Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9024 total)
40 online now:
AnswersInGenitals (1 member, 39 visitors)
Newest Member: Ryan Merkle
Post Volume: Total: 882,907 Year: 553/14,102 Month: 553/294 Week: 40/269 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Evolution of Creationism
Member (Idle past 2141 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012

Message 54 of 60 (658563)
04-06-2012 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opteryx
10-16-2006 7:45 PM

The greatest misconception that Satan has ever put in the minds of the human race is a disbelief in his existence. The second greatest misconception that Satan has put in the minds of the human race is the belief that ‘If evolution is true, then Genesis would have to be false- and therefore the Bible not true.’

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of misguided (to the point even of committing perjury in ‘Dover, et. al.’) and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. Simply because the origin and mechanism of Divine genesis is of a supernatural (versus natural, i.e.: a process amenable to scientific evaluation) involvement it is not and can never be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.

For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.

Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

There are six specific categories of life formed in the six�day account: ...

The order of their listing in the six�day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence: ...

The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence.

Author’s Note: Since the writing of the above <40+ years ago>, scientific consensus no longer validates the above. My opinion: With whatever process was involved geologically: 1. The original (pre-adamic) creation and with its removal globally. & 2. Restoration of the earth producing man. & 3. Noah’s flood, I doubt that conclusive empirical evidence can be deduced that either proves or disproves the order of life forms in the 6-day account. The geologic stratification deck has been shuffled too many times.

I highly recommend www.answersincreation.org as being relevant to the truth in these matters.

What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls� what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. ...

...The attainment of a free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence, ...

If Adam was the first primate to genetically evolve in intelligence sufficiently to have a free will- only at which point he could be held responsible for his actions, then it would be critically essential for his mate to have an identical set of chromosomes. Yet Adam was unique, being the first to reach this level.

How did God solve this problem?

And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21�23)

It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. Did God clone Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring?

This is an appealing view of a process with an inherent tendency to drift toward an organic goal but it doesn't explain how a random system can suddenly turn into one capable of replicating itself. It is not clear that an evolutionary process without replication must inevitably, or can indeed ever, lead to one that does include it. ...The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)

For a complete and concise treatment of this subject, visit: amessageforthehumanrace

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add more blank lines between paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-16-2006 7:45 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 8:20 AM PaulGL has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021