[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution

[Bronzesnake]

Just wondering how many Christians here believe in evolution?
It's just that I find it perplexing that on the one hand we believe in Jesus and all His miracles, but when it comes to a literal belief in His creation we cannot see it as literal because the fallible science of man says it's impossible.

It's extremely inconsistent to say the least.
I’ve had Christians tell me that Genesis is myth; however it is not formulated as such. It is quite obviously a literal, historical account.
I believe some of us are forced to relegate Genesis down to myth even though it is not formulated as such simply because they place their faith in man instead of Jesus.
Inevitably, whenever I press my theistic evolutionist’s friends to discuss their knowledge of evolutionary science, I discover they have no personal time invested in studying it, and depend exclusively on atheist evolutionary scientific sources.
In plain words, they have faith in evolution science at the expense of placing that portion of their faith in God.

The real rub is that if they had have taken even a cursory look at the issue, they would have at least been able to accept the possibility that the evolution science is full of preconceptions and assumptions which cannot be corroborated empirically. A closer investigation could have led them to realise there truly is no evidence to corroborate macro evolution at all! And that what evolutionary scientists and proponents have on their side is a huge percentage of an uneducated population to manipulate by comparing evolutionary science with empirical science such as the science which can put a man on the moon.

People mistakenly have this image of science in their minds that these people are completely objective, and have no dogs in the fight - That scientists are all brilliant people who know everything - That scientists are somehow pure and clean and would never lie, or never be wrong, or never have an agenda.

Evolutionary science has presented extremely weak theories as though they were proven facts for far too long. Just look at almost any book that deals with evolutionary theory, or study and you’ll inevitable see all kinds of “illustrations†of monkey to ape to man, and elaborate illustrations of wolf like animals which morph into whales...these illustrations are at times supplemented with actual fossil fragments, which somehow infer the graduated transitional stages are real, which of course they are not, hence the need for the illustrations.

I’ve seen it time after time, where some scattered bones are put together and presented as empirical proof of some transitional species. They look so impressive and complete. Then, once you actually look into the story of the archaeology, we discover some fragments were dug up hundreds of yards away and tens of feet above or below the others, and the most interesting detail is that the most crucial bones were actually missing and later on created in a lab and included in with the so called “complete†fossil.

It’s a huge scam and almost impossible to expose because of the religious fanatical zealots who head the scientific organizations, and who decide which papers will be peer reviewed and which will not.
We’ve all seen a hint of the kind of deceit and strong arming that goes on in the scientific world when the private e-mails were exposed in regards to the global warming scam. Scientists at the top of their fields were outright strong arming others into presenting what they knew to be outright false studies and erroneous and dishonest conclusions all so they could keep their power and the global warming scam going and so they would be assured of a steady flow of tax dollars from suckers like you and me.
This is not an isolated problem my friends, it’s systemic.

I urge you all to have a look at the so called “proof†for Darwinian evolution for yourselves and don’t let others who do not believe in God to tell you what the “truth†really is.

Take care my friends.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Rev216]

I don't believe a Christian can believe in evolution. According to the bible sin and death entered the world through Adam's (first man) sin which then cursed his offspring (us) to death as well. The whole point of Jesus Christ coming 2,000 years ago was to die as a sacrifice for sin so that those who believe might be saved from the consequence of that sin. If mankind evolved what do we need saving from?

 

[happyjoy]

If mankind evolved what do we need saving from?

We need saving from ourselves.

 

[Barbarian]

Just wondering how many Christians here believe in evolution?

One should not "believe in" science at all. One should accept it or reject it on evidence. The evidence is why so many Christians who are scientists accept evolution.

It's just that I find it perplexing that on the one hand we believe in Jesus and all His miracles, but when it comes to a literal belief in His creation we cannot see it as literal because the fallible science of man says it's impossible.

Actually, St. Augustine about 1600 years ago, pointed out that it could not be literally true. However, Genesis does rule out the modern "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.

I’ve had Christians tell me that Genesis is myth; however it is not formulated as such. It is quite obviously a literal, historical account.

That has never been the Christian understanding. As you see, an entirely literal Genesis is a modern revision.

Inevitably, whenever I press my theistic evolutionist’s friends to discuss their knowledge of evolutionary science, I discover they have no personal time invested in studying it, and depend exclusively on atheist evolutionary scientific sources.

Here's your chance. Try me.

In plain words, they have faith in evolution science at the expense of placing that portion of their faith in God.

