[_ Old Earth _] Big Bang ?

[th1b.taylor]

Unless I am convinced otherwise I will continue believing in Evolution, and I have no problem reconciling that with my commitment to Christ which is the same for many other brothers and sisters in the Lord.

And what I am calling you to do, because I am called of God to do so, is to examine your beliefs, your placement of faith, in the clear light of scripture when revealed by the light, shed through the indwelling of the Holy spirit. This is easily accomplished by any man or woman by total submission to the Spirit that knocks on the door of every man's heart without ceasing.

 

[th1b.taylor]

With regards to Proto-feathers and Dinosaurs, are you saying that there is 90% of the evidence that we are not taking into account. If so, please present this evidence.


Who offers 45 hours of material on this site? How can anyone be expected to deal with that?

I must be getting old and I am only 69 already but I goofed. The evidence can be accessed through any of the links I have presented by examining the material and then, closely, digging into it.

 

[lordkalvan]

Go back in the string and you can find the two links I offered that you seem to have ignored and Kalvin, off hand, dismissed, claiming to have viewed it in less than 24 hours. It's in the string.

I decline to spend hours viewing videos that amount to unreferenced assertions and rhetoric. You have failed to offer a single argument to refute anything posted contrary to your claims other than to dismiss anything you don't like as 'trash science'. If you have an argument to make, you should present whatever you think is the strongest point you can support it with so that we could consider and discuss it. Simply demanding that others invest hours into viewing material making claims that they are most likely already familiar with is not conducive to a meaningful dialogue.

 

[twinc]

Unless I am convinced otherwise I will continue believing in Evolution, and I have no problem reconciling that with my commitment to Christ which is the same for many other brothers and sisters in the Lord.

if only but sadly and alas not so - for you do not believe what Moses wrote or what Christ said about what he wrote - twinc

 

[twinc]

if only but sadly and alas not so - for you do not believe what Moses wrote or what Christ said about what he wrote - twinc

so guess what Moses wrote that you refuse to believe - twinc

 

[Drew]

The question is not that tough. You either believe God is Creator or you don't. You put your faith in one or the other, not both. You can only serve one. There is no room for two.
.

You are not addressing my question: Here is the question. It is clear, well-formulated, and unambiguous. Please answer it:

Given the undeniable fact that at least parts of Scripture are allegorical (or otherwise are not to be taken literally), on precisely what grounds do you conclude that the creation account in Genesis is to be read as literal history, and that therefore the theory of evolution is substantially incorrect?

 

[Drew]

It has been suggested that the Creation Account might be a Parable or a Metaphor but as I, being indwelt of and by the Holy Spirit, read the Creation Account, neither I nor the Spirit find any reason for such a conclusion.

This is precisely why discussions about this subject are futile. The YECers often simply claim some form of magical revelation and that brings the discussion to an impasse. One cannot engage such claims. Those of us who are committed to the "public" evidence of findings in domains like biology, paleontology, etc. are simply not playing by the same rules. We, in contrast to YECers, are committed to honouring what the universe presents to us. The YECers, by contrast, need not deal with the evidence precisely because they can invoke the trump card of special privileged revelation.

They are entitled to do so, of course; however I very much doubt anyone who is not already committed to such a view will be convinced.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I decline to spend hours viewing videos that amount to unreferenced assertions and rhetoric.

This is, I give you credit, honesty, the honesty that can be discussed. Very unscientific behavior but honest.

You have failed to offer a single argument to refute anything posted contrary to your claims other than to dismiss anything you don't like as 'trash science'. If you have an argument to make, you should present whatever you think is the strongest point you can support it with so that we could consider and discuss it. Simply demanding that others invest hours into viewing material making claims that they are most likely already familiar with is not conducive to a meaningful dialogue.

The evidence you, now, pretend to want is in the video evidence. This is a ruse.

 

[Drew]

.....but I am taught of the Holy spirit that I do not quench that the account is true as it is written.

As it is written? Well, what about texts that speak of the trees clapping their hands and the rivers singing with joy.

Do you take those texts as written? I don't, I see them as literary images expressing the truth that the Kingdom of God will be a wonderful thing.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I must be getting old and I am only 69 already but I goofed. The evidence can be accessed through any of the links I have presented by examining the material and then, closely, digging into it.

If you'll notice, I almost never post a link and tell people to read tons of content. I summarize arguments and present it in an understandable form with the direct observable evidence posted on the forum. I think link the source of my information so that others may read more if they want.

