Christ making statements about Creation

About C.S. Lewis:
Although he wrote some good stuff he also lived at a time when there was no "creation science" and the only "science" avaliable was "evolutionary science". I find this very common with elderly christians as this was the only scientific explanation when they were young. The quotes in message 20 and 25 are pure speculation by lewis and do not have any scriptural support.About Jesus believeing Genesis:"46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John 5:46-47Yip, exactly.Yes I believe you can be a christian while believeing in evolution, However I believe it is dangerous. Firstly, because you undermine the bible once and your likely to do it again. People lose their faith because of being taught evolution. You are also promoting an anti-biblical philosophy. You are saying that you believe man's word above God's (which is reminiscent of the Fall). And that God is a liar.
Even promoting these things, while it may not stop your faith, may very much weaken and stop the faith of a fellow christian.
Anyway it is not just Christ who takes Genesis literally, the other New and Old testament writers do so as well.I'll finish this post with one of the ten commandments (these were inscribed by God himself!!)8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:8-11

The verse you quote says that it was the flood of Noah's day! No it doesn't. how so? Yes, all of Sodom was destroyed. How does this support that when the bible says all the earth it actually means only a local area. The logic doesn't work. Otherwise you could just as well say that because noah's flood covered the whole earth therefore the destruction of sodom actually meant that the whole earth was judged with fire and brimstone.

ok, maybe they might lose their faith, but again that is because 1.they believe that the bible is in error which is a lie.
2.They are "duped" by "evolutionary science".
As long as they act like the Beareans "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so." Acts 17:11 these situations above wouldn't happen. Do you believe that God gave Moses the ten commandments? Is this symbolic as well? What isn't symbolic then? What about the red sea? Jericho? Did any of this happen? 2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction in right doing;20First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 peter 1:20-21Edited by Arphy, : see message 32

hehe. oops major typo. should have read: they believe that the bible has errors, which is a lie.I agree that the evidence for evolution or creation is for other threads, but didn't know that you are not a christian.

Moses did write the pentateuch from Did Moses really write Genesis - creation.com ok, so why do you think that it was important to jesus that they believe moses? ok so if a fictional work gives a command we should beleve it? We only take commands from real people not hypothetical people. Just because some fictional work commands something shouldn't influence my actions.

As Hutton and lyell's theories became more popular there were YEC's even back then such as Young (1777—1848), Fairholme (1789—1846), Murray (1786?—1851), Rhind (1797—1874) who opposed old earth interpretations of facts.
There were also many opposed to Darwin's theory when it became popular such as Sir John Herschel, famous mathematician, astronomer and Fellow of the Royal Society, Adam Sedgwick the geologist (who taught Darwin the elements of field geology) and Andrew Murray the entomologist, Richard Owen, the Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum, Louis Agassiz, the founder of modern glacial geology, and Louis Pasteur (who pioneered immunization, developed the Law of Biogenesislife comes only from life, the fundamental law of biologyand has often been called the greatest scientist of the 19th century). These people opposed evolution because there was no evidence for it even though it became popular to believe in evolution. Again it was the support of people like Kingsley and Josiah Strong who turned many christians away from biblical creation, not the evidence or the bibel itself.Yes, the first geologists and biologists were both christians and creationists.Genesis has been tested to see if the evidence fits, and it does! But anyway the verse I used asks us to search the scriptures to see if teachings by people are in agreement with scripture. Evolution clearly is not in agreement so I don't know how people can believe in both.Again, sorry about the typo in message 29 (have edited it now), as it has caused some confusion.

These guys (Young (1777—1848), Fairholme (1789—1846), Murray (1786?—1851), Rhind (1797—1874)) disagreed with uniformitarism.
These guys (Sir John Herschel, famous mathematician, astronomer and Fellow of the Royal Society, Adam Sedgwick the geologist (who taught Darwin the elements of field geology) and Andrew Murray the entomologist, Richard Owen (sorry, don't know enough about him to know if your statement is correct), the Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum, Louis Agassiz, the founder of modern glacial geology, and Louis Pasteur) disagreed with darwinism (even if some believed in an old earth). But yeah, it is starting to go off topic. This has often happened in the history of science and often the minority view was found to be correct after all. Maybe, but interpretive philosophies can be. I'm not saying that scientist don't carry out experiments, take measurements, etc in an honest fashion. I just have a problem with many interpretations of the finds that they make. Thanks Exactly!! Why torture a passage ("days doesn't mean days, but long periods of time, etc.") when you can just read it as is, and even though you may disagree with the author, admit that this is what the author meant. Great. i'm not. Exactly because "in the light of evolution" the Genesis account simply becomes a myth. In fact "in the light" of most modern thought most of the bible becomes myth. So then people weigh up the options: myth (with the possibility of some spiritual truth), or, "Rigorous modern scientific thought and scholarship". Hmm...
If these are the options given to people, then well really it's a no brainer. Of course you'd pick scientific thought!
However, if evidence supports that this book is not myth but divinely inspired by the creator of the universe. Then yes, I'd rather be on the side of somebody who was there when the world was made, rather than rely on people interpreting the past based on what they can see in the here and now.

Exactly. How come evolutionists (as far as I have worked out you are one) can see the inconsistencies so easily and yet theistic evolutionists can't?