Here's a way to test your belief; ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so" it's faith. If he starts talking evidence, it's science.

The real rub is that if they had have taken even a cursory look at the issue, they would have at least been able to accept the possibility that the evolution science is full of preconceptions and assumptions which cannot be corroborated empirically.

Sounds interesting. Show us.

A closer investigation could have led them to realise there truly is no evidence to corroborate macro evolution at all!

It was first directly observed about 1904. Would you like to learn about it?

And that what evolutionary scientists and proponents have on their side is a huge percentage of an uneducated population to manipulate by comparing evolutionary science with empirical science such as the science which can put a man on the moon.

Turns out you're wrong. A survey by the Pew foundation showed that only people of high school or less education were mostly unaccepting of evolution. Ignorance is the ally of creationism.

People mistakenly have this image of science in their minds that these people are completely objective, and have no dogs in the fight - That scientists are all brilliant people who know everything - That scientists are somehow pure and clean and would never lie, or never be wrong, or never have an agenda.

Doubtful. Scientists spend a lot of time debunking such things. You're whipping a strawman.

I’ve seen it time after time, where some scattered bones are put together and presented as empirical proof of some transitional species. They look so impressive and complete. Then, once you actually look into the story of the archaeology, we discover some fragments were dug up hundreds of yards away and tens of feet above or below the others, and the most interesting detail is that the most crucial bones were actually missing and later on created in a lab and included in with the so called “complete†fossil.

Interesting. Show us. Be careful. One of the most famous of these turns out to be a creationist dishonesty.

It’s a huge scam and almost impossible to expose because of the religious fanatical zealots who head the scientific organizations, and who decide which papers will be peer reviewed and which will not.
We’ve all seen a hint of the kind of deceit and strong arming that goes on in the scientific world when the private e-mails were exposed in regards to the global warming scam.

The emails in question were investigated by a news organization, which hired some impartial scientists and ethicists to look them over. The result:

LONDON - E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns ... vironment/

I'm afraid you've been led down the garden path.

Scientists at the top of their fields were outright strong arming others into presenting what they knew to be outright false studies and erroneous and dishonest conclusions all so they could keep their power and the global warming scam going and so they would be assured of a steady flow of tax dollars from suckers like you and me.

Some people spent a lot of money and time trying to get us to buy that story. They must be cross-eyed with fury at the investigation and it's results.

I urge you all to have a look at the so called “proof†for Darwinian evolution for yourselves and don’t let others who do not believe in God to tell you what the “truth†really is.

Surprise.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Barbarian
I was going to respond to your post, however after I carefully read through it I realised there was no substance to it.
I’m not interested in a word fight Barbarian. I’ve seen this kind of tactic used often where one side attempts to draw the other in by instigating a duel of words which are void of any topical substance. No thanks.
I am interested in discussing the science though. So anytime you feel like engaging in the discussion appropriately I’ll be here.

Take care my friend.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

I've asked you to substantiate some of your claims, and I pointed out that an independent investigation of the climate emails found that the emails don't say what the people who stole them claim they do. If you'd like me to show you further evidence for my assertions, feel free to ask, and I'll do that.

If you're not inclined to support your assertions with some substance, and you don't want to challenge what I've told you, we'll just note that fact, and go on to something else.

 

[Bronzesnake]

If you're not inclined to support your assertions with some substance, and you don't want to challenge what I've told you, we'll just note that fact, and go on to something else.

A childish tactic Barbarian. You won't goad me in with such tactics as this.
I see this pattern with you - you make vague generalized assertions and suppliment them with witless jabs very much as we used to do in grade school.

As I said, provide anything of relevant substance and stop with the immature passive agressive tactis and we'll do business fair enough Ace?

John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If you're not inclined to support your assertions with some substance, and you don't want to challenge what I've told you, we'll just note that fact, and go on to something else.

A childish tactic Barbarian. You won't goad me in with such tactics as this.

If you won't support what you claim, we're at an impasse. But people notice.

I see this pattern with you - you make vague generalized assertions and suppliment them with witless jabs very much as we used to do in grade school.

I don't think you'll convince anyone with that kind of discourse. Find a way to show us (for example) that your claim that Venus has no gravity is true.

As I said, provide anything of relevant substance and stop with the immature passive agressive tactis and we'll do business fair enough Ace?

You could start by supplying some evidence for your claims.

 

[Rev216]

That has never been the Christian understanding. As you see, an entirely literal Genesis is a modern revision.

