[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[follower]

Well, they dont believe Gods Word it seems. A non-literal approach to Genesis devalues the authority of Word of God and does much harm to the Christian faith.

There is so little faith, so little if any true faith, how could anyone measure "harm" to it ?

Literal and non-literal approaches, texts, posts, threads , and whole entire forums provide endless falsenesses. Billions of families are utterly supported by what is entirely false, and they like that and want that , and the Creator will not change their minds nor save their souls as if "by force" nor coercion .....

 

[KV-44-v1]

Since the text itself tells us that it is not a literal account

Cite verses.

 

[Barbarian]

Genesis 1 says that there were mornings and evening before a sun which is necessary to have them, by definition. Which clearly tells us that it's not a literal account.

 

[Barbarian]

If you don't have a Bible, I can post verses for you.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Catholics were, at the time, the only Christians.

There were Christ following Christians, then compromise started settling in. Why Catholicism resembles paganism (mary and saint worship, sacraments, etc.) is because it is compromised. That would explain the many testimonies of people leaving the Faith - because they were taught misconceptions from Catholicism.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Genesis 1 says that there were mornings and evening before a sun which is necessary to have them, by definition. Which clearly tells us that it's not a literal account.

Why do you believe that that ONE LITTLE INSTANCE renders the WHOLE THING allegory??
Interpret Scripture with Scripture.
God is Omnipotent. He does not need created things to tell evening and morning. How do you know that God didn't keep evenings and mornings by a different standard?
Or maybe God used His infinite knowledge, and knew that the time taken would amount to an evening and a morning.


And you already believe it is allegory. Under that assumption, "evening and morning" could mean LITERALLY ANYTHING. Cats and dogs, some tale about summer and winter, etc.

You don't need to compromise your beliefs with athiesm.

 

[KV-44-v1]

God used evolution

Which verse says that?

 

[KV-44-v1]

You just added that to scripture.

Okay then, WHICH verses did i allegedly "add" to??

Highlight verses in blue, highlights my so called "add" in red.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Sometimes, it's enough to produce new species, and when this happens enough, it produces higher taxa.

So you mean that eventually, one kind (min) can give rise to another kind (min).

Question:
Do you think that man and apes share an ancestor?
Or that one evolved from the other?

 

[KV-44-v1]

Nope sorry, I'm not about to take your "because I say so" declarations as true, especially given your profound ignorance of science.

This is not a great rebuttal. In essence you have said "im smort your dumb so im right" and hiding.

I just gave you several, polystrate fossils, vestigial organs, and transitional fossils.

That's not Creation point, but evolution ones.
Also, the (fully functional!!) vestigial organs look DESIGNED - not formed by being thrown around by chance.


Evolutionary ideas change ALL THE TIME. You'd rather believe a shapeshifter view on THE ORIGINS of life than a solid one!! Tells me plenty.
The origins of life is a history matter. Throwing evolutionary "science" at it is no better than trying to prove that the Egypt-Russia-Brazil War of 1411 happened by using science.

 

[KV-44-v1]

[U]Barbarian[/U]​

You take "earth bring forth life" literally. So your accusations of me are rendered hypocritical.
You believe that "creation is real" but yet assert "No! yec revizsion!!1"
Which is it? Is creation real or not?

Thiestic evolution (really, Athiestic Christianity) is not a sustainable nor logical belief set.

Why else do athiests want to believe evolution? It provides an easy way out of faith in God.
Creationism (Basing worldview on the Bible rather than shapeshifting "science" claims about history) would RIP AWAY their intellectual hiding place.

2 Peter 3:5-6
5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

I know it seems very easy to kowtow to Athiests and their fake history. You are showered with $$, reputation, and company when you go with the crowd. Mabye even a position at an organization or church. But worldview compromise is not worth it. Don't let Genesis escape your notice.

