Earthage 101

A creationist forum to discuss how old the Earth is...All about how God may have done it. No argument whether God did it. We all believe he did.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Go down  Message [Page 5 of 9]

I am addressing the topics below for completeness, in the Monkey Trials court case provided by Stu, a traditionalist, a significant amount of text was written on the below items which were claimed to be good justification for the traditional view that mankind didn't descend from hominids but popped instantaneously into existence by God instead. Below, I offer an alternative viewpoint to the traditional reasoning related to these verses and their conclusions.

1) [Stu] -'There was no sin before Adam. This lone man brought sin into the world and it permeated all of humanity for the future generations.'

Although, we both agree on the statement, I do not agree with his view as justification for God popping Adam into existence from dust. It has no bearing on this debate. Hominids were not capable of distinguishing good from bad because they were not fully human. Only humans are capable of distinguishing between the two. Lower animals may have many characteristics nearly identical to humans and show some levels intellectual capacity for hunting and tool usage, but only the human mind is capable of abstract reasoning and making decisions between committing between good and evil acts. Behavior in lower animals to a large degree is instinctual and their limited reasoning is necessary for survival and procreation. This is why the first sin applies to Adam and not his ancestor hominids, Adam was the first being that God made that could understand sin and freely choose to commit it or to be obedient to God.

2) [Stu] -'The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven" (1 Cor 15:47). '

This verse, when read in context, is about mankind's earthly nature as opposed man's spiritual nature. Adam was the first being that had both a body (or living spirit) and a divine or God-like reasoning spirit capable of understanding good and evil. The divine spirit is the image of God referenced in Gen 1. The second man is Jesus. Jesus represented a fully divine spirit from heaven; a purely divine character in all thought and action. The reason that earth and dust is mentioned in this verse is to remind us that people have this dual earthly and heavenly characteristic with both a sin or earthly character and a divine character. The Bible tells us that mankind needs to overcome the earthly influences and earthly nature and become more divine in character. The Bible in this chapter is telling us that the two aspects are distinct and that the earthly part will pass away. The chapter also tells us to control our earthly ways, stop sinning, and live our lives in a God pleasing divine way, because the divine part of our spirit is what lives on beyond this world.

This line of reasoning has nothing to do with whether or not Adam was popped into existence instantaneously from dust or originated from dust over eons by evolution. There are many examples where God or people use clay or dust to represent themselves and in each case we know from the Bible they were born naturally from their parent's seed in their mother's womb. Adam (Ge 3:19), Abraham (Ge 18:27), Jacobs descendents (Num 23:10), Job (Job 10:9), Solomon (Ecclesiastes 3:20), Elihu (Job 33:6), David (Ps 103:14). This doesn't indicate that they were made instantaneously from clay or dust into fully formed adult humans; in several cases their geneology is specifically stated in the Bible. The references to dust or clay in all cases are symbolic of our bodies' constituents being from the dust or earth.

3) [Stu] -'And Moses testified that God made different "kinds" (Hb. "min") that would reproduce only according their kind (Gen 1:20-25; 7:13-15). ...
The plaintiff is clearly wrong in extrapolating variation beyond what you call "species" "families" or "orders". There are limits to genetic variation. ... The reason God created "kinds" this way is so they would reproduce only according their "min" (Gen 1:20-25; 7:13-15).'

Besides the incorrect assumption and unrealistic view that kinds 'reproduce only according to their kind' and not diverge in genetic code over time, this traditionalist view contains a fundamental flaw in its assumption regarding the ability for the God to make changes to the genetic code of any parent's seed. The assumption is based on a limit to the total number of genetic sequence changes in the proper locations in a reproductive cycle that can naturally be introduced by random chance. As a designer, God has no limit in the number of changes introduced in the womb. We have seen evidence of this in the creation of Jesus in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit's creation of a complete set of male chromosomes to mate with Mary's egg and conceive Jesus. This is roughly half of the 3 billion nucleotide pairs in the DNA set and perfectly sequenced to create God (Son of Man) from the womb.

The traditionalist has based their view here on limits imposed by random chance. The likelyhood by random chance of getting a correct set of genetic code changes introduced in one cycle that would produce a new species would be exceedingly low. The genetic code differences between kinds requires a large number of changes. One or two changes in the code during a cycle is easy, thousands to millions of changes is virtually impossible for random chance to get correct. The traditionalist has failed to see that directed changes by the Designer can easily achieve all variation planned and express it in the tree of life over billions of years regardless of the probability hurdles between kinds. These directed changes are not based on probability but the skill of the Designer which is omnipotent. Make no mistake, He could make a porcupine come out of a cat's womb if He wanted to, and certainly a man from a hominid if that was His plan, and by the way, yes, that's just what He did based on the archeological record.

4) [Stu] -'How did they develop from hominids in one generation to be humans in an impossibly short time span? The scientific evidence indicates that there is at most a couple of hundreds thousands of years for that evolution to take place. There are no evolutionary mechanisms that would transform dumb hominids who have no sentience, no language and minimal cranium capacity, into sentient homo sapien sapiens with fully developed intellects and brain cavities 3X that of any reasonable hominid candidate.'

The traditional viewpoint seems to hold the view that evolutionary creation uses the same methodology as Darwinism for modifying genetic code. This is not true. Darwinism relies on random mutation of genetic code and natural breeding or selection to develop new species and animal traits. Evolutionary creation is performed according to God's plan which permits God guided mutation and divine selection. God as a designer, can make any number of targeted changes simultaneously to the code that He desired in any generation that He desired. The constraints for Darwinistic change are severe but there are no constraints how God chose to develop our common ancestry.

According to the archeological record, God chose to develop the primate kind into hominids and then humans over several millions of years. This would result in just a small number of significant nucleotide sequence changes in each of the close to a million generations to account for the estimated tens of millions of changes in the genetic code between humans and the common ancestor that we have with the ape. Even this level of incremental and guided change would be difficult for Darwinism to explain and achieve in this large number of generations but easy for God to accomplish.

5) [Stu] -'Man didn't descend from some lower form of life. From the beginning man was created as the highest form of God's creation, not the lowest. He was created to rule over the animals, not descend from them! Moses recorded all this in the Torah:'

Another misconception that the traditionalist seems to have is that common ancestry descent implies a degradation in quality of the descendent. This would be typically true under most cases if random chance mutations were the primary cause of change in genetics. It is only under extreme rare situations when a randomly caused mutuation produces an improvement in the quality of the descendent. However, evolutionary creation is God guided and is not based on random change of genetic sequences; evolutionary creation is based on specific God guided sequence changes. In this way, God has built up the quality of information in the tree of life generation by generation over billions of years. The Tree of Life has been a design project by our Creator with the highest form being the human. The Cambrian Explosion, probability barriers based on irreducible complexity, and the amazing nano-technologies found in biological systems can be easily explanned by this God guided process of genetically modifying the 'seed' in the parents 'womb' according to God's Plan starting with the first cells and viruses billions of years ago. This is poor justification for the instantaneous popping since God has built up the information in the genetic code for each new species and kind.

6) [Stu] -'God performed a direct medical miracle. He put Adam under sedation and took flesh from his side and fashioned Eve from it. When God brought her to Adam he thought she was a knock-out and couldn't wait to cleave to his new wife (Gen 2:21-25).

The Bible actually states the following:
Gen 2:21And Jehovah God causeth a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he sleepeth, and He taketh one of his ribs, and closeth up flesh in its stead. 22And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib which He hath taken out of the man into a woman, and bringeth her in unto the man; 23and the man saith, `This [is] the [proper] step! bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!' for this it is called Woman, for from a man hath this been taken; 24therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh. 25And they are both of them naked, the man and his wife, and they are not ashamed of themselves.