Hey Barbarian what sources lead you to believe that a literal translation of Genesis is a modern revisionist belief. Are you saying that Christians in the first century BCE did not take Genesis literally?
-

 

[Barbarian]

Hey Barbarian what sources lead you to believe that a literal translation of Genesis is a modern revisionist belief.

It contradicts what ancient Christians like Augustine understood it to be. And it's very modern. The form of creationism presented at the Scopes trial allowed for millions of years. That was the most common belief among evangelicals until the early 20th century.

Are you saying that Christians in the first century BCE did not take Genesis literally?

I don't see any evidence that they did take it literally. The biggest problem with YE is that it doesn't accept the fact that God created life by natural means.

 

[Rev216]

I don't see any evidence that they did take it literally. The biggest problem with YE is that it doesn't accept the fact that God created life by natural means.

I have to disagree as there are many references to Adam and the flood in the letters of Paul and Peter. For example, Romans 5:12 - "12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. "

Paul's statement is rooted in the supposition that Adam was a real person.

Peters argument in 2 Peter 3 encourages believers not to believe in the scoffers of their day by saying "5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. "

That statement supposes that the flood was an actual historical account in the viewpoint of Peter.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I don't see any evidence that they did take it literally. The biggest problem with YE is that it doesn't accept the fact that God created life by natural means.

I have to disagree

Let's take a look...

The Bible says God created life 'ex nihilo' or 'out of nothing.'
The verb 'bara' is used three separate times in Genesis 1, as
a matter of fact. By itself, it can mean both 'created from nothing'
or 'formed.' However, when used in contradistinction to another
verb in the same writing which soley means 'formed,' then 'bara'
by necessity means 'created from nothing.' That is precisely what
we see in Genesis 1. The verb 'asah' means 'formed' or 'made.'
It is used most of the time. However there are three times when
'bara' is used.

http://paracleteforum.org/archive/email ... logue.html

There's a lot more YE sources out there. And note that the creationist completely ignores God's word in Genesis.

as there are many references to Adam and the flood in the letters of Paul and Peter. For example, Romans 5:12 - "12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. "

Of course. But the "death" God spoke of to Adam was a spiritual death. We know this, because He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree, but Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter. And Jesus came as promised to save us from that death. If it was a physical death, He failed. We all die eventually. But we can have eternal life with Him anyway.

Paul's statement is rooted in the supposition that Adam was a real person.

So you're working from the misconception that Adam can't be a real person if evolution is true?

Peters argument in 2 Peter 3 encourages believers not to believe in the scoffers of their day by saying "5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. "

There was indeed a great flood many thousands of years ago, but the word used is "eretz" (land), which does not usually mean "whole world."

That statement supposes that the flood was an actual historical account in the viewpoint of Peter.

So your argument is that if Peter cites an allegorical passage, that makes it literal? How so?

 

[Bronzesnake]

Rev216 Wrote: Are you saying that Christians in the first century BCE did not take Genesis literally?

Barbarian Replied:I don't see any evidence that they did take it literally. The biggest problem with YE is that it doesn't accept the fact that God created life by natural means.
I’m amazed that whenever we discuss evolution, you seem to have done some studying, however, when it comes to this subject, you don’t know the facts at all. Inconsistant?

Please allow me to take the liberty of enlightening you...again!

The Church Fathers
The Church Fathers (AD 100–600) were theologians after the apostles. Based on Scripture, they opposed naturalistic theories of origins. Some, including Clement of Alexandria (c. 152–217), Origen (c. 185–254), and Augustine (c. 354–430), interpreted Genesis 1 allegorically. To them, the six days were a symbolic presentation of God’s creation in one instant.

Progressive creationists, such as Hugh Ross in the book The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, claim Augustine as a precedent for interpreting the Bible’s reference to “six days†as a symbol for eons of creative activity (known as the framework hypothesis).1 But it is unfair for progressive creationists to make their case using Augustine. Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively, and was, according to Scripture, less than 6,000 years old.

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old.

Medieval Theologians
Medieval (AD 600–1517) theologians, until later years, followed Augustine. They viewed creation as instantaneous, and the six days as a literary framework. An example is Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109).
Bede (c. 673–735) moderated Augustine’s view. He believed creation had occurred instantaneously but was formed over six 24-hour days. Others, such as Andrew of St. Victor (c. 1110–1175), rejected Augustine’s view and interpreted Genesis 1 literally.

The medieval church continued to believe that creation was sudden, not gradual, and occurred fewer than 6,000 years in the past. As interpreters began returning to a literal reading of Scripture, they began restoring the literal view of the days of creation.

