. You are talking about interpretations. There are also scientists who interpret evidence and say the evidence points to a young earth, consistent with the Biblical account.

popsthebuilder said:
If you contend that both the written inspired word of GOD is true, and that science, for the most part, is factual

Yes.... God's Word is absolute truth and science is ALWAYS consistent with God's Word.

popsthebuilder said:
then one must too admit that either time itself moved along much slower nearer to creation

There is no need to say that time, or the speed of light was different.

popsthebuilder said:
,...and that 6 aeons is interchangeable with 6 days according to others

Totally false Pops. You have ignored many things, and i will list only 2.
*You have ignored this request...Outside of the creation account, the word yom/day is used hundreds of times in the OT. Can you show an example where the word 'day' *might mean either a 24 hour day, or a long undetermined period of time? (I will help with the answer... the meaning is always easy to understand by the context). I suppled verses from Genesis 2 where the same word is used but with different meanings.
* You ignored a question and a statement from a Hebrew professor. He says every Hebrew scholar, at every major university, that he is aware of would agree that Genesis 1 is referring to 24 hour days. The question was do you know of just one Hebrew scholar at any major university who says the text allows for anything other than 24 hour days?

popsthebuilder said:
I've read some of your posts; the fact that most science is derived from factual data isn't wholly lost on you, so why do you consider the literal interpretation so significant?

Because the Gospel is foundational on Genesis. Every Christian doctrine is based on the first few books of the Bible. If physical death existed before "first Adam" sinned, then the crucifixion of Christ becomes compromised, if not meaniness.

popsthebuilder said:
I think you may be so hung up on this because of some antievolution thing. But what is the point? As stated earlier; just because things change over time doesn't mean GOD didn't create those things, or that GOD doesn't wholly control those changes.*

*Are you suggesting that man evolved from 'monkeys'.
*Are you suggesting we ignore scripture telling us woman was made from man's rib?
*Do you believe that that repetition in scripture of 'created aftet their kind' is not a repudiation of common ancestry beliefs?*
*Do you reject that before God created the stars, the earth was water?
*Do you reject Jesus teaching that humans were made "In the beginning"?
*Do you reject that Last Adam died then rose again, to defeat death, "the final enemy" *due to sin by first Adam Can you provide clear 'yes' or 'no' answers from Scripture? Or, will you introduce compromise to Scripture by answering above questions with "Yes, but..."?...and "No, but....". The answer from scripture is plain / straight forward. You are on slippery ground when you start trying to explain away what God says about our origins, origin of sin and the origin of death. *Our need of a literal Savior is based on the literal account of our history found in Genesis.*

6days · Oct 20, 2016

Interplanner said:
"Mitochondrial Eve" was an amazing presentation on Scripture, Science and Salvation recently. Using only the mitochondrial calculus, 1: there is one "Eve" from which we all have come and 2: she's as recent as 100K years ago.

We have the geneaology from Adam and Eve to Jesus in a period of about 4,000 years.
Like GC says... Mitochondrial Eve is an evolutionary construct...but, it comes awfully close to admitting the truth from God's Word.

popsthebuilder · Oct 20, 2016

6days,

Firstly, you didn't answer my question.

If you believe that the written translation of the OT that we have today is perfection and wholly utter truth, then why was there a need for another testament?

Please understand that I do not refute the law of Moses, and would greatly appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of such.

I don't reject what Moses relates as history because I don't believe the earth to be 6000 years old. It's a very wide gap you must stretch across to arrive at such an acrobatic conclusion.

I never said the creation account was simply allegorical teachings either. Again stretches and conflation or distortion of what I actually stated, and the position I actually hold. Telling.

I'm not suggesting anything. I asked a simple question;

If the bible, in it's entirety is to be taken wholly literally, then why did the Christ teach only in parables?

Your continued attack on what I may or may not hold true about the bible is unwarranted and unappreciated.

I'm quite aware that GOD can do literally anything that GOD wills. Some would say that GOD doesn't lie or deceive and that GOD is not unjust. I would have to agree with those stances as well.

Yes it says 6 days, but it doesn't follow that it must be a literal 24 hour period 6 times. You attesting that all other instances in the OT are referring to a standard day is somewhat moot since the topic at hand is in reference to a time before man, or the sun even.

I didn't even insinuate that GOD needed me to justify anything.
Your malicious attacks on my character are duly noted.

I don't doubt that there may be a handful of scientist, or vast minority or scientists that have theories that suggest a 6000 year old earth. They are all just theories though, and I don't base my interpretation of scripture on science, but at the same time, don't look to refute it with scripture either. In most cases they go together nicely. I trust what I know to be true. I know there word of GOD to be true. I am not saying that GOD is a liar just because I don't agree with you.

What's totally false? That other Abrahamic faiths regard the 6 days of creation as 6 aeons? No, that is the truth. I've ignored many things? Really... Why shouldn't I when they amount to the wild ramblings and accusatory claims of a child with a temper tantrum?