Assuming for the moment that this set of verses is not symbolic like several of the other verses in chapter 2 and 3 (this is already highly speculative), let's look at what it really states and the possibilities of how God could have make Eve. God 'buildeth up' a woman from the flesh (or rib) He took from Adam. Not sure how you get the fundamental creation process for the traditionalist of instantaneous popping into existence ex nihilo out of this. He could have built Eve over any time span and any way He wished. There is no time frame here provided and it only states that He buildeth up Eve out of the side flesh or rib (Hebrew 'tsela' derivative of to curve or side) and some time later brought her to Adam. Since Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, it could have been up to roughly a hundred years after Adam was born that God brought Eve to Adam. This timing would allow for Cain to be born roughly 30 years before Seth and allow the story in Ch 5 to unfold. This allows plenty of time for Eve to be grown naturally in a womb and become a naturally grown mature woman capable of speaking language that she must have learned from Adam since she was the second human to speak in the Bible.

How do you know that God didn't grow this piece of flesh as a modified female clone of Adam from a modified stem cell implanted into the womb of a hominid? Or that after examining Adam's flesh, the Holy Spirit modified the genetic code to match that ofAdam's flesh of Eves's hominid parent gametes to make a female match and mate for Adam. This could have been done during a fifteen to twenty year time span after Adams named the animals, leaving plenty of time for Eve to grow to maturity and meet Adam. It doesn't say how He buildeth her up to a fully formed mature women, the traditionalist view assumes a miracle of nearly instantaneous or highly rapid growth when none is stated. He certainly made all the other animals by modifying the genetic code in their seed in their parents womb since the Bible states so. So why assume a new process when an existing one already stated in the Bible will do. Jesus was made in the womb from half the normal genetic code required who was the second Adam. Why couldn't Eve be made the same way from half a set of genetic code in the womb of a hominid by God (who we know is involved in creating all humans in their mothers womb from a God controlled seed)? When Eve was all grown up, He brought her to Adam and He obviously found her suitable at that point. It doesn't seem that either of these two other possibilities that are physically possible and performed by doctors today using natural methods to grow the embryo are any less of a possibility than flash forming, using new physical laws, a complete adult talking and educated women from a few living cells. In any case, the verses give no indication that the process God used to 'buildeth up' occurred rapidly or at any particular speed. It seems to me even here the traditionalist has assumed this happened in a flash without considering the use of natural processes and without consideration how God creates people in many other verses. The traditionalist can believe what he wants, but they can't claim it is Biblical justification for popping beings into existence ex nihilo since Eve was grown or buildeth up.

7) [Stu] -'Humans having sex with animals would be an abomination.'

A significant amount of text was generated on this topic to support the instantaneous popping into existence of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, I don't see how this statement has anything to do with the debate of whether Adam or Eve came from hominids or popped into existence. I agree, it would be an obamanation. Fortunately this did not happen during the creation of Adam according to the Bible, since his parents were both hominids, there was no sex between humans and animals since all hominids were animals and both Adam and Eve and their descendents only mated with other humans according to the Bible. As with all other hominids and Neanderthals, the hominid line that produced Adam and Eve became extinct. This extinction occurred for Adam and Eve's hominid parents at the time of Adam and Eve's birth or sometime after Adam and Eve were born tens of thousands of years ago.

Are you referring to Cain's wife possibly as a hominid? Although the Bible doesn't state who her parents were, I have always assumed that she was a child of Adam and Eve or one of their children's children or Cain's sister or cousin. Since Adam lived to ripe old age, he might have been living with descendents from 20 or more generations. If not, are you saying that she was a subhuman? Where do you think she came from?

8 ) [Stu] -'L: There was no ancestry before Adam. If there was such a thing the Holy Spirit would have made sure that it was recorded it that way.
Luke 1:38: "Adam was the son of God, the genealogies testify to the special creation of Adam as the son of God - a special creation (Lk 3:38; Gen 5:1; Mt 19:4; Mk 10:6; Gen 1:27). The Bible says that God specially created Adam. He "spoke" Adam into existence. He did not evolve Adam from hominid parents. In six days of testimony all the biblical witnesses have testified to this fact and offered irrefutable biblical evidence.'

In this particular case, the so called no-ancestry piece of evidence can be easily resolved because no animals or hominids would have had names prior to Adam. The naming of individuals and animal species started with Adam, it requires abstract thinking capabilities that only humans possess as they are made in the image of God, hominids did not have names. Animals prior to Adam were not capable of this level of mental processing. There are no named animals prior to Adam for that reason and the lineage recorded stops at Adam since there were no other names to be recorded. All of the prior hominids and animals were real and existed but individual names for them did not exist. Skipping generations in geneology was common place in the Bible and most scholars agree with this view. In this case there was a very good reason, the predecessors to Adam have no name. There would have been billions of names listed if they would have had them. This is also poor justification inferring that because the names are not listed, popping animals into existence ex nihilo is the way God created animals. One has nothing to do with the other.

The evidence the traditional view provides is very suspect and refutable contrary to the claim, since it is all from one individual's imagination and stated by fictional witnesses during a mock trial. The Bible also does not claim 'special' creation for Adam or that God 'spoke' Adam into existence. This traditionalist view by Stu is unsubstantiated by the actual text in the Bible, and is pure imagination from bad exegesis. See my previous post for the detailed reasoning why. There are many verses substantiating how God creates by giving each unique 'seed' (or mated gametes) the characteristics He pre-planned for it in it's parents 'womb' and God grows them naturally, generation by generation.

Lee Rolling Eyes

View user profile
All, I mean no disrespect by my title to the reader. I am merely trying to be cute and provide a readable interesting summary of the critical and key points related to this topic.

Stu, am glad to see again that you have decided to rest your fictional case. It is getting hard to stay focused on such a convoluted tale of bad exegesis. Although, I actually appreciate your efforts that went into creating your traditional case for defending the traditional church view against evolution. It has made what I am about to state so much easier. You have forced me to conclude, and I suspect others that are watching, that the traditional view of instantaneously materializing creatures out of nothing or from dust is Biblically bankrupt and pure fiction. The many case days that you presented to convince the world that the traditional view was substantiated Biblically, really was entirely based on your imagination and egregious assumptions about what the saint or God would have said had they really been in a court room. All of their statements were really fiction, fraudulent, deceptive and unforgivably blasphemous in regard to the statements made by Jesus. You didn't produce any Bible verses against our debate topic of evolutionary creation. Yet you insinuate (or have John insinuate for you) that I am the one leading the flock astray. May God forgive you!

You seem to be having great difficulty separating reality from the fiction in your mind. I know this debate has been stressful because you are so vested in your views, are you okay my friend? Some people might conclude that your case borders on insanity in that you cannot separate reality from the fiction that you have created. It is obvious to me that your witnesses were fake and so was their testimony, unfortunately, based on your statements below, you seem to believe that it was real. You are also trying to use this fiction to sway other peoples views and you may even have some success with your well written tales of fantasy. Sorry, Stu, but fake testimony does not win cases in reality or in God's court. I hope you know that He is the only one you will answer to.

This is what you stated in your last post. None of these statements are true or real; they are real only in your imagination which is based on faulty exegesis.

[Stu] - 'Day 1 - Jesus testified about His direct special creation of male and female 
Day 2 - Luke testified that "Common ancestry" of man with the animals is a fabrication and a myth.
Day 3 - Moses showed that God did not start with monkey genetic code and manipulate it to form mankind
Day 4 - Luke came back to tell us that sex and birth were directly created by God and did not evolve
Day 5 - Paul showed us from 1 Cor 15:45-49 and Rms 5:12 the first Adam and last Adam (Jesus) were real historical people and that all Christian doctrine depends on that being true
Day 6 - Jesus returned to explain why Adam could not possibly have a hominid mother.'

On the other hand, I have provided below, real statements made by God and other saints recorded in the Bible to show you the way toward a rational belief that can be tested in the real world according to God's will; you know the 'test all things' point He made in 1 Th 5:21.

Biblical Evidence for Evolutionary Creationism
1) Right from the start in the Bible, God defines an evolutionary sequence for both the earth and the life on it. The earth begins as a dark water covered planet and evolves as God's 'Days' or eons pass into a planet suitable for simpler sea based life and later land based complex life. This is strong evidence for evolutionary creation.
2) These beginning verses in Ge 1 even show that the complexity of life increased in a particular order from plants, simple sea animals, to more complex land animals and finally mankind. This is the basic definition of evolution (change over time). This Biblical account in Ge 1 also happens to match the geological and archeological record for the earth. This is also strong evidence for evolutionary creation.