Reformation Leaders
The Reformation leaders (AD 1517–1700) believed the Bible is the final authority (sola scriptura). The Reformers rejected allegorization and returned toward a literal, grammatical-historical interpretation. Martin Luther (1483–1546) and John Calvin (1509–1564) argued that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, fewer than 6,000 years in the past.

Luther said, “We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago.†He also rejected Augustine’s view and said that “Evening and morning became one day†meant that Moses was “speaking of the natural day, which consists of twenty-four hours.â€

Calvin believed that God’s creation was completed not in a moment but in six days. He concluded, based on Genesis 1:5, that God Himself took six days to accommodate His works to the capacity of men. Creation occurred little more than five thousand years in the past, not innumerable ages.

The Westminster Confession (1647) clearly affirmed that God created the world and all things in it “in the space of six days†(chapter 4, paragraph 1). “In the space of six days†was based on Calvin’s Genesis 1:5 comment. In Annotations upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (the Westminster Annotations, 1645), the Westminster authors specified concerning Genesis 1:5 that in the latter part of the verse, the word day is the natural day, consisting of twenty-four hours. This Presbyterian Confession, with its traditional view of creation, was also adopted by British and American Congregational and Baptist denominations.

A Global Flood According to …
The Church Fathers
The Fathers believed that the Flood submerged the entire earth. For example, Justin Martyr (c. 100/110–159/165) and Augustine said that the Flood rose 15 cubits above the highest mountains. Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115–168, 181) argued, against Greek local flood theories, that the water overtopped every high hill by at least 15 cubits.

Medieval and Reformation Leaders
The belief that the Flood was worldwide continued in the medieval era. Its chief theologian, Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–c.1274), said that “the waters of the deluge†rose “15 cubits higher than the mountain summits.†And in the Reformation, Calvin said, “And the flood was forty days, etc. Moses copiously insists upon this fact, in order to show that the whole world was immersed in the water.â€
After the Enlightenment, the Flood and geology were linked in the age of the earth debate. But very early, Tertullian (c. 150–225) said that the global Flood explained why in his day marine conches and tritons’ horns (both shell creatures) were found high in the mountains.

Conclusion
The traditional young-earth Christian concept of creation stands against progressive creationists, who argue that the earth was created in stages over eons of time. The Greek and Latin Fathers and the Reformers stood on biblical authority against old-earth theorists of their times. Eastern Orthodoxy based its views on the Greek Fathers and so also held to traditional biblical young-earth creationism.2
Not until the Enlightenment did professing Christians begin to reinterpret Genesis to fit with alleged scientific proofs of an old earth. But Genesis meant what it meant when it was written, and its meaning was discerned by Jesus and the apostles—and the church that they founded. So we must return to a plain and straightforward understanding of the Genesis account and believe God created quickly, several thousand years ago, in six 24-hour days.

You're welcome.

Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

Of course. But the "death" God spoke of to Adam was a spiritual death. We know this, because He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree, but Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter. And Jesus came as promised to save us from that death. If it was a physical death, He failed. We all die eventually. But we can have eternal life with Him anyway.

So Adam and Eve are still alive today?
Actually, you are half right Barbarian.

In the beginning God created all things to last eternally, including man Barbarian.
Once Adam and Eve sinned, they were tossed out of the Garden of Eden, and were cursed with death and were sent to live out their lives in a cursed universe and earth.

God’s plan of redemption includes returning man to his intended state of being – eternal.
Scriptures tell us that when we accept Jesus, there will come a time of reckoning when Jesus returns first, in the clouds and call His faithful servants both living and dead, to join Him in the clouds, and from there we receive our eternal bodies and we go to be with Jesus in Heaven for seven earth years.
Once Jesus returns to earth physically on His second coming, He destroys the armies of satan, and throws the beast and the false prophet directly into Hell. He then binds up satan and tosses him into the bottomless pit for a thousand years.

After the thousand years, satan is released to tempt those who are living on earth in their fallible human forms, and that’s when Jesus finally tosses satan into Hell, and judges the unbelievers from all history into their eternal destinations.
So, in the end, what is happening is Jesus creates man, and man is in his eternal form in a perfect creation. God warns man not eat, or even get close to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God tells them that once they eat from that tree they will no longer be eternal – they will lose their immortality, and will be cursed with a mortal body that can die.