 

[KV-44-v1]

See, this is why I could never be a creationist. You're forced to find some way to bend reality to make it fit your beliefs, no matter how ridiculous it makes you look. So when you're given thousands of examples of populations evolving new traits and characteristics, all you can do is desperately make up excuses to deny them and make them go away.

How is pointing out assumptions and using logic bending reality?? Quite ironic!!

 

[KV-44-v1]

most of them, anyway) truly believe their new interpretation of Genesis

Why do you assert that it is "new"?
Darwinian Evolution is what's new. Its prototype was from Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) who taught that humans evolved from fish. Such evolutionary ideas were common in ancient pagan societies such as in Greece and Rome.
If God used evolution - then why would it be being COMMON there? You'd expect they would be Christian.

But Creation was around before the fall of man. Creation predates evolution by millennia.

Genesis has always been taken literally before Darwin. The Bible is not a confusing text subject to "scientific" or otherwise re-interpretation.

 

[KV-44-v1]

He loves you. And evolution is part of His creation.

So if God cobbled things with evolution over long ages instead of using His Omnipotence to instantly create everything in only 6 days, wouldnt there be much suffering, pain, death, etc.?
Creation belief does not contradict God's Love - but "God created with evo instead of supernaturally" calls His love into question.

quote source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/charles-darwin-confessions/

"Charles Darwin had confessed everything to her. That he was in the process of rewriting the history of life. That, according to his convictions, all living things descended from a common ancestor. And that species were not to be attributed to God's endless creativity, but were the product of a blind, mechanical process that altered them over the course of millions of years. This alone was pure heresy. Darwin even nursed doubts about the very survival of human beings.

And this man, who had gone around the world once, and was going to marry Emma Wedgwood, did not believe a single word of the biblical story of creation. "Reason tells me that honest and conscientious doubts cannot be a sin," wrote the deeply religious Emma to her betrothed in a cautioning letter in November 1838. "But I felt that it would be a painful rift between us." Charles was supposed to find his way back to the right faith by reading the Bible: "I implore you to read the parting words of our Savior to his apostles, beginning at the end of the 13th chapter of the Gospel according to John," she wrote."

"And although his theories were not yet mature, he was completely aware of their explosive nature: By dissociating intellect and morality from god's power of creation, and attributing them instead to self-evolving forces, Darwin undermined the very foundations of a society shaped by the Anglican Church, with its hopes of eternal life and the omnipresent threat of punishment."
Scientific American is as evolutionary as it gets. Trying to find support for Creation in here is impossible.
SA has demonstrated here that Christianity evolution go like matter and antimatter.

Question: Did God instantly create matter or did He evolve it from protomatter? If God evolved the protomatter, what did He evolve it from?? Protoprotomatter??

 

[Barbarian]

YE creationists, most of them, anyway) truly believe their new interpretation of Genesis

Why do you aspsert that it is "new?"

Because it was invented in the early 1900s by Seventh-Day Adventists. Prior to that, most creationists were OE creationists.

Darwinian Evolution is what's new. Its prototype was from Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) who taught that humans evolved from fish.

If true, that would make it older than Christianity. But it's not. For ages, people have realized that some kind of change must have happened to make all these populations. Darwin merely figured out how it worked.

Such evolutionary ideas were common in ancient pagan societies such as in Greece and Rome.
If God used evolution - then why would it be being COMMON there? You'd expect they would be Christian.

"Blacksmithing was common in ancient pagan societies such as in Greece and Rome.
If God made metals, then why would it be COMMON there? You'd expect they would be Christian."

Do you not see how silly that is?

But Creation was around before the fall of man. Creation predates evolution by millennia.

You shouldn't be re-interpreting it at all. Set your pride aside, and just accept it God's way.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Barbarian
"You think Jesus' death on the Cross was literal but you add!!!!" <---- this is what your awful logic amounts to. If you reject Creation may as well reject resurrection. If you really think God starts His Word off with confusing allegory, (but yet you think bring forth indicates abiogenesis) then how do you know if the rest is literal or not??