Ge 1:11 And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so. 12And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good...
Ge 1:20 And God saith, `Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.' 21And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good....
Ge 1:24And God saith, `Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:' and it is so. 25And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good. {Notice that God didn't pop the kinds into existance but let the water, and earth bring them forth 'each after their kind' and used nature to make each kind in the parent's womb generation after generation}

3) God also clearly tells us in Ge 1 that He was the one that called them as part of His plan and the second part of each verse above clearly states that the earth or waters brings them forth according to their kind and each after their kind. The Bible could have stated here that God created each kind ex nihilo using the Hebrew term bara but did not. There is no popping things into existence described in these verses. Instead the earth and water brings them forth according to their kind. In the verses below, He reemphasizes that He calls generation after generation forth according to His plan right from the beginning. None of these verses claim that God popped them into existence out of nothing. The choice of words actually used to describe God's creation process is what I would expect the Bible to state in order to describe evolutionary creation: a generation by generation sequence of kinds of plants and animals coming into being naturally from the earth and water under God's directed preknown plan. This is hard Biblical evidence for evolutionary creation and against popping things into existence ex nihilo.

Is 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I, Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he.

Dan 4:3[NKJ] 3 How great are His signs, And how mighty His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And His dominion is from generation to generation.

4) In addition to this, we have the statement made by Paul that tells us that God brings forth the animals by modifying their seed.

1 Cor 15:38-39 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body . 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. (NIV)

Since Paul used the terms 'each kind of seed', it inform us that God 'gives it a body as He has determined' or modified the seeds (or fertilized single cell from mating gametes in modern terms) of every kind of animal and grew them into existence instead of popping them fully formed into existence. In Job below, God also tells us that He makes some animals different than others. He provides the modified information to the seed and it grows naturally into the kind of animal the God wants it to be. Also, there is nothing left to random chance here as the Darwinists or some types of theistic evolutionists claim, God is in charge deterministically and He modified each animal kind into existence as He called them into existence per plan. This is strong Biblical evidence for evolutionary creation and evidence strongly against God popping each kind of animal into existence fully formed.

Job 39:17 YLT For God hath caused her to forget wisdom, And He hath not given a portion To her in understanding {Referring to the behemoth}

Jb 40:15 ASV 15 Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as thee; He eateth grass as an ox.

5) Evolutionary creation is not based on random chance mutation. For those still thinking that this process might be contingent at this stage or that random chance has a role anywhere is this process, there is the following Biblical verse. The verse below supports any form of creationism including evolutionary creation but not some versions of theistic evolution supported by Ken Miller and John Collins who appear to be Darwinists.

Is 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; 'I am' God, and there is none like me; 10declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not 'yet' done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure;

Here is an aside point that is not Biblical, but everyone needs to be aware of these facts. God has graced us with a scientific insight into this process in the modern era, as mankind now has an understanding of genetic code, its sequence differences among the species, embryonic development based on the storage and access to the DNA sequence, and how the genetic code is utilized by the differentiated cells. Not that there isn't a great deal more to learn about how the information is stored, retrieved and utilized, but the basics of the overall process are known. The process and its components are the same for all organisms. All multicellular life uses DNA for long term storage which provides the information to generate and utilize a common set of amino acids to build proteins for the many cellular functions and guide the embryonic development of multicellur life forms. We have a great deal in common with other life forms because of this. This is also hard scientific evidence in favor of evolutionary creation (a God guided natural shared process in all complex life forms) and against popping animals ex nihilo.

6) His own son Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit and born naturally of Mary a virgin. Here is another strong example of evolutionary creation. God made himself again as a human modifying human genetic code in the womb from Jesus' (God's) mother Mary. This is very strong evidence for evolutionary creation and against popping ex nihilo. This is because birth of humans from hominids (or God from a human by logical extrapolation) has been ruled unacceptable from the traditionalist viewpoint. Yet a foundation of our faith is that God came to earth as Jesus born by His mother Mary who was a human.

Luke 1:35And the messenger answering said to her, `The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God;

7) The Bible and God himself states in it, that He creates all creatures in the parent's womb (by modifying the hetersexual genetic code in the parent's gametes and the expressing God's desired characteristics for that being during conception ) to make each new creature, then they each are born naturally from the womb. For advanced mammal 'kinds' and multicellular organisms, this is done by meoisis; for more primitive single cells kinds, this is done through mitosis. He confirms this in many verses He opens the womb, closes the womb, forms in the womb, weaves/knits in the womb. God predetermined whether generations of people either lived or perished. This is strong evidence for evolutionary creation and against popping beings into existence ex nihilo.

Je 1:5 'Before I form thee in the belly, I have known thee; and before thou comest forth from the womb I have separated thee, a prophet to nations I have made thee.'

Is 46:3 ASV Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, that have been borne by me from their birth, that have been carried from the womb

Ps 139:13 NET Certainly you made my mind and heart; you wove me together in my mother’s womb. ESV For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.

Ge 25:23 ASV And Jehovah said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, And two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels. And the one people shall be stronger than the other people. And the elder shall serve the younger.

The Bible continues to confirm that living beings are created by Him in the womb in Jb 31:15, Is 44:24 and many other verses throughout the Bible. No verses are found that confirm that God popped any living being instantaneously into existence from either dust or ex nihilo. Since the Holy Spirit modifies the genetic code in humans to make each of us, why wouldn't He create new species descending from its parent in the same way since all biology is based on the same genetic process? In support of this view, 1 Cor 15:38 states that He has made all animals this way by giving each kind of seed the characteristics that He willed.

7) God controls the selection process of which individual organism or human will live or die. This is divine selection and not natural selection. This is more evidence for evolutionary creation. God completely controls the weather as well all the other physical processes and uses them to eliminate certain species and individual organisms. The Bible states the following.

Ge 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the ground.

Is 40:23 He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless. 24 Scarcely have they been planted, Scarcely have they been sown, Scarcely has their stock taken root in the earth, But He merely blows on them, and they wither, And the storm carries them away like stubble.

Mt 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father: 30but the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Jn 1:3 YLT All things through him did happen, and without him happened not even on thing that hath happened

He also states in Ge 7:4 that He made every living thing, presumably according to 1 Cor 15:38-39 by its seed since we observe conception and growth to maturity by all life and don't see nor have humans seen throughout all human history any animals popping into existence out of nothing.

8 ) The Bible doesn't use different language in Ge 1 to describe the making of man versus the making of other animals, but it does add the phrase 'let's make man in our image, according to our likeness'. In 1:21 God prepareth the great monsters and every living creature that is creeping. In Ge1:27 He prepareth the man and women in His image. Of course the humans were different than other animals because they were made to include the spiritual image of God but not because the process for making them was any different. The author of Genesis could have used the Hebrew word bara here to state the creation of Adam was ex nihilo or stated that Adam was created from dust but didn't. He used the same descriptive approach of 'prepareth' for making the first male and human female as he used for making all of the other animals.

Ge 1:21 YLT And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

Ge 1:26 YLT And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.' 27And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.

What Genesis 1 describes is God controlling the sequence of events as the earth and waters bring each being into existence after its kind over their many generations under God's genetic control plan that diverged the kinds by natural reproduction methods over time into the many species living throughout history on the earth. This did not happen in six 24 hour days as the YEs suggest. God's days of creation are not the same length of time as human 24 hour days. Natural growth cannot occur this rapidly, and this view conflicts with the various saints descriptions of God modifying the seed and growing it to maturity to make each form of life different. 1 Cor 15:38-39 (see above),

9) The authors of the Bible make many references to 'seed'; in the YLT the word was used 254 times and many were statements by God himself. In most cases it is to people and descendent nations of people, and at other times to plants, and other times to animals. Je 31:27, Is 59:21, Ge 1:11, Ge 3:15, Ge 7:3 & 1 Cor 15:38 I know this because I have read every one of these 254 verses. Even Jesus was referred to as a seed. Is 65:9 This common usage of the same word by God indicates a common viewpoint by him toward how all multicellular life is generated, the process of being grown to maturity from a seed (a fertilized single cell from the union of two parental gametes) based on the information that He controls and provides in each seed. God ties all life forms together symbolically and also documents for us the process that He used in this physically accurate expression. God and the prophets are letting us know that God uses the same process for making all life forms. This is overwhelming support for evolutionary creation and against popping animals into existence ex nihilo.