The Terms of Service even states this, that if you want your posts to be read, then you should make it a reasonable length, and you should be able to summarize the arguments in your own words.

Are you able to do that?

 

[th1b.taylor]

This is precisely why discussions about this subject are futile. The YECers often simply claim some form of magical revelation and that brings the discussion to an impasse. One cannot engage such claims. Those of us who are committed to the "public" evidence of findings in domains like biology, paleontology, etc. are simply not playing by the same rules. We, in contrast to YECers, are committed to honouring what the universe presents to us. The YECers, by contrast, need not deal with the evidence precisely because they can invoke the trump card of special privileged revelation.

They are entitled to do so, of course; however I very much doubt anyone who is not already committed to such a view will be convinced.

Drew, there is nothing magical about the indwelling of the Spirit of God, it is even taught to have been known by King David and others in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. And let me be clear, whether I get into trouble or not, every saved person is indwelt with the presence of the Holy Spirit, the very moment they are saved. One of two things happens at that time, the most common, it seems, is we disobey the scriptures and begin to quench the spirit or we surrender partially or completely. Partial surrender is to still disobey and to ¿sometime? quench the Spirit. This is a miracle of God but it is not something a magician can pull off.

 

[Gary]

No one is "serving" evolution, it's a concept not some being. God is the creator of all things, all matter has it's origin in him, we just disagree on the METHOD by which he created and developed his creation.

I find it interesting how often people try to move goal posts in order to attempt to discredit fellow believers in Christ.

I know exactly what you mean. :yes
.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

This is, I give you credit, honesty, the honesty that can be discussed. Very unscientific behavior but honest.


The evidence you, now, pretend to want is in the video evidence. This is a ruse.

If you think people's lack of wanting to spend 45 hours reading your links with "evidence," is because they are afraid of the content then you're kidding yourself. We've likely heard it all before, and it isn't worth my time. Now if you are able to do as I do and summarize the arguments and present the evidence within this forum then we can have a discussion, else we will just exchange links which is not a discussion. If I wanted to click links I would have just googled, and forgone this conversation.

 

[twinc]

As it is written? Well, what about texts that speak of the trees clapping their hands and the rivers singing with joy.

Do you take those texts as written? I don't, I see them as literary images expressing the truth that the Kingdom of God will be a wonderful thing.

well what about a Big Bang from nowhere and nothing creating everything including and also excluding Him - for real Big Bang cover ups and anomalies via google see [Arp's Anomalies] by Apologetics Press - Christians come home now - twinc

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I know exactly what you mean. :yes
.

Then perhaps you can sympathize with people trying to make Young Earth Creationism a salvation issue....

I don't think this matter is an essential of the faith in the slightest.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

well what about a Big Bang from nowhere and nothing creating everything including and also excluding Him - Christians come home now - twinc

Ask Drew if he thinks the Big Bang happened without God.

 

[Drew]

In this case, God created the animals in one day and He created man in one day but the "theory" of evolution, totally disagrees.

I will not tire of asking this question:

Given the undeniable fact that at least parts of Scripture are allegorical (or otherwise are not to be taken literally), on precisely what grounds do you conclude that the creation account in Genesis is to be read as literal history, and that therefore the theory of evolution is substantially incorrect?

 

[th1b.taylor]

As it is written? Well, what about texts that speak of the trees clapping their hands and the rivers singing with joy.

Do you take those texts as written? I don't, I see them as literary images expressing the truth that the Kingdom of God will be a wonderful thing.

Having found you to be an honest man, I'm going to ignore the open invitation to get down in the mud and grovel with you. What is obviously metaphor is just that, now, intelligent conversation?

 

[th1b.taylor]

If you'll notice, I almost never post a link and tell people to read tons of content. I summarize arguments and present it in an understandable form with the direct observable evidence posted on the forum. I think link the source of my information so that others may read more if they want.

The Terms of Service even states this, that if you want your posts to be read, then you should make it a reasonable length, and you should be able to summarize the arguments in your own words.

Are you able to do that?

I have repeatedly summarized and you and kalvan rejected, thus, the links.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I will not tire of asking this question:

Given the undeniable fact that at least parts of Scripture are allegorical (or otherwise are not to be taken literally), on precisely what grounds do you conclude that the creation account in Genesis is to be read as literal history, and that therefore the theory of evolution is substantially incorrect?

And I will never tire of telling you the truth, God, the third person thereof, the Holy Spirit testifies to it's truth.