Adam, where exactly is logic in here? And to accuse @St.Roymond who repeatedly expressed his concerns for environment of climate change denial? I am not accusing you personally of denying climate change, and given this comment you’re probably not, but to accuse “evolutionists” of this given the general attitudes amongst YECs…that’s a bit rich coming from you, to say the least.
1 Like
Preaching the gospel honestly doesn’t involve promoting YEC, especially not dishonest YEC.
It definitely doesn’t consist of trying to trash-talk evolution.
4 Likes
Dear Roy,
the thing here is that ‘evolution’ and ‘deep time’ are both false teaching.
It is not good to defend that which is devious and false.
Evolution is clearly a false and deceptive lie that is misleading many away from the Truth.
I am convinced that there is a spiritual dimension to this pervasive deception, just as there is a spiritual dimension to the rampant antisemitism that is sweeping the world right now.
Antisemitism, deep time and evolution are all evil deceptions that we should guard against. They are deceptions of this world, whereas, we are not of this world.
Please understand that we should ALL keep our hearts and eyes firmly fixed upon Jesus. He is the Truth. He is the Way. He is the Light. He is the only begotten Son of the Father Who was crucified dead and buried, and on the third day rose again and after being seen by hundreds of witnesses ascended into Heaven at the Right Hand of The Father.
God Bless,
jon
Both say nothing about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus so no they are not “false teaching.”
What “Truth” (with a capital T)? Can you please explain how evolution is a threat to the Gospel?
Modern YEC started from the thinking that “evolution leads to an ancient earth which leads to a denial of the 6 day creation which leads to a denial of the Sabbath”. One guess who it was that was originally thinking that.
1 Like
You are being corrected. You are not hated, not a martyr, and to the extent you may arouse some negative push back, you are certainly not hated for Jesus’ sake. As for Adam, he and myself have often sharply disagreed, but Adam is authentic, although he loses it occasionally he seems to value the Biologos community, contributes his own ideas, and does not wear the conceit of false piety.
9 Likes
- Define the Truth.
2 Likes
No – because rising into the sky is not “against the laws of gravity”. Birds do it, kites do it, rockets do it, clouds do it, balloons do it, smoke does it, airplanes do it.
You’ve made an idol out of science; like the Canaanites, you ascribe to something lifeless things it cannot do.
That means Paul was wrong – he says it was spiritual.
You’re making the error of sharply dividing spiritual and physical. The Bible doesn’t do that.
How? Either it travelled those distances and thus was in existence for those millions of years, or it didn’t actually travel them.
1 Like
WHerre does the Bible say that “good” has to meet Burrawang’s definition?
Ah – so you get to add to the text in order to defend your position, but no one else does. Got it.
Nor, for any but humans, its absence.
You’re adding to the text.
Not here, it isn’t – here, you hammer on everyone with a philosophy that is known to drive people from the Gospel.
Once again:
A Psalm of the Designer
Evolution declares the glory of God, and the chromosomes in cells proclaim His handiwork! Day to day pours out research, and night to night reveals studies. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them, yet their message has gone out to the whole earth, and their words to the ends of the world. He has set a tent for DNA, which sends its messengers out from its chamber like strong men they run their course with joy. Its reach is from the birth of the Earth, its circuit all around it, and there is no life apart from that reach. selah O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory within the cell. When I look at all life, the work of your fingers, the nucleus and the mitochondria§, which you have set in place – What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet: all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild, the birds in the sky, and the fish in the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. Oh Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! § or, “the plants and all animals”
Sorry, B, but I know more than just a few people who came to God and then to Christ due to studying evolution.
1 Like
Where does this come from?
John Calvin, in commenting on Genesis 1 well before any scientific study of the age of the earth or evolution, noted that the passage does not say that they could not eat anything besides plants, just that the plants were available for that purpose. Calvin did not advocate an ancient earth; he was just being careful about sticking to what the text actually says.
Claiming that Genesis 1 must be establishing the chronology of creation is insisting that Genesis 1 must be talking about science. But the Bible generally, and Genesis 1 in particular, is focused on much more important things than science. If we want to know just how long God has spent in displaying His wisdom, power, and creativity in creation in the process of preparing the earth for its current and future states, we can use science. It’s not just idle curiosity; such study helps us to better understand how the world works and thus to be better stewards of creation, helping to fulfill our mandate from Genesis 1. As Job 28 emphasizes, though science gives lots of practical knowledge, it does not give us the wisdom necessary to apply that knowledge well. Scriptures teach us about God and our duties.
Scientifically, the problem is that there is no rigor nor empiricism in Batten’s claims; they are made up to support his views and do not accurately represent either the physical features of the rocks or geological understanding of how rocks behave under pressure. Theologically, such bad work brings disgrace on the name of the Lord, and so should be opposed by Christians.