Ps 89:29And I have set his seed for ever, And his throne as the days of the heavens.

Jer 31:27 YLT Lo, days are coming, an affirmation of Jehovah, And I have sown the house of Israel, And the house of Judah, With seed of man, and seed of beast.

Is 61:9 YLTAnd known among nations hath been their seed, And their offspring in the midst of the peoples, All their beholders acknowledge them, For they [are] a seed Jehovah hath blessed.

1 Jn 3:9 every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten.

10) No Biblical verses clearly indicate that there was ever a creature popped into existence instantaneously out of dust and there is a lot of Biblical evidence stated above to the contrary. This is strong evidence against the instantaneous popping into existence concept.

The traditional case regarding generating Adam instantaneously and directly from dust seems to solely rest on a huge assumption about how to interpret one verse (Ge 2:7) which is part of a highly symbolic and metaphorical chapter addressing the spiritual and sin nature of mankind. This assumption that God popped Adam instaneously from the dust fully formed as a mature man ready to name the animals is not a rational conclusion based on the textual analysis above and reasonable Biblical exegesis. For the reasons stated above in 1) through 9), forming Adam from the dust of the ground should be taken as symbolic.

The key verses relating to Adam's and Eve's creation as well as other animals in Ge 2 are shown below.

[i}Ge 2:7And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.

Ge 2:19And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name.

Ge 2:22And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib {or flesh is some translations} which He hath taken out of the man into a woman, and bringeth her in unto the man;

Ge 7:15And they come in unto Noah, unto the ark, two by two of all the flesh in which [is] a living spirit; [/i]

A proper exegesis of Ge 2 involves remembering what the Bible has already told us in Ge 1, and taking into account other key verses throughout the Bible as referenced above. Ge 1 and many other verses in the Bible have told us that God creates new life forms through their parent generated seed and grows them to maturity naturally according to His pre-ordained plan. Therefore, Ge 2 must make sense within those constraints and of course it does make sense with the proper perspective. One critical point that many people miss about Ge 2:4-25, is that there is no indication of how much time elapses during the making of the garden of Eden, growing the trees, creating Adam from dust, creating the field animals from dust, and providing names for all of the animals, and building up Eve from Adams flesh. Another critical point that people miss is tense of the verbs formeth, breatheth, bringeth, and buildeth up. Each of these verbs can be and should be viewed as past tense and not present tense. Ge 1 has already described their making in an sequential (evolutionary) way by the earth naturally according to God's plan on earlier 'Days' of creation week. The beast of the field was brought forth before the making of humans on Day 6, the fowl were brought forth on Day 5. This forces the tense of the verb to be past tense. Therefore, the forming of Adam cannot be instantaneous; Ge 2:7 occurred in the past. Ge 2:7 is stating that the man that God made in Ge 1 is made from the dust of the ground and that God has given him life. He also states that He formed the beast and fowl from the dust of the ground as well. How was he made? That is not described in this set of verses. It's through other verses like Ge 1, 1 Cor15:38, and others referenced above that we discover how He has created us and made us alive from dust: through evolutionary creation using seed, generation after generation. Consequently, these passages were intended to be a symbolic expression of God making man as well as the other animals from the dust of the ground. God breathed the spirit of life into every living thing (information) to make us living beings. The creation of Eve from Adam's flesh is another example of this Biblical symbolism being interpreted incorrectly as creation methodology.

There are many ways in which God could have generated Adam from dust. One way that the Bible actually supports is evolutionary creation and my personal choice. Adam's generation from the dust could have been generation by generation from virus to bacteria to multicellular organism to land mammal to primate to hominid to Adam per God's plan. From a symbolic perspective, Ge 2:7 is quite compatible with evolutionary creation.

The key verses relating to Adam's and Eve's creation are shown below.

Ge 2:7And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.

Ge 2:19And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name.

Ge 2:22And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib {or flesh is some translations} which He hath taken out of the man into a woman, and bringeth her in unto the man;

Ge 7:15And they come in unto Noah, unto the ark, two by two of all the flesh in which [is] a living spirit;

The traditional concept of instantaneous popping of things into existance is what is speculative and dangerous to the credibility of the Christian faith. The traditional view of popping animals into existance is total speculation based on bad ancient exegesis of the Bible and excludes any external knowledge of how the world really works. It also conflicts with what God actually states about his methodology related to giving the 'seeds' the characterists He willed in their parents womb for all life forms according to His plan generation to generation from the beginning to end.

Last edited by InfinitLee on Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:50 am; edited 6 times in total (Reason for editing : Highlighting and Grammar Corrections, Clarification, Corrected Reference, Added Reference)

View user profile
Trial Day 7 - Is Evolutionary Creationism True?

Defense: Ladies and Gentlemen, we have arrived at the final day of the defense testimony. Today we close with how evolutionary creationism spiritually stacks up against the Truth of the Scriptures.

To date we have heard six first-hand testimonies by the most credible witnesses possible: our Creator, Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; Luke the NT historian and physician; Moses who was given the creation story directly by God; and Paul, the most eminent theologian of the Bible.

They have shown us from Scripture that God specially created the first man Adam, and the first woman Eve, his wife, and that all of mankind has descended from their union. There was no evolutionary progression of mankind from ape-like ancestors. Adam was not born of a hominid mother and father.

Today to conclude the Defense testimony about the spiritual component I call the eminent Apostle John to the witness stand.

Defense: We are honored by your presence. Your writings in Scripture span eternity past with Jesus Christ (Jn 1:1-4) as well as eternity future with Him (Rev 4-22). The Lord placed you into a special category of His apostles -- one of the inner circle with James and Peter and as a witness to the Transfiguration. And you were chosen to be the last contributor to the written Scripture -- the "last man standing" so to speak.

You taught us that "God is love" (1 Jn 4:8,16); that "God so loved the world" that He sent Christ to save us (Jn 3:16); and that we are to "love one another," three times in your gospel (Jn 13:34-35); and five times in your letters (1 Jn3 &4 and 2 Jn). You were specifically called out as the "disciple whom Jesus loved" (Jn 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20). So you are most eminently qualified to critically examine the doctrine of biblical love that is being devaluated by evolutionary creationism.

But more to the point today, you taught us that God is Spirit (Jn 4:24); that God's Word as testified by the Spirit is Truth (Jn 15:26; 17:17); that Jesus came into the world to testify to the Truth (Jn 18:37), and that Jesus Himself is Truth (Jn 14:6). So you are particularly qualified to weigh the truth of evolutionary creationism against the Scripture.

Defense: Many in the Church don’t understand the balance in the Scripture between truth and love. Would you please explain.

John: Yes, the greatest of the commandments is Love (Mk 12:28-29), but Truth is the foundation of Love as well as the entire Scripture (Jn 17:17; Jn 10:35). Truth is always right whereas love can be wrong. One must not love evil -- you do not love the devil who is the father of lies (Jn 8:44). It is wrong to love that which is false. Love must be founded upon and restrained by Truth.

Defense: How does that apply to this trial?

John: The Master taught that in these last days that many false christs and false prophets would arise to mislead the elect away from the Truth (Matt 24:24).

As apostles we were given strict instruction by the Master to teach Truth, and how to discern false doctrine. I was given a lead role in this, but the Scriptures written by my fellow apostles are also rich in warning and instruction: Brother Paul (2 Cor 11:13-16;Gal 1:6-10; Tit 3:9-11); Peter (2 Pet 2:1:1-3); and Jude (Jude 3;17-20).

I was given the particular job of discerning the Gnostic heresies that arose right at the beginning of the Church. Unfortunately I see from this trial that they never go away. Evolutionary Creationism/Theistic Evolution is just a current manifestation of classic Gnosticism.

Defense: Obviously the theistic evolutionists whether Christian or not do not see themselves as Gnostics. So please explain what you mean.

John: In its most fundamental form, Gnosticism replaces the historical facts of Christianity with philosophical speculation. Biological evolutionists call their ideas science, but the hard science is minimal and the foundational principles are highly speculative. So evolution is more philosophical speculation than it is science.

Defense: Now since Darwin we have had the atheistic/agnostic version of evolution, but more recently a theistic version of it has been espoused by some Christians. Let's first understand the atheistic version.

John: The scientific arguments for evolution are based on circumstantial evidence that has been weaved together from many different disciplines into a scientific consensus of how all life species "must have been created" without God. It is true that if there were no Creator then some type of evolution would be the best explanation. But there is a Creator and He has given us His Word about it.

The hard scientific evidence is far short of proof, and deep down even advocates sense this despite all the bravado talk that evolution is scientific fact -- like gravity. For instance, the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History boldly states, "There is no scientific controversy about whether evolution occurred or whether it explains the history of life on Earth."

For them the "God hypothesis" is not an acceptable alternative; and “We don’t know” is not an acceptable position in the Academy. So they cling to their evolutionary theory as an "inference to the best explanation." But clinging is far short of proof, and even farther short of Truth.

They interpret hard evidence from fossils, genetics, and homology as proof of a Common Ancestor. But the fact is that alternative ideas, such as Intelligent Design (ID), have equally valid interpretations of the accumulated evidence, e.g., Common Design. Intelligent Design is also ruled inadmissible by the Academy, even though it is a scientific hypothesis. Why? Because ID could be used to imply a "Designer," and that's too close to "God" for comfort in the Academy.

Defense: Now we all know that science is based on more than "inference to the best evidence." Science is based mostly on observation and testing. And there is hard evidence supporting evolution, isn't there?

John: Of course observational evidence for evolution exists but is very limited despite the hype otherwise. The hard evidence is limited to phenomena which everybody knows about, e.g., adaptation of animals to changes in environmental conditions; artificial genetic manipulation such as the breeding of dogs; mutations of bacteria which are resistant to new drugs. This level of evolution, known as microevolution, is factual and believed by everyone, Christians and non-Christians alike. But the evolution of new body plans and parts; mammals changing into whales; apes evolving into men, is strictly speculation -- an unproven extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution.

One of the premier examples offered as observational evidence for macroevolution is "Darwin’s Finches." This is a so-called proof of evolution and promoted as "evolution in action." The beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands grow longer in times of drought which facilitate their finding more bugs to feed on since they can dig deeper. It is a wonderful example of adaptation to environmental change (microevolution). But this evidence is used as proof that one species will evolve into another as there are so many variations of finch species. The fact is that finches remain finches and don’t evolve into some new creature. They simply adapt to their environment and stay within their kind. When the environment changes, e.g., the rains return, their beaks grow shorter once again. To say that new species was created (macroevolution), because of an extrapolation of adaptation (microevolution), is philosophical speculation not scientific proof.

Defense: OK, so that's the story for atheistic evolution. Now let's turn to our primary concern -- the compatibility of evolution with Christianity. Evangelical Christians understand that atheistic evolution requires speculative philosophy. But some Christians, for many different reasons, have accommodated evolution into their faith. Why do you suppose that may be?

John: They imagine that God guides evolution, filling in the gaps of explanatory power, miraculously interjecting Himself at various stages of life development, such as the origin of life and the creation of mankind. They rationalize that if God guides the process, then the natural evolutionary laws can be shown to account for the origin of all species without God having to do a lot of "special creation" of the various "kinds" mentioned in Scripture.

Defense: But what's wrong with that? They can retain their Christian faith and embrace evolutionary theory at the same time.

John: The issue is Truth. Just because Christians believe in evolution doesn't make it true, and it doesn't change the fact that evolution is a philosophy and not science. Now, philosophy is only dangerous when it conflicts with biblical Truth, then one of the conflicting premises must be rejected (Col 2:8). This is what has happened with evolutionary creationism -- Christians have unwittingly entered through the "Gnostic Gate" -- and they must be corrected.

Defense: Please explain.

John: When evolution replaces biblical history, as in the special creation of Adam -- the subject of this trial -- it replaces biblical truth and attacks core biblical doctrine. We've had six days of testimony demonstrating that Adam did not evolve from hominids. When Christians say that he did, that is when evolution becomes offensive and dangerous to the faith.

In biblical Christianity God teaches us spiritual truths by using historical facts. The Bible teaches the special creation of the first man and the first women; the Fall; and the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ which reversed the effects of the Fall. Creation, Fall, and Redemption are the core doctrines of Christianity and are all based on our belief of the historical truth of Adam as recorded in Scripture. If you don't want to believe that as historical fact, or if you want to explain it away somehow, then you have embraced theological liberalism as a conflicting philosophy. Liberal Christianity is all form with little biblical content. Liberalism is the most devastating of all the Gnostic heresies because at its root it attempts to, and so far is succeeding at, destroying orthodox biblical doctrine from within the Church. "Evolutionary Creationism" is just a scientific form of Theological Liberalism.

Defense: That’s pretty tough talk for the “disciple of love.” Now I see why Jesus also called you “Son of Thunder” (Mk 3:17).

So how does a Christian get caught up in this kind of thinking.

John: There are many reasons, but let's just focus on the spiritual. The Christian starts his or her journey with God by being born again (Jn 3:16). The Holy Spirit indwells the believer (Rms 10:9). With the Holy Spirit's illumination, the Christian traverses the rest of his or her life with a broader view of reality -- having then the spiritual (supernatural) perspective as well as the natural. Their natural reasoning is constantly being infused with spiritual discernment.

Scientists are indoctrinated throughout their training with an ideology called “methodological naturalism." This means any and all scientific investigation (methods of science) must have natural causes only. For most scientific inquiry this poses no conflict because there are no scriptural truths challenged. But when a Christian considers matters that intersect with biblical truth, e.g., the creation of the universe; the beginning of mankind; mental states, etc., causality can be from other sources -- God, design, or mind. However, these causes were ruled out arbitrarily beforehand by the Academy. So they make evolutionary philosophy trump everything and biblical truth becomes twisted to accommodate science. Natural Law has become an idol. That is a tough position for the Christian scientist to be in.

Biological scientists who are Christians recognize the conflict and try to depend on biblical truths when they conflict with current scientific theory, but that put him at odds with the Academy. What are they to do? In the biological sciences, theistic evolution becomes a way out and they can force an unhealthy union between science and faith and become unequally yoked (2 Cor 6:14).

Defense: Many Christians are intimidated by science, and most are uninformed about this particular matter. So how are they to deal with this?

John: First, you must know the Scriptures. This is a spiritual matter and you are to use all the spritual tools the Bible gives you.

Know that false teachers will come bearing false messages and you first line of defense against them is prayer. If you study my three little letters -- First, Second and Third John -- they will give you specific instruction. For a start, from 1 Jn 4:1 and 4:5-6 --

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

The spirits of deception are attractive; they are friendly; and they have some element of truth in them. Satan's deceptions are clever, not blatant. Satan appears as an angel of light -- his wiles are very attractive (2 Cor 11:3). The serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness. Satan didn't make a direct attack on God's instruction. He was subtle in how he got Eve to do his bidding: “Did God really say?” (Gen 3:1-6).

You must apply these warnings even when the supposed knowledge comes from intimidating authoritative sources such as the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, or even Christian biology teachers and professors in schools, colleges, or seminaries.

Don’t believe any information if it doesn't square with Scripture, even if it is in textbooks, been “peer reviewed," and has attained widespread "scientific consensus." Our job as Christ Followers is to "test the spirits to see if they are from God." Spiritual discernment is our first charge, and after prayer the Scripture is the first place we must go.

Then review the testimonies from the first six days of this trial:

Day 1 - Jesus testified about His direct special creation of male and female
Day 2 - Luke testified that "Common ancestry" of man with the animals is a fabrication and a myth.
Day 3 - Moses showed that God did not start with monkey genetic code and manipulate it to form mankind
Day 4 - Luke came back to tell us that sex and birth were directly created by God and did not evolve
Day 5 - Paul showed us from 1 Cor 15:45-49 and Rms 5:12 the first Adam and last Adam (Jesus) were real historical people and that all Christian doctrine depends on that being true
Day 6 - Jesus returned to explain why Adam could not possibly have a hominid mother.

I will also encourage those interested to dig deeper and study on their own. Your author will provide a bibliography.

Defense: That's a lot of information. Can you bottom line the most important points for any Christian when dealing with this matter?

John: Yes! First, we must not allow false teachers to prevail. So, you must hate error and purge it from the Church (Ps 119:104; 2 Jn 9-10; Tit 3:10; 1 Tim 5:20-21). That is the tough-love thing to do, and the clear instruction of Scripture.

To do this Christianly, you must know the Scriptures! Does the information being presented square with scriptural teaching throughout the entire Bible? Gnosticism, cults, and heresies begin and thrive by pulling obscure verses out of context and founding entire theories upon them. They make the Scripture say anything they want it to if we allow them to go through it picking out bits and pieces to make their case. That will only lead to deception.

The Scripture provides the litmus test since it proves itself against itself over and over again throughout the entire Bible. All true Biblical doctrine builds upon and is consistent with itself. It fits together like a jigsaw puzzle and provides you with the ultimate test. Pass any and all "new information" through this test before you accept it (1 Thess 5:21).

Know that you are in a spiritual battle. "Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil." Study and apply all the tools you have been given in Ephesians 6:10-18.

Defense: So, in summary, Scripture does not support evolutionary creationism which says that mankind evolved from hominids. The Bible says that God specially created Adam. He "spoke" Adam into existence. He did not evolve Adam from hominid parents. In six days of testimony all the biblical witnesses have testified to this fact and offered irrefutable biblical evidence. Since evolutionary creationism doesn't square with historical biblical truth, it is false and must be rejected.

And we conclude from your spiritual perspective, it is not to be considered by the local evangelical Church any more than any other liberal Gnostic philosophy -- like the documentary hypothesis (JEDP),for example. Do not even "invite it in for consideration" no matter how attractive the package or the presenter(see 2 Jn 9-11). It will poison the well.

John: Absolutely! Know that nature, and the wonderful scientific investigation of it, will always square with Scripture -- eventually. Some things may be best left unexplained for a while. Our charge is to look to Scripture first, and then square science with it -- not the other way around. Gnostic, cultic and all heretical teaching have it backwards. They make Scripture fit their theories rather than use Scripture to more fully appreciate and understand God's marvelous creation.

Defense: Thank you John. The Defense rests its case.

View user profile

104Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty Some questions...for Lee on Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:35 am

"Yet, there is the NET version claiming Eve's son through birth was the same way that God made her."
Eve BARE (3205)
God Created man (1254, God as subject)
Different Hebrew words are used.
To create (bara) means to create ex nihilo. Look up Strong’s.
Do you not think that the use of a different verb gives us a clue that the two situations may be different?

"This goes back all the way to the first living virus created from dust"
Does a virus not need a living organism in order to function?

"Our human chromosome set is 99% the same as the chimpanzees"
Do you still hopelessly lag behind science, quoting we are 99% the same as chimps?

View user profile

105Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty Did he? on Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:49 pm

5) Through geology and the discovery of plate tectonics, He has shown us how the earth is very old and that a Day of the Lord is like a thousand years to eliminate any confusion in His word that some may have had.

Do I understand that you are in fact quoting 2 Peter 3:8 to support an old earth?

View user profile
Stu, I am pleased to see that you have finally vacated the fictional trial. You questioned why I didn't respond to your three other conclusions. I consider it a waste of my time since your conclusions are based on fiction. You seem to believe that you have made your case for popping animals and plants into existence. This is a figment of your imagination. I shouldn't have to remind you but your case was built on hypothetical statements that you would have wished the saints and God would have made for you. I find it absurd that you want me to argue against the fiction in your mock case that you invented and are still trying to sell to everyone. You are living in a dream world; please come back to this one and let's debate the meaning of the Bible verses pertinent to popping animals into existence. The many others that you referenced do not apply to this case. You are misapplying verses to me that were intended to fight the Darwinists. Please don't muddle the two! You also, seem to have extreme prejudice against anyone disagreeing with your imaginary popping myth even though you have found no Biblical support for it. At this point, it is very clear to me that no matter what the Bible actually states, that you are so entrenched to win the battle, you will ignore its truth and justify your popping plants and animals and humans into existence with inappropriate verses and bad exegesis.  

The verses that I have referenced so far are more than sufficient to make my evolutionary creation case, or at least make it a credible alternative to your version, if you were not so blind to the truth and biased on your popping into existence concept.  It seems that you read some of the verses and quote some of them but don't comprehend their full meaning. I will now have to spell these verses out for you to try and get you to see how they do make the evolution case and refute each of your arguments.  It is sad that I must repeat myself and take up our readers time with this again. Maybe you didn't read my posts while you were conjuring up your fictional case.  It was clear from my posts on July 30th and Aug 30th 2011 that the Bible makes a strong case for evolutionary creation starting right from Genesis 1. My next post will try to make the Biblical exegesis for evolution clearer to you since the original versions were not.

In response to your conclusion summary claims, my responses are shown below.

My reference to Ge 4:2 was to show you again that at least one version of the Bible indicates that Eve was born and not popped into existence. You've claimed that there is no Biblical support for Eve's being born from hominids and also claimed many times in the past that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Yet, there is the NET version claiming Eve's son through birth was the same way that God made her. "Then she said, “I have created a man just as the Lord did!”". You were shown that you were wrong by the NET version. However, I tend to agree with your assessment in that the editing group of the NET did get a little inventive when they added the phrase 'just as the Lord did,' although maybe God gave them the inside scoop, I'm sure you will agree that the Bible is inerrant!

Somehow, you seem to ignore the many statements made by God and others on how He creates in the womb and that certain individuals gave birth to entire nations with each individual being unique and foreknown to Him. You may not want to accept it, but this is how God created all of the plants and animal 'kinds' as well.

(2) Isaiah 41:4.NIV Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD—with the first of them and with the last—I am he.

Stu questioned what this verse had to do with how the various plants, animals, and mankind got here.  The answer is quite simple, I have highlighted it for you, they all got here generation by generation. Each generation consists of conception, birth, growth, maturity, reproduction of offspring with modification, and death of the parent(s).  This goes back all the way to the first living virus created from dust. God was there creating generation to generation from beginning to end as God called them forth. This sounds a lot like evolution to me. in ancient language. He created the various kinds stated in the Bible this way including primates and hominid kinds. Mankind through all of its many generations until the end of our world happens to be the end goal of His creative efforts.  

(3) Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (NIV)

The point that seems to be oblivious to you is that God forms us 'in the 'womb' using a natural process . He can make His most sophisticated creation mankind and himself (Jesus, Lk 1:35,42) in the womb and can make each plant, or animal unique in the womb (or equivalent thereof) as well.  He also knows the exact characteristics of each of us (and all other organisms) and everything that all his creature will do in our lives.

This means in case you haven't caught it yet that He foreknows the entire history of our universe from beginning to end and every creation in it (Is 46:9). This includes the 'kinds' that the earth and waters brought forth as stated in Ge 1. This also means that every creature and every action that each takes is also foreknown and was part of Gods plan. This all happened deterministically and naturally as part of the plan that His established laws carry out. He generates nations from the womb of a single human couple (Ge 25:23).  There is no mention anywhere in the Bible of popping individual plants or animals into existence from nothing, a piece of flesh or from dust. All plants and animals are grown according to the Bible. Humans are conceived in the mother's womb and grow as embryos in the womb, then they are born and grow to adulthood outside the womb.  Your popping fiction comes entirely from your assumptions related Ge 2:7 and 2:22. This is nothing more than speculation related to highly symbolic verses. Since you were unable to identify any others in your long fictional case, we can only conclude that your claim against evolutionary creationism is unfounded. Time has run out for you; your claims are bogus relating to God popping the plants, animals and humans into existence, as I am sure you have found out by now, there are no credible Biblical verses that support God popping plants, animals and humans into existence.

It is unfortunate that you didn't catch this earlier but you bring it upon yourself, I really don't like embarassing you.

(4) 1 Cor 15:38-39
But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. (NIV)

The Bible is making a statement of fact here toward 'each kind of seed' which of itself suggests evolution through natural reproduction and not popping individual kinds into existance in the fully mature state as you and the YEs believe . The key word 'seed' is used here (the modern term is gamete) to dispell any confusion on how they are brought into this world and grown to maturity. This also tells us the God alters the 'seed' of animals directly to give them the character that He wants.
I think you may be aware that primate flesh is very similar to our human flesh.  Our blood even has a Rhesus monkey factor in it known as the RH factor.  Our human chromosome set is 99% the same as the chimpanzees with one less chromosome that is a combination of two altered chromosomes from the primates'.  The biological componentry, organic chemistry, developmental processes, and biological processes involved in mammalian cellular biology are virtually identical. Can you think of any reason why this would be the case if humans would have been totally isolated from the hominids and primates during creation? If you were modified slightly from the blueprint of a primate which has been proven to be the case and popped into existence out of nothing, then please tell me why it is so important to enter into the world that way rather than being transformed by God naturally generation to generation over time to the human design from the ape design. You would be the same either way. No, of course you can't because you know it is shear pride, the primate flesh and other biological processes are virtually the same as ours since our genetic code descended and was modified from primate genetic code by our Creator.

Yet, the flesh of animals like reptiles, birds, insects, and fish diverge in their characteristics as the genetic sequence of phyla diverge.   It is the significantly different genetic code in each of these kinds that make the flesh different.  These genetic code differences govern the biological processes, the chemistry, and the characteristics of the flesh. This is the case even though the process for DNA control, replication, expression, and its components are identical throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. It is only the information in the DNA sequences that vary across all life forms that are significant to their physical characteristics.

Lee geek monkey pig cat albino alien Like a Star @ heaven flower

Last edited by InfinitLee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:53 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Highlighting Corrections)

View user profile

107Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty Sailing on An Ocean of Distortion on Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:24 am


His Majesty's Ship Science, you know the one with 'Test Everything' written over the bow, set sail hundreds of years ago in the age of enlightment and has continued its journey toward truth ever since. It has survived falling off the edge of the Flat Earth, the whirlpool of the Earth As Center of the Universe, typhoons of the Earth's Age, been pelted by 'Hell' from the Depression of Evolution and now in a new Storm of Confusion in the Strait of Divine Design. The good ship is sturdy though and will pass through unscathed as she continues to expose the truth about reality and how we got here. She has already discovered many wonderful truths about our maker and His creation. 1) Man was created from dust (stardust) and He developed it into plant and animal kinds as well as us. 2) There was a beginning of this universe just as His word stated: 'In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth'. 3) He actually stretched out the heavens as His word stated, and created entropy in so doing to create forward time to create and develop us over billions of years according to details that only He foreknew. 4) The fine tuning of the physical laws and constants is incredibly precise and has cornered the non-believer into accepting a fictitious infinite multiverse as their only ridiculous rational alternative. 5) Through geology and the discovery of plate tectonics, He has shown us how the earth is very old and that a Day of the Lord is like a thousand years to eliminate any confusion in His word that some may have had. 6) Through anatomy, cellular biology, and genetics the good ship has shown us the similarity that all animals including humans have with each other and the only thing that is different between all life is the information in each forms genetic code and the biological structure developed from it as the organism matures and ages. There are so many other facts discovered by this ship it fills volumes and shines a great light on the Sea of Distortion.

Still there are those that wish the good ship Science had never been built and pray for its sinking. These are the dark forces that are assisting Satan in His war against truth. I pray for their repentence and forgiveness. I pray they will see the truth of your reality that you so wonderfully made and you will help them see your word from a new perspective, through the lens of truth discovered by your good ship Science, the one you created to guide us.


Last edited by InfinitLee on Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:03 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Spelling, Title Change)

View user profile

108Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty *** BINGO !!! *** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:44 am

Lucien ...

Winner! ... Winner! ... Chicken! ... Dinner !!! cheers
You got it Brother!
It is more than CERN needing a new project now that it's $10-Billion LHC has proven
that God is NOT a particle!
It has to do with creating a scapegoat for driving Physics down the wrong road for
the last 100-years ... or so?
I know! ... Let's blame it on Einstein! afro

This is why playing origami with the Hebrew to make it fit the "settled" Science of
the day ... is so unsettling !!!

And for those of you that think that No Higgs! ... is No Biggs?
Please read the following ...

Don't forget to read BOTH pages of the article ... because this baby's a Gem !!!

20 Bret*11

View user profile

109Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty To Bret on Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:06 pm

Hi Bret,

I think it is kind of my fault as I was asking Stu about angels and their creation.
Stu is entertaining me, simply since I was the one that sparked this little side-discussion.

I agree with you that Angels were created at the beginning of creation week, but cannot dogmatically say which day.
That's my take on things.
I agree with your reasoning.

Anyway, Stu and Lee better have a stab at why the E (does not) = mcc.
I pointed this out to my brother and he went on a huff.
So it would be good if I can give him some reason.
I guessed since CERN still has not found the Higgs boson, and maybe running out of money?


Last edited by sumiala on Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:07 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typo)

View user profile

110Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty *** I'm still a little confused here? *** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:33 pm

Sorry Stu ...

I'll try to make this my last point on this issue ... for the followings reasons!
As a Scientist ... you must realize that "Time" is directly related to Mass & Velocity?
If you're missing either of these two components ... so goes the Rolex!
God & the Angels are both Spirit Beings!
Therefore (I believe) that they are both ageless & timeless!
BUT! ... Not both eternal in the sense that they have no beginning!
That distinction belongs to God alone! ... as we know that the Angels were created!

So ... our debate is about the Age of the Earth & the Universe!
TIME was created at the moment they were Spoken into existence!
Science calls this the Big Bang!
Science also tells us that TIME sprang into existence at this moment!
ANYTHING that happened before the Universe was created (if anything)... would have NO
bearing on the actual Age of the Universe!
If we're trying to figure out how old my Mercury Dime is ... but the date has been worn-off ...
it doesn't matter how long they have been making Barber Dimes ... and Liberty Dimes
before it ... my Dime came into existence somewhere between 1916 and 1945 ... !!!

Therefore ... it doesn't matter when the Angels were created ... now does it?
It has NO bearing on the Age of the Universe!

You said earlier ...
I agree, if we can't appropriately reckon our personal interpretation of the Scriptures without imposing on them,
then our interpretation must be rejected. And that goes for my old-earth view as well.

I reckon it's TIME to move on to your next Scripture?

20 Bret*11

View user profile

111Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty Timelines on Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:40 pm


It began after I made a long response to your question about deep time, and then Lucien asked me:

Do you believe that angels and Satan existed BEFORE the rest of creation?
If so, do you wish to substantiate with some Bible verses? It would explain quite a bit for my own understanding of your views, so please enlighten me...

Then we all agreed to post verses regarding why I'm led to see an old earth in Scripture and you're led to see a young earth.

If one thinks of a timescale beginning 6000 years ago than it perhaps is incongruous to think of angels older than that. However, if one thinks of angels existing before that as I do then it is consistent with deep time. So consider those posts both as answering Lucien and also giving you some insight into my deep time thinking. Arrow

I am not a proponent of the Gap Theory, but I don't have any problem with people who are.

Thanks for asking,


View user profile

112Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty *** Still not sure WHY? this matters? *** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:25 pm

Stu ...

First off ... I just want to say that I really enjoyed your Day-6 rebuttal to Lee!
It shows how selective translation farming for Verses is never a strong argument maker!

As for the "Time-line" on Angel creation ... I'm still not sure WHY you think this matters either way?
Are you trying to keep the door open for the Gap Theory ???
If not ... then it seems like we're debating Jesus's hat size ... or something?
The fact that there are NO direct passages alluding to this issue seems to indicate (to me)...
that it has NO relevance to anything worth mentioning!

These are the kinds of arguments that I let my Wife win ... just to save money on Advil ... !!!

Brother Lucien ...
I will gladly buy you a cup of Coffee ... & a Steak dinner to go with it! ... if & when you decide
to cross the Pond to the Colonies?
Your answer to my challenge is not wrong ... but just way too vague to call it correct!
My question is Why NOW?
This information has been known for years!
Why are they leaking this to the unwashed masses now?
There is a very clear & distinct reason for the timing!

Come on Lee & Stu ... take a stab at it?
You can even have your Free Coffee to-go ... so you won't feel obligated to talk to me! lol!

20 Bret*11

View user profile

113Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty Who's the reader on Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:58 am


seeing that the Word of God was revealed for mankind, I would say that mankind is its audience.
I.e. I interpret that the concept time AND beginning apply to man's edification.

Don't think you can speak about "before time", as the word "before" indicates a time element.
And besides, even if you could say that the Word was "before" the beginning, then you would still have to agree with me that He (Jesus) still was the Word at the beginning of (man's) time.


View user profile

114Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty Reply to Bret and Lucien on Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:21 am

Thanks guys --- I think we have a good biblically based dialog going regarding the age of the "heavens and earth."

Bret -- I agree with you on Ezekiel 28 that Satan is in view (I think Isaiah 14 also). What I meant when I said "no biblical evidence" was there are no direct statements in the 6 days about the creation of the angels -- so we have to interpret from other passages as you have.

My view (as I previously argued) is that the angels (including Lucifer) were created before Day 1. I think you and Lucien believe they were created during the 6 days of creation. You specifically made a case for Day 1 or 2.

To bolster my argument I will add John 1:1-3 which shows that the phase "beginning" has multiple meanings. In Gen 1:1 it is clear from the context that "beginning" means the beginning of our material universe. In John 1:1 however, it is equally clear that "beginning" means some "time" in the infinite past when Jesus was with God and "later" became the agent of creation in Gen 1:1. Somewhere during that "time" the angels were created to fulfill their function of praising God and prepare to become ministering spirits.


View user profile
I am delighted to see Lee make an effort to give a biblical refutation of my Trial Day 6 arguments. Unfortunately he did so for only one of my four arguments. His three other refutations were made on philosophical grounds and hold no weight.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (Col 2:8 NASB)

If Lee wants to engage me he must supply Scripture and not just proffer his personal opinion.

The argument I made( 9/6/2011) was based on Scripture and stated:

There is no scriptural evidence that Adam had a hominid origin (partial man/partial animal).

Lee claims (9/20) the following four Scriptures refute my argument. I will demonstrate that these verses actually make my case stronger.

(1) Genesis 4:1-2 NET: Now 1 the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, “I have created a man just as the Lord did!” Then she gave birth to his brother Abel. Abel took care of the flocks, while Cain cultivated the ground.

My rebuttal: The 6 words of the literal Hebrew says:
And-she-said I-brought-forth man with Yahweh

The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) translates it
I have gained a male child with the help of the LORD

The NIV translates it:
Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.” Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

Conclusion: Lee's verses do not support the argument that Adam had a hominid origin. Even his NET commentary is not trustworthy in its translation of this verse: "Eve created a man." The Hebrew text says that Eve created a man, but with (the help of) the LORD.

(2) Isaiah 41:4. The NIV translation is:
Who has done this and carried it through,
calling forth the generations from the beginning?
I, the LORD—with the first of them
and with the last—I am he.

The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) translation is:
Who has wrought and achieved this?
He who announced the generations from the start --
I, the LORD, who was first
And will be the last as well.

Conclusion: Lee's point is entirely missing here. What's this have to do with his thesis that man had a hominid origin?

(3) Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

Before I created you in the womb, I selected you;
Before you were born, I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet concerning the nations

Conclusion: God is the creator of all human beings and He knows beforehand their destiny. In Jeremiah's case God specifically appointed him to be a prophet. There is no support in this verse for Jeremiah or any man having a hominid origin as Lee claims.

(4) 1 Cor 15:38-39
But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. (NIV)

The literal Greek text says:
But God gives to it a body as he wished, and to each of the seeds [its] own body. All flesh [is] not the same flesh , but one indeed of men, and another flesh of animals, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.

Conclusion: These verses actually argue against Lee's premise that Adam had a hominid origin. It is clear that God created each category of flesh uniquely.

Lee's agumentation fails. The Church will retain its traditional understanding that Adam did not have a hominid origin.

View user profile

116Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty surely on Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:46 am

I am right on either money or power (or both)?

View user profile

117Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty *** Warm! *** on Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:19 am

Lucien ...

You're sort of close! ...
But ... No cup of Coffee! geek

20 Bret*11

View user profile

118Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty Is it...? on Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:18 am

...time to start lobbying for more money for "science" departments and/to strike down the upcoming fundamentalists that call themselves Biblical creationists?
Is it?
Anything to do with the next elections?
Is it?

View user profile

119Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty *** Settled Science? *** on Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:18 am

In just the last week alone ...

I can give you Three good examples of why to doubt the Scientific Community
instead of doubting God's ability to clearly communicate His knowledge about
His Creation to His servants!

1st). I get up this morning to find out where that old (man-made) tin-can
in the sky came crashing down to Earth?
We knew it was coming!
We had been tracking it! ... (I think?)
We had the FULL resources of NASA (that does really have anything else to do these days)
as well as the Greatest Military Intelligentsia in the World ... on the Case!
But wait!

2nd). A Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist decides to resign instead of perpetuating
the LIE! about Global Warming !!!

Do you remember how many times that we were told that virtually ALL REAL Scientists
believe that man-made Global Warming is an undeniable FACT! (?)
And ... that you were an Uneducated Anti-Science IDIOT! ... if you even claimed to
have the slightest doubts about this FACT of "Settled" Science!

3rd). Everything that we "thought" we knew about Physics is heading for the Dumpster!
Einstein may have been the smartest man that ever lived (I personally would choose
Newton as the king of all eggheads!)... but he is just that ... "a Man"!
Imperfect in his knowledge (but smarter than most)... it would appear that the KEY!
linchpin to virtually EVERY modern Physics Equation (including Quantum Mechanics)...
has been found to be wanting !!!

Those "in-the-know" have known about this for several years now!
So ... WHY is Schrodinger's Cat being let out of the bag NOW ???

Do you know? ... because I sure do! (100% Guaranteed!) Wink

If ANYBODY else can tell me the RIGHT! answer? ...
I will spring for their Venti of choice!

20 Bret*11

View user profile

120Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty Quote from Dawkins on Sat Sep 24, 2011 3:18 am

Dawkins pulls no punches when dealing with Christians who also hold to evolution:

“I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they’re deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity … ”11

View user profile
In fact, he called 40% of the US population stupid.
Bret, you fall in to this category!
Not sure if Stu and Lee do, because you have to believe Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt.

Funnier was how he discounted man's creation from dust, but immediately explained how we arose from a big ball of dust spinning around the sun.
Isn't that ironic?

View user profile

122Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty *** Dancing with the Devil? *** on Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:24 am

Lee ...

First of all ... this entire Blog was created to discuss the AGE of Creation !!!
If you have forgotten? ... or don't belief me? ... just read the Title or the URL !!!
YES! ... we did spend a lot of time (early on)... lobbing bombs back-N-forth about
why we believe each other to be sadly misguided in our positions!

You, Stu, & Dave mainly used the "standard" Secular myths of theoretical (meta)physics
to buoy your arguments ... while citing 7th & 8th definitions of Hebrew words that
(if forced into the Text)... "may?" create some possible doubt about the obvious
face-value meaning of God's explanation of what actually happened when He was the ONLY witness!

I (and eventually Lucien)... used mainly Biblical arguments to explain that God seems to
have went out of His way (due to His foreknowledge)... to overemphasize the Fact that He
brought everything into existence (pretty-much the way we see it NOW!)... in a quick & efficient manner!
We also