So, what actually happens is a an instant spiritual death, and a physical death which happens much later, because we know Adam and Eve, and every person who ever lived after them to date has either died, or will die. Except for those faithful believers who remain alive at the time of the rapture – those will not taste physical death.
Check this link out for an in-depth explanation.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/02/dying-you-shall-die

Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Barbarian

The Bible says God created life 'ex nihilo' or 'out of nothing.'
The verb 'bara' is used three separate times in Genesis 1, as
a matter of fact. By itself, it can mean both 'created from nothing'
or 'formed.' However, when used in contradistinction to another
verb in the same writing which soley means 'formed,' then 'bara'
by necessity means 'created from nothing.' That is precisely what
we see in Genesis 1. The verb 'asah' means 'formed' or 'made.'
It is used most of the time. However there are three times when
'bara' is used.
http://paracleteforum.org/archive/email ... logue.html

There's a lot more YE sources out there. And note that the creationist completely ignores God's word in Genesis.

"And note that the creationist completely ignores God's word in Genesis." You're being facetious right? :biglol

You are possibly the most ironic person I have ever known barbarian.
You can make a statement like this, and the fact that it’s you who are guilty of that very accusation is completely lost on you. This must be the bluntest case of self denial and purposeful blindness I have ever come across! It’s like Ronald McDonald telling the Burger King to stop clowning around!
Anyway...

Could you please make your point please?
The source you quoted from insists in a literal six day creation, so why are you using it to prove otherwise?

Barbarian observes:
I don't see any evidence that they did take it literally. The biggest problem with YE is that it doesn't accept the fact that God created life by natural means.

How can you equate God's creation with "natural means�
If you mean that God created man from the dust of the earth, then I would hardly refer to that as "natural" means. God created everything by "supernatural" means Barbarian.

Why are you always trying to take away God's omniscient abilities?
God created man from the dust of the earth, however the dirt of the earth wasn't just here for Him to discover and use was it?
He also created the dirt Barbarian.

You keep trying to infer or outright exclaim that God started life billions of years ago and through a system of evolution which is not to be found or even inferred to any scriptures throughout the entire Bible.
If you can show me any evidence of billions or even just millions of years in the entire book then I'll be most surprised.

I have repeatedly shown you the exact words used by God to describe a literal creation of fully formed cattle, whales, birds, and humans as well as insects and bugs, but you repeatedly tell me what I'm reading isn't what God actually meant to say! As if God were some kind of a half wit who couldn't find the appropriate words to express an evolutionary creation over billions of years. :gah

Or, are you inferring that God has given you and other evolutionists some kind of deciphering key to unlock His cryptic messages which only the wise evolutionists scientists and their minions can understand!
Pulease! :biglaugh

satan tried this same tactic when He told Eve that God didn't say what She heard Him say when He warned her to stay away from the tree with the lying serpent in it!

You simply cannot convince me that I am not reading exactly what the scriptures say Barbarian, no matter how badly you want santa clause(evolution) to be real, he just ain't!

Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

There was indeed a great flood many thousands of years ago, but the word used is "eretz" (land), which does not usually mean "whole world."

Rev216 wrote;That statement supposes that the flood was an actual historical account in the viewpoint of Peter.

So your argument is that if Peter cites an allegorical passage, that makes it literal? How so?

Why am I not surprised?
OK so exactly what in the bible is not myth in your mind Barbarian?
I suppose God didn’t mean what He said in relation to the world wide flood either huh?
Genesis 7:19, 20. “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were coveredâ€

Oh great and wise master, please enlighten us with the true meaning of these ambiguous scriptures!
Please tell us what God really meant to say.

Why do you even claim to be a Christian Barbarian?
For any reason you could possibly give me for believing in Jesus, I could use your very same tactics and disprove all of them by simply stating its all allegory and myth. That’s exactly what you do right?

Bronzesnake

 

[jasoncran]

barbarian the word peter uses is the word kosmos the same word is the one john used in the vs john 3:16
. i love God's word for if we men alter it in the slightest it will reveal that lie all on its own.

it is alive indeed.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
don't see any evidence that they did take it literally. The biggest problem with YE is that it doesn't accept the fact that God created life by natural means.

I’m amazed that whenever we discuss evolution, you seem to have done some studying, however, when it comes to this subject, you don’t know the facts at all.

It's demonstrably true. YE creationism's doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is directly contradicted by God's word in Genesis. He say that life was created by natural means, from pre-existing creation.

Inconsistant?

Only for YE creationism. For orthodox Christianity, no problem.

Please allow me to take the liberty of enlightening you...again!