I couldn't care less what a scholar or all scholars say. Why don't you do yourself a favor and research what the Christ said in regards to the scholastic. I don't base my faith off of the imaginative musings of man. Nor do I fold to the pressure of the masses. If it is illogical then it is illogical. If it is against the selfless conscience then it is wrong. But to even understand when things are wrong takes honesty and humility within oneself.

I never said that physical death was a reality before the first man lived.... Nonsensical..... See what I mean.... Where do you even get this stuff? Just curious; are you a faith alone person? As in you don't believe pleasing works in the sight of GOD alone are the byproduct of Faith?

*i am not suggesting that man evolved from monkeys.

*all is from dust and the breath or light of GOD, including Eve.

*again I do not think that man came from monkeys

*literal water... No; the word water in that context is a descriptor of the substance that all was formed of other that the breath and or light of GOD.

*could you refer me to were Jesus teaches that in the beginning the was humans? I'm not familiar with it to be completely honest.

*no I do not deny the resurrection of the Christ? How would you even conclude such?

*so I'm on slippery ground because, in your questionably motivated rant you repeatedly accuse me of wild accusations? The foundation I stand upon is based on the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of the Christ, the stone that the builders rejected which is the cornerstone of the temple of GOD as it relates to man.

I look forward to your rebuttal; admittedly, with naive hope that it might be less fueled by I'll intent.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

6days · Oct 20, 2016

popsthebuilder said:
If you believe that the written translation of the OT that we have today is perfection and wholly utter truth, then why was there a need for another testament?

The OT is absolute truth. The OT is foundational to the Gospel, and is the foundation to every Christian doctrine. (The OT and NT make one complete unit)

popsthebuilder said:
If the bible, in it's entirety is to be taken wholly literally, then why did the Christ teach only in parables?

Pops... your questions are nonsense.* Christ used a number of different teaching methods, including parables.

popsthebuilder said:
Yes it says 6 days, but it doesn't follow that it must be a literal 24 hour period 6 times. You attesting that all other instances in the OT are referring to a standard day*

Pops... you obviously don't read well. I gave you examples twice at least where the word day refers to a longer period of time,* telling you that the word is ALWAYS easily understood by the context.
Here are the points* / questions...
Totally false Pops. You have ignored many things, and i will list only 2.
*You have ignored this request...Outside of the creation account, the word yom/day is used hundreds of times in the OT. Can you show an example where the word 'day' might mean either a 24 hour day, or a long undetermined period of time? (I will help with the answer... the meaning is always easy to understand by the context). I suppled verses from Genesis 2 where the same word is used but with different meanings.
* You ignored a question and a statement from a Hebrew professor. He says every Hebrew scholar, at every major university, that he is aware of would agree that Genesis 1 is referring to 24 hour days. The question was do you know of just one Hebrew scholar at any major university who says the text allows for anything other than 24 hour days?

MichaelCadry · Oct 21, 2016

popsthebuilder said:
Why would the Lord, GOD wish to confound those who earnestly seek HIM?

Peace friend, might GOD bless you with all good things of HIM in this life and the hereafter.

Dear popsthebuilder,

The Lord God does not seek to confound any of those who seek Him. I know which instance you are asking about. The same as why Adam didn't first appear as a young boy in the Garden of Eden. The Earth is a young earth which appears aged to keep man guessing. Are you going to also say it was not fair for God to confound the languages of those who were trying to build the Tower of Babel, or that He was wrong for sending the Great Flood? It's not always how we would think it should be. He still loves us very much and it pleases Him for those who seek Him out. Don't worry, pops.

God Bless You Tons,

Michael

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

MichaelCadry · Oct 21, 2016

Interplanner said:
"Mitochondrial Eve" was an amazing presentation on Scripture, Science and Salvation recently. Using only the mitochondrial calculus, 1: there is one "Eve" from which we all have come and 2: she's as recent as 100K years ago.

Dear Interplanner,

I don't know where you get your information, but your mitochondrial Eve doesn't cut it. Sounds like someone trying to misinform you terribly.

Michael

gcthomas · Oct 21, 2016

Interplanner said:
"Mitochondrial Eve" was an amazing presentation on Scripture, Science and Salvation recently. Using only the mitochondrial calculus, 1: there is one "Eve" from which we all have come and 2: she's as recent as 100K years ago.

This person could not have been the only female around at the time, since the last common male ancestor did not live in the same age as the last common female ancestor. There was a complete population around at the time this theoretical 'Eve' was born, and had been for a long time before, so the science does not in any way support the biblical tale of origins. Mitochondrial eve is the theoretical last common female ancestor, not the 'first' ancestor.

Creation vs. Evolution II

BANNED

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

I identify as a Christian

BANNED

I identify as a Christian

New member

New member

New member

New member

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

New member