Yip this often happens, However it is in association with the thought that christianity is not the Truth. I know that christians don't live perfect lives, however this doesn't mean that Christ didn't. I don't believe in Christianity because people try to be nice to each other, sing nice songs, or any other such reason. I believe in it because it is THE TRUTH. This is the number one reason why people reject or accept it. I don't worship the bible but i do worship him who is the ultimate author of the bible.
Hatred, fables and lies? I all ready know that you think i am wrong, so is this sort of comment really necessary. If evolution is true then no, nature does not testify about God. Afterall, evolution doesn't need any outside help. If evolution is true then all that nature testifys to is that matter when left to it's own devices can come up with some pretty amazing stuff. Creation science was just about dead in the early 20th century with christianity shying away from the debate or coming up with excuses. Basically it was the attitude of "We'll stick to human morality, etc. and not get into arguments with science". It was only when Morris and Whitcomb wrote "The Genesis Flood" in 1961 that creation science revived and grew from there. Lewis died in 1963 so he probably wasn't that familiar with creation science.
Neither Lewis or MacDonald are God or the bible, so don't have the authority to change the plain meaning of the genesis text. I have read some macdonald (although mainly his novels, which are very good btw) but again I don't know why i should take the opinion of macDonald above the plain meaning of the biblical text.

I don't think you answered my question. why do you think that it was important to jesus that they believe moses? parables can give illustrate commands that exist anyway but the commands don't originate because of the story. Perhaps "doctrines" would be a better word to substitute in for "commands". Again, I'm not saying that a person is a christian because they believe in evolution, but i do think it is a dangerous position and is no longer "biblical-woldview"

No it wasn't a comprehensive list. Yes most geologists and biologists disagree with my position. Back then however these people that were critical of Uniformatrism or Darwinistic viewpoints had criticisms that were not answered, rather their voices were just drowned out. I'm not pretending, that's the way I see it. You believe it isn't just an "interpretive philosophy" which isn't necessarily true either. I wouldn't say completely wrong. However their extrapolations are often very fanciful. They also don't "spend all their time interpreting a philosophy". It's just that in many instances they will interpret evidence in the light of their worldview. Yes they may be very clever people and I'm not saying that they aren't able to carry out complex experiments, etc. However their worldview has given them a bias as to how they interpret the evidence that they find.
So you think that because we are not "the view of the masses" that therfore we are wrong. Sorry I just don't see the logic in that. or so you have been told.

Sorry jaywill, will have to jump in here. Are you an OEC?
C'mon bro. You say you take the bible at face value however it just doesn't fit with an old earth view. Firstly the bible says that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day (i.e. after the earth and even after plants). You'd need to get into some pretty torturous interpretations to get that to fit with old age thinking.
In the following chapters it then goes on to geanealogies, complete with ages! So yes, we can approx. (due to some conflict on the reign length of different rulers/kings later on)say that the earth is 6000 years old biblically. Remember (getting back on topic, yah ) that Jesus said "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" Mark 10:6. Meaning that humans were there at the beginning, not a long time later.
Don't worry, you won't be "committing intellectual suicide" by believeing in a young earth. Please read some articles by YEC's on this topic (e.g. from CMI, ICR, or TrueOrigins) and see what you think. I know at first it seems very radical however I believe we are on solid biblical and scientific ground.God Blessp.s.Thanks for joining in

This seems to be an incomplete sentence. ehh...How would you know this. This is pure speculation. Maybe you're right maybe you're wrong. There is no way of knowing this. Yes, i will thank you. Obviously you don't don't like the implications. Haven't read/seen/heard this meeting so can't comment too much. However, Kenneth Miller is the poster boy for christians who believe in evolution, therfore I can see why Ken Ham would choose to attack his view of Genesis. To show the world that theistic evolutionists DO NOT take a biblical worldview. People may say they believe in God, do they also believe in God's word? Is God truthful? As a christian I believe it is important to trust God's word above man's. What is ludicrous about this statement? No, But the whole logic behind the redemption plan falls. You can still believe in Jesus although there is no real logical reason for doing so. Wow, you really are very loving! Hmm... Now you are blatently lieing. You make an unsubstantiated claim. Firstly, there are many testimonies where evolution has been a major barrier (e.g.http://creation.com/sonias-testimony). 2nd, I have serious doubts about whether I would have stuck to christianity at times if it were not for creation science. Now why would you take these verses literally? You have double standards. That's because creation was as God said so. But anyway, talk to an athiestic evolutionist and they will scoff at you. When you say "wow, look at that amazing mountain, God is so good". The evo would just laugh and say "actually it is just a whole lot of rock that has undergone weathering, uplift, etc. all due to natural processes, there is nothing mystical about it."
or
"wow, look at that amazing animal, God is so good". The evo would just laugh and say "actually that animal is the way it is because natural forces acted upon it's ancestors so that it just happens to look like it does because it gives it a better survival chance, there's nothing mystical about that either."
Again you have got double standards. On the one hand you say that completely natural processes that have no need for a god, produced what we have today. And then you say that this speaks of a god. The logic doesn't work, it is just plain weird.

Well your guess is wrong. Really? Well maybe in terms of popularity, but not in terms of evidence. Sure I don't know and understand everything, but neither do you. I do know enough however, to make an informed decision. Anyway it isn't just Me vs the rest of the world. There are others including many who are highly qualified who believe the same things that i do.
By "mass of information" I'm guessing you mean science in general. Not all science directly relates to evolution, in fact a lot of it doesn't. Or so debaters for evolution like to say.

great, so will this stop the "Look i've got more of PhD scientists than you, so you're wrong" game that evolutionists like to play. sure, if i find the time to do so. Again, sure i might start a thread if i find the time. Although this subject (or at least some of the "errors") probably would have been covered many times on this forum already. Officially my highest science achievement is taking a number of Physics and Maths papers at university. What about you? Well, as with my last post it isn't about Me vs the rest of the world. There are people "who have studied for years to gain a high degree of expertise and who actively engage with the science every day of their professional lives" who believe what I believe. And I feel i know enough to make an informed decision. just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I know nothing about the subject. Have fun.