5 Likes
You use “flood geology”, yes?
The you have stated that the Bible teaches science. You also say it every time you treat Genesis 1 as having scientific facts.
You just did it again!
And I reject that lie. The fact is that the opening Creation account uses the generic Egyptian creation story as its framework, is written in two different literary types (Moses was a genius) and carries (at least) three different messages – enough material for three months of sermons, as opposed to the brief homily possible from YEC interpretation.
Seeing as ancient faithful scholars found billions of years in Genesis, long before Galileo ever dropped balls down a ramp, you are asserting that deception comes from the scriptures.
So you think being naked was evil. But then Creation was not good, and God lied.
YEC leads down all these paths where God has to be a liar. It is blasphemous.
No, you’re reading it expecting that it will speak to the modern scientific worldview you grew up with, expecting that its intent is to address the scientific issues you think are important.
Moving the goalposts. “If” . . . “when” . . . . But some never do.
Because that’s what you do with them – you treat it as scientific statements. You treat scientific accuracy as part of the definition of truth.
Amen!
And yet you spend immense amounts of effort pushing a philosophy that drives people from Jesus.
Double “Amen!”!
!
1 Like
It’s a modified version of a Psalm, that expresses the attitudes of those in the informal university intelligent design club (the term meant something different back then).
1 Like
Exactly. That should be obvious.
1 Like
Dear Ron,
May God Bless you,
jon
Dear Terry,
JESUS CHRIST our Creator, our Lord, our Saviour.
God Bless,
jon
Dear Roy,
it may not be clear to you from your worldview, however when I read the first chapter of Genesis 1, it is self evident to me that good and very good do not include the last enemy, the intruder into the creation that is death.
What do you believe I have added?
What do you believe I have added?
I disagree. I have seen you make this claim over and over again, but have not once seen any evidence to support it. In my experience the precise opposite is true.
Acceding to the myths of the ‘world’, i.e., ‘deep time’ and ‘evolution’ is in my observation what is causing many to compromise and stumble.
The Truths revealed in the Holy Bible are clear for all people of all times.
I do not have any philosophy but that Jesus is Lord of all.
God Bless,
jon
So by your definition, unless every sentence you speak or write is exactly “JESUS CHRIST our Creator, our Lord, our Saviour,” you’re not speaking Truth. In that case, your claim “evolution is a lie” isn’t Truth either—because it isn’t that confession. Do you really want a definition that instantly disqualifies your own statements?
3 Likes
Something is not a deception just because you call it a deception.
Something is not a deception just because you don’t like it.
Something is not a deception just because you find it theologically inconvenient.
Something is only a deception if it is a conscious and deliberate violation of the rules of honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate evidence-based information.
If you want to establish that evolution or billions of years really are a deception, you must make it clear what rules it is breaking and how. You must also establish that the violations of the rules are sufficiently serious and pervasive to call the entire discipline into question, and not just nibbling around the edges of the fine details.
Anything less than that is an unsubstantiated assertion that has no merit whatsoever.
6 Likes
- The Truths?? I thought you affirmed that “the Truth” is " JESUS CHRIST our Creator, our Lord, our Saviour." Now you are saying that there are more than one. You speak with “forked tongue”. Are you a compulsive liar?
2 Likes
Debuncted? Try debunked. Strange to be told to “do my own research” by someone who can’t spell. Anywho …
You didn’t debunk anything. You apparently didn’t do your research by even reading the article.
There are historical stories surrounding all the “begats” in Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew, yet the gaps are there for the sake of symmetry (14 generations).
Has it been debunked that the four sons of Kohath gave rise to the families of the Amramites, the Izharites, the Hebronites, and the Uzzielites (Numbers 3:19, 27, 28); and that one year after the Exodus the grandfather of Moses had, in the lifetime of Moses, 8600 descendants of the male sex alone, 2,750 of them being between the ages of thirty and fifty (Num. 4:36)? What historical stories about the sons of Kohath explain how Moses’ grandfather had 8600 male descendants while Moses was still alive? There are none, and it’s a physical impossibility.
You do take your timeline from creation to the flood and from the flood to Abraham from a single lineage. There are no historical stories elsewhere in the Bible that supply the “gaps” in the primeval genealogies of Genesis 1-11. W.H. Green explained that pretty clearly:
If you have other biblical stories to fill in the gaps between Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah, bring them forward. There are none. Likewise with Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Selug, and Terah. Tell me the biblical stories that mention any of those men, let alone fill in any gaps in the genealogy.
This is straight from scripture. If you have anything at all that debunks this information supplied by scripture itself, bring it forward.
2 Likes