Turning Genesis into allegory allows one to stick ANYTHING onto it. Therefore, you accusing us of 'new interpretation' is flawed and false.

Also, by definition, an allegory didn't REALLY happen, it represents some other thing. So when you say "believe Genesis", you are contradicting your view that "Gen = allegory". Belief implies taking literally.

Would you believe Jesus' parables as fact? Or what they represented? God indicates when He is using allegory. No such indications are in Genesis. Jesus gave the meaning of His parables.

But when you take the Bible as it REALLY is, instead of compromising, there is simply no room for change. It's like God worded Genesis with the foresight that Allegorists would try to make the Bible reinterpretable.

 

[Uncle J]

This is not a great rebuttal. In essence you have said "im smort your dumb so im right" and hiding.

No, I'm saying that if you don't support your claims with anything but "because I say so", they are by definition unsupported claims and can be summarily dismissed.

Also, the (fully functional!!) vestigial organs look DESIGNED - not formed by being thrown around by chance.

Again, "vestigial" doesn't mean non-functional. You've had this shown to you already..

How is pointing out assumptions and using logic bending reality?? Quite ironic!!

If you think merely saying "atheistic assumptions and Darwin years" is "using logic", I'll just let that speak for itself.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Because it was invented in the early 1900s by Seventh-Day Adventists.

Source?

If true, that would make it older than Christianity. But it's not.

So you admit that it's a new belief. Well done!

"Blacksmithing was common in ancient pagan societies such as in Greece and Rome.
If God made metals, then why would it be COMMON there? You'd expect they would be Christian."

The origins of the universe (history) and the present are wholly different matters.
Nobody I know of is putting blacksmithing into - or getting it from- Genesis 1-3.

If one takes the Genesis account as it was REALLY meant to be - plain NOT confusing - then they will be lead closer to God. Obviously, bad beliefs lead one further.

You shouldn't be re-interpreting it at all. Set your pride aside, and just accept it God's way.

What you addressed was:

But Creation was around before the fall of man. Creation predates evolution by millennia.

But you believe you should re-int.? Again, allegoricizing the Genesis means ANYTHING - evolution, spaggety monsters, etc. can invade the account. So ANY substitute for the Genesis account can be "Christianized" - just add allegory!!
Therefore, the belief that i'm the reint'er is baseless + false.

With plain, real, literal Genesis- THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM FOR REINTERPRETATION.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Again, "vestigial" doesn't mean non-functional. You've had this shown to you already..

Look closer. I didn't say "non functional" - i said Designed.
An eroded rock is not designed; it was eroded into its shape by water - but it can serve a purpose.
But this is a simple process of water and a rock rubbing. Not allelic frequency change creating all sorts of different kinds (Hebrew: min) of animals. Allelic change has limits.

If you define "evolution" as "metamorphic rock" obviously "evolution" will be real.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that alleles frequencies don't change. Allelic change seems more like intelligent Creation by God - allele's ability to change frequencies could never originate by chance under current physics.

 

[Barbarian]

He loves you. And evolution is part of His creation.

So if God cobbled things with evolution over long ages instead of using His Omnipotence to instantly create everything in only 6 days, wouldnt there be much suffering, pain, death, etc.?

There is a lot of that. And no, I don't buy the story that God tortures innocent animals to get even with Adam. Stop second-guessing God.

Creation belief does not contradict God's Love - but "God created with evo instead of supernaturally" calls His love into question.

Stop second-guessing God.

Darwin was right about sin; sin is a conscious rebellion against God. You can't do it accidentally. There's a difference between evil and sin. Read your Bible and learn.

Question: Did God instantly create matter or did He evolve it from protomatter

The Bible doesn't say how. Just says He did. Evidence is that the universe began in an expansion from a very dense singularity. But science can't say what was there before that.

If God evolved the protomatter, what did He evolve it from?? Protoprotomatter??