The last time you "enlightened" me, you claimed Venus has no gravity. :crazy

The Church Fathers
The Church Fathers (AD 100–600) were theologians after the apostles. Based on Scripture, they opposed naturalistic theories of origins.

Augustine seems to have had no problem with God's way of creating life. Indeed, he wrote that beasts developed from pre-existing things.

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions. He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm

But it is unfair for progressive creationists to make their case using Augustine. Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively, and was, according to Scripture, less than 6,000 years old.

Nowhere does Scripture say that. It's another of your additions to the Bible to make it more acceptable to you. So how did Augustine imagine it was "instantaneous?"

The first one comes from a peculiar tradition of Western Christianity. A clear biblical depiction of the gradual calling into being of the different levels of being was obscured by an imprecise Latin translation of the phrase from Sirach 18:1 "He that liveth for ever Hath created all things in general," where the Greek koine means "together," linked together, but the Latin translation was "simul" in the Vulgate, meaning, "God created everything simultaneously" rather than "everything was created by God." This quote from the Vulgate is closely linked to resistance against evolutionary views in the West...

St Augustine knew little of Greek and stated so in his Confessions and to quote, "St. Augustine was thus already sure that God "created all simultaneously." This view became part of tradition in Western schools of theology and so was inherited by the Protestants. It is ironic that a phrase from an "uncanonical" book still affects the thinking of those who otherwise reject these books of Scripture."
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm :D

Luther said, “We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago.â€

Luther also said that scripture proved the Earth did not move, and that the Sun went around it. So what he felt was compelling is not a very convincing argument. I wonder if he thought Venus has gravity.

The traditional young-earth Christian concept of creation stands against progressive creationists, who argue that the earth was created in stages over eons of time.

See above. YE has never been the traditional Christian view. In it's present form, it is less than 100 years old, the invention of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Thanks for another amusing "enlightenment."

You're welcome.

 

[Barbarian]

You can make a statement like this, and the fact that it’s you who are guilty of that very accusation is completely lost on you.

There's no point in denial. If you look in Genesis, you will find that it is completely incompatible with life ex nihilo.

The source you quoted from insists in a literal six day creation, so why are you using it to prove otherwise?

There are, as you know, some forms of creationism that are not inconsistent with the Bible. YE is not one of them.

How can you equate God's creation with "natural means�

Did God not create you? Did he magically poof you into existence, or did He create you by natural means?

Why are you always trying to take away God's omniscient abilities?

I'm just accepting it His way. You keep trying to edit His word to mean something else.

He also created the dirt Barbarian.

So He used nature to make life. It's O.K. I don't see why that should offend you.

You keep trying to infer or outright exclaim that God started life billions of years ago and through a system of evolution

Nope. That's your invention. Evolution is about the way life changes.

If you can show me any evidence of billions or even just millions of years in the entire book then I'll be most surprised.

Can't find anything about protons, either. Did you not know that there are many things that are true, that are not found in the Bible?

I have repeatedly shown you the exact words used by God to describe a literal creation of fully formed cattle, whales, birds, and humans as well as insects and bugs,

"Fully formed" is your addition to scripture. It says nothing of the kind.

satan tried this same tactic when He told Eve that God didn't say what She heard Him say when He warned her to stay away from the tree with the lying serpent in it!

You're wrong there, too.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? 2 And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. 4 And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death.

The serpent directly contradicted God. If you knew more about Scripture, you'd be more effective here.

You simply cannot convince me that I am not reading exactly what the scriptures say Barbarian, no matter how badly you want santa clause(evolution) to be real, he just ain't!

See above. You may have read it at one time, but you let your imagination run away with you when you recall it.

 

[Bronzesnake]

It's demonstrably true. YE creationism's doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is directly contradicted by God's word in Genesis. He say that life was created by natural means, from pre-existing creation.

So...another God did the origional "life ex nihilo" and this God used the materials to what? Start evolution?

Why do you find it so hard to comprehend these few simple words barb?
I am not trying to be sarcastic brother, I am honestly wondering.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
If that isn't "life ex nihilo" then nothing is.
You can't escape it Barb. At some point God created everything from nothing unless you believe molecules were eternal.
You're the one who is forced to disregard God precise exact words Barb not literal Bible believers.
I take God's explanation literally, you do not. So it's perplexing when you state that by accepting God's exact words, we somehow are contradicting God's words. What you are in effect saying is not directed toward the literalist Barb, but rather you are challenging God Himself by stating He doesn't mean exactly what He says.

John