America & Evolution (different, before, history, mission)

[HopOnPop]

Let me try again...
two honest questions for reasons of clarification:

1) you mean that since Earth was perfect prior to Adam and Eve without death, that is why people think evolution is at odds with Christian creation?

2)And, so the Earth is created in 6 literal days -- but why is it thought those crucial 6 days had to have happened 6000 years ago? Yes, here is that number again. Where do people get that in the Bible?

[ninewands]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

See I think Christians don't like to admit the 6 day thing because it causes them to be ridiculed and they don't really know how to defend their faith.

First off, I am not a Christian, nor do I play one on TV, but I don't think I have ever seen a purer case of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Did you ever think it might also be that they agree with Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine), who wrote:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]

In other words, if you are being ridiculed for espousing the literal historicity of Genesis, then maybe you should read some of the more authoritative Biblical analysts (NOT apologists) on the subject of Genesis and ponder what they write prayerfully. After all, it is a shameful thing to expose the scripture to ridicule by claiming it says something ridiculous.

The universe is a truthful witness to its own existence, history and nature. Your scriptures say so:

Job

12:7 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
12:8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. - KJV

Psalms
]

19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

19:3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

Finally, a non-scriptural quote for you:

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.
-- by Echo's Children

Who are you going to believe?

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Northsouth

That is so sad. Is that really all you believe? Wouldn't you like to know there is more than that? Because when you turn your life over to Christ, GCS, it becomes so clear how wrong you actually are about this. You have your right to your own opinion, of course, but I would not enjoy living too much if I believed that this life was all there was. Why not put spring in your step and hope of eternal security in your heart?

Believe me, I would be more than happy to believe in a God if he really existed. But, from what I have seen, he does not perform miracles, he does not exist, and he never made you, me, the earth, the sun, or the sky. If God came down right now and told me "I am real believe in me" than yes that would be definitive proof. But, to base my beliefs on a history book written 2000 years ago that describes the murder of otherwise innocent people by a demented God gives me all the more reason not to want to go that way. It's not just a Christian god that does this either. The Muslim god and Jewish god are just as maniacal.

As for other religions, Buddhism is probably the one that would appeal to me if I were to go through an Inquisition type trial and be forced to pick a religion. But, I still don't believe that there is a perfect zen or a "heaven". It's a shame but show me definitive proof of God and you'll have yourself a believer. And please... do it without quoting the bible.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by HopOnPop

Let me try again...
two honest questions for reasons of clarification:

1) you mean that since Earth was perfect prior to Adam and Eve without death, that is why people think evolution is at odds with Christian creation?

2)And, so the Earth is created in 6 literal days -- but why is it thought those crucial 6 days had to have happened 6000 years ago? Yes, here is that number again. Where do people get that in the Bible?

LOL I am so done with that particular question (#2). The only believer to ever answer this question for me was Alpha but no one else has even uttered a response. Maybe you'll get further

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

LOL I am so done with that particular question (#2). The only believer to ever answer this question for me was Alpha but no one else has even uttered a response. Maybe you'll get further

Spoken from the POV of a non-believer, or at least a non-Christian, I wanted to actually agree with this sentiment. The reason is that the 6000-year thingie was an estimate created by a human and Christians own up to this readily. Nobody's trying to say that God said anything about 6000 years.

Personally the whole "six days v. evolution" argument ISN'T what swayed me to non-Christianity. When I was researching Christianity and reading the Bible, that didn't even make me blink because I had to think about it from the POV of a Bible believer to see whether the book as a whole made sense to me. It came down to: If the God of the Bible really is how the Bible says he is, then he could do literally anything...not to get really crazy here, but he could even weather bones and bury them in the earth, couldn't he? Who knows why he might, but he could. Right? And looking it from the opposite angle, we *think* radiocarbon dating and the newer dating (I can't remember what it's called) are accurate no matter what. But do we really know? We *believe* matter carbonizes or whatever the mechanism is at the rate of X whatevers per year and it logically seems to make sense, but one truly never knows. So...this is just one point that would not have swayed me one way or the other.

(For the record, I do believe in evolution and the estimated earth's life of four and a half billion years. I take it on faith! /ducking)

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by JerZ

Spoken from the POV of a non-believer, or at least a non-Christian, I wanted to actually agree with this sentiment. The reason is that the 6000-year thingie was an estimate created by a human and Christians own up to this readily. Nobody's trying to say that God said anything about 6000 years.

Personally the whole "six days v. evolution" argument ISN'T what swayed me to non-Christianity. When I was researching Christianity and reading the Bible, that didn't even make me blink because I had to think about it from the POV of a Bible believer to see whether the book as a whole made sense to me. It came down to: If the God of the Bible really is how the Bible says he is, then he could do literally anything...not to get really crazy here, but he could even weather bones and bury them in the earth, couldn't he? Who knows why he might, but he could. Right? And looking it from the opposite angle, we *think* radiocarbon dating and the newer dating (I can't remember what it's called) are accurate no matter what. But do we really know? We *believe* matter carbonizes or whatever the mechanism is at the rate of X whatevers per year and it logically seems to make sense, but one truly never knows. So...this is just one point that would not have swayed me one way or the other.

(For the record, I do believe in evolution and the estimated earth's life of four and a half billion years. I take it on faith! /ducking)

Like I said... Alpha was the only one to answer my question in regards to the 6000 year theory and he said it was a literal 6 day creation and I hate to put words in his mouth but I believe he agreed with me on the age of the earth.

Note to Alpha: If I misunderstood please correct me Alpha I do not wish to put words in your mouth.

Anyway, I am still waiting for an explanation from Christians on how the earth is 6k years old. I'm waiting patiently.

[HopOnPop]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

LOL I am so done with that particular question (#2). The only believer to ever answer this question for me was Alpha but no one else has even uttered a response. Maybe you'll get further

Originally Posted by JerZ

Spoken from the POV of a non-believer, or at least a non-Christian, I wanted to actually agree with this sentiment. The reason is that the 6000-year thingie was an estimate created by a human and Christians own up to this readily. Nobody's trying to say that God said anything about 6000 years.

Let me reiterate, much to everyone's chagrin for I think you have forgotten the extent of the discussion:

1) Much confusion reigned while we explored whether 6 days is 6 days or can it be 6000 years, 60,000 years, 6 million years, 3.14 seconds, etc.

2) We discussed the origins of the 6000 year old Young earther's like to quote to have arrisen, at least in one case, from adding up the "known" ages of he family trees in the Bible.

3) dncngrl1964 also added that, regardless of this interpretation of time meant by 6 days, it doesn't mean those "6 days" just ended recently. There could, in fact, had some additional years pass since God's busy week ended.

4) But, just when you thought we left this topic for good, we received a "drive-by" posting from MAMS1554 which leveled all doubt and answered all of our questions with:

Creation was done in a literal six 24 hour days approximately 6000 years ago.

5) and now Ninewands has pulled out a great quote form the quintessential Christian's Christian, St. Thomas, that says "wake up you nut cases, Genesis is obviously not to be taken literally!"

Now, despite the fact that we have undoudtedly whipped this dead horse down to nothing more than a red stain on the pavement, I happen to think it to be a pretty shade of red!

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by HopOnPop

Let me reiterate, much to everyone's chagrin for I think you have forgotten the extent of the discussion:

1) Much confusion reigned while we explored whether 6 days is 6 days or can it be 6000 years, 60,000 years, 6 million years, 3.14 seconds, etc.

2) We discussed the origins of the 6000 year old Young earther's like to quote to have arrisen, at least in one case, from adding up the "known" ages of he family trees in the Bible.

3) dncngrl1964 also added that, regardless of this interpretation of time meant by 6 days, it doesn't mean those "6 days" just ended recently. There could, in fact, had some additional years pass since God's busy week ended.

4) But, just when you thought we left this topic for good, we received a "drive-by" posting from MAMS1554 which leveled all doubt and answered all of our questions with:


5) and now Ninewands has pulled out a great quote form the quintessential Christian's Christian, St. Thomas, that says "wake up you nut cases, Genesis is obviously not to be taken literally!"

Now, despite the fact that we have undoudtedly whipped this dead horse down to nothing more than a red stain on the pavement, I happen to think it to be a pretty shade of red!

LOL all I can do is sit here and laugh. Great Post!

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by ninewands

First off, I am not a Christian,:

Originally Posted by ninewands

maybe you should read some of the more authoritative Biblical analysts (NOT apologists) on the subject of Genesis and ponder what they write prayerfully.

Thanks for the advice but based on those two statements, think I'll just stick with me first post.

Thanks

[stretch00]

HoponPop.

Excellent summary. Great rhetorical flair, and an even assesment of the facts.

MAMS. If you want to talk about AIG, that is fine. Let me preface by saying that the site is held in contempt by evolutionary biologists, not because it offers a contrary view of origins, but because of the fraud, lies, deceit and general dishonesty.

My suggestion will be that you take one point, any point, your choice, from the AIG site. Reproduce it here, and we can talk about it.