6 days writes:
For example in genetics the same prediction can often be made based on common designer or common ancestor.
Barbarian observes:
No. For example, the problem of broken genes in closely related organisms is an insoluble puzzle for creationism, but makes perfect sense in light of evolution
Your beliefs in evolutionism trump evidence and science.
Slogans won't help you. You need to find some evidence for your beliefs. Present them in a cogent argument; that will work.
(6days advocates a literal reading of all scripture)
Barbarian observes:
Luther and Calvin correctly asserted that interpreting the Bible in a strictly literal sense would rule out the Earth moving at all.
Of course...In any literature you understand if the author is using a figure of speech, or telling a true story.
Apparently Luther and Calvin didn't get that right. How do you know you got it right?
Genesis is told as history and accepted as history throughout the Bible.
I'd be pleased to see your evidence that an allegory, if repeated, makes it a literal history. What have you got?
Speaking of Luther... He said "When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you to wantonly turn His Word in the direction you wish it to go.”
This is the same guy who wanted to tell God that the Earth couldn't move. So not very convincing, um?
As a Christian, why not accept that God's Word is truth...
Barbarian observes:
It is. It's just not compatible with Creationism. For example, Genesis rules out the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.
You might want to understand what the Bible*says before you start making arguments.
Well, maybe I should show you:
Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
"Life ex nihilo" is completely contrary to God's word.
For example God's Word says "Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man's nostrils, and the man became a living person"
Hmmm... you wrote:
Of course...In any literature you understand if the author is using a figure of speech, or telling a true story. The Bible has poetry, parables, provebs, prophecy history etc.
You're insisting Gen. 1:24 is not literal, but that Gen. 2:7 has to be a literal history. You're picking and choosing what you want to believe.
And that "broken genes" are evidence of the Biblical account.
Barbarian observes:
No. The Bible says nothing about that.
The Bible DOES say something about that and in quite a few different verses. God's perfect creation has been corrupted. (Romans*8:22*as example)
He did not regard creation as perfect. That is a creationist addition to His word.
Gen. 1:31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good.
And, as I told you, nothing whatever about broken genes.
Also genetic reaearch is now finding many of these "broken genes" are not broken at all but serve important purposes.
Barbarian suggests:
Show me what the vitamin C gene in primates is for.
Evolutionists believe it is for vitamin C.
That's what it does in other mammals. Your link is dead, BTW. Just tell us about it.
Barbarian observes:
In fact, nothing God has told us contradicts evolution
If that is true then you believe Jesus created the universe and all life in 6 days...
As you admitted, much of the Bible is not literal, but is in allegorical or poetic form. So no. And the ancient Christians were well aware of this.
...and that creation was perfect until man sinned.
See above. The claim that God said creation was perfect, is a creationist alteration of God's word
You believe that the last Adam is only necessary because of a literal first sin from the first Adam.
You have that right, at least.
And you believe the geneaologies connecting first Adam to Last Adam.
The two given in the Bible, are contradictory.
For example it (evolutionism) puts death before sin.
Barbarian observes:
Now, that's an equivocation. The "death" God told Adam about in the Garden was not a physical death, but a spiritual one that did not appear before sin. We know this, because God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, but Adam lives on physically for many years after.
The death referred to for sin is both spiritual AND physical.
If so, then Adam would have physically died that day. Unless you want to argue that God told him something that wasn't true. Which is it?
As you suggest the spiritual death was immediate. Adam and Eve were spiritually dead immediately. But the passage also refers to a physical death. The Hebrew is translated best as 'dying, you shall die'.
Nope. And no one translated it that way, until the Adventists invented YE creationism.
If physical death was not a result of sin, then Christ would not have had to physically die.*
If He came to save us from physical death, He failed. We still die physically. It's that spiritual death that He came to save us from.
When Christians compromise on the clear teaching in Genesis, they then must compromise on the gospel.
Which is the major offense of YE creationism.
