Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution

No.

If you are going to be a Christian, you have to.....its pretty fundamental. Where I was going with all that was that if you are going to believe the crucifixion-resurrection narrative, why is it such a stretch to believe that God made man out of the dust of the earth?

Since you know so much, please tell me why I didn't respond to your attempted agitation so I will know.

No, I believe the crucifixion and resurrection to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated by organized government upon its constituents.

I believe there was a renegade portion of the priesthood which understood that the time of beating the congregation over the head with threats of hell was at an end. It was time to offer the carrot and put the stick away.

Not to mention that the entire philosophy of the crucifixion/resurrection makes no sense to me.

Christ is God, omniscient and eternal. Yet a man killed him?

Take a look at God's Word. It tells us He gave up His life, no one took it from Him. He maintained if you sin you deserve death. The problem is your death is not adequate to satisfy The Angry God. He gave Himself. It is beyond my understanding. That does not prevent me from accepting His substitutionary death to purchase His creation. Remember the entire creation groans like a woman in childbirth waiting for its redemption from its bondage of corruption.

Everybody knows what the deal is, we make our own accountings when our numbers are up. I love God but I'm not going to tell somebody else they have to believe anything. I generally avoid both those guys who yap on about me needing to do as they say or I'm going to burn and those who refuse to even consider an opinion other than total negation. My own guesses work well enough for me and I figure If a man is happy with what he brings to the pearly gates then that's his business. I'm happy with my efforts at doing the right things and with my guess that evolution is one of God's tools.

Nothing new to me, friend. But we're not talking about Adam here.We're looking at several generations beyond the fall. None of the Bible we have was written before the flood. So it wasn't intended for those intelligent people of whom you speak. That's not my whole point, anyway. If we're going to have a Genesis that amounts to "how did God do it?", it's going to be a lot of reading that is not focused on the Message. Ask yourself - why did God have Moses write Genesis? Now - what should he include? Oh, BTW - what medium was available for writing and storing, and why does that matter?

Ever taken a course in journalistic writing?

No, I did not add the word "listen". Several translations have done that for me. At your prompting, which I suppose is sure to come, I will have to do a study in the Hebrew text to see whether that is incorrect. Please forgive my tendency to not read you as well as I do God's word - my point about your story was not lost, and you know it.

As for your claim of being a "presupposionalist"......I suppose I am that also, although I have never used the term. But you go beyond that as a Genesis literalist. I believe the Word is correct, but I also acknowledge the possibility that it isn't necessarily all literal and complete detail. My understanding of how that works does not challenge any of the Message.

Yes - I accept the Big Bang....until that is somehow disproven. What you don't seem to realize is that the reason so many evolutionists (atheists, actually) don't accept it is that it blows their "eternal cosmos" idea - which was necessary for their "chance" argument - out of existence (now some of them make an appeal to "multiverse"). When it first came to light, they attempted to mitigate it with the idea that the universe is continually expanding and collapsing in never ending cycles. Even that has been shown by scientific discovery to be incorrect. Those silly scientist who won't just take the Biblical text as literal history now know that the universe has a beginning and is expanding at an accelerated rate. There is no sign of the supposed "endless cycle". I find that exciting - and useful when talking to atheists.

Now, the atheist position is that presupposing Biblical truth is hostile to scientific discovery. I disagree, and propose the opposite - that presupposing no God blinds the atheistic scientist and impedes discovery. My belief that many of the details of God's creation are discoverable (over time) is based on study of the Bible and on my faith, not only in his saving grace, but also in his desire for us to know him, even in life. Frankly, I find the wonders of molecular biology and astrophysics to be awesome almost beyond belief, and showing evidence of a masterful Creator. Surely God could have left no such evidence if he did not desire us to discover it. And surely if he desires us to discover it, He would not allow Satan to rearrange the entire cosmos, the tiniest complex components of life, and matter itself, and everything in between so as to make it incomprehensable.

Brainwashing? That is one way we get to the point of refusing to consider ideas that challenge our own. Another is fear. Fear that our limited understanding will be destroyed by truth revealed bit by bit. Either way, hostility toward discovery based on following where the evidence leads does nothing to save the unbeliever. Arguing how God went about creating and whether his day fits in our box, to the point of denigrating and just being argumentative, is no way to win souls....in my humble opinion.

We have the answer in God's Word how He did it. He spoke and it happened.

I did take a journalistic writing class in college. The teacher asked us to write about a book that changed our life; like Huckleberry Finn. I wrote about the Bible. She rejected my paper and appealed to the "separation of church and state." Neither she nor I are in congress so I figured she was too stupid to teach much and dropped the class.

I don't know what I don't know and you can't know what I do know without me stating it.

Another great post, FreeMe.

That speciation occurs/occurred roughly along the lines that evolution theory proposes is at least as certain as the fact that the earth orbits the sun. The only questions that remain (and they are only few and peripheral) relate do the exact processes involved.

Well then.......it appears that I have overestimated your comprehension. It also appears your intention is to argue for the sake of arguing. Otherwise, I would think that you might be more curious about what that point was.

Please tell me the point.

By the way, I think you are the poster who informed me that Moses was the recipient of God's Word; rather than people before the Flood. Thanks. That does change my opinion of those who might read it at the time. At the same time I do believe Moses understood all that God was giving him.

You make this assertion as though you were there to observe it. You faith in evolution is no more valid than the 7,000 year believer. Neither was he there to observe it.

Making note of evident facts requires no faith at all. Every field of science points to it. You'd have to be a fool to believe the earth is six thousand years old, or ten thousand years old, or anything anywhere close.

You don't seem to understand your information is so limited you can't understand how limited it is. Your information is like a grain of sand on the beach of the beach of information. If your information is so obvious name one Ph.D creationist who switched and became an evolutionist. Just one!

The only way they can be Creationists is if they've got a screw loose, so what would happen to change that?

Perhaps then you can explain why Ph.D evolutionist switch to become creationist since evolution is so obvious. Can you give it a try without ad hominin?

I have no respect for any scientist who believes in a flat earth either. They are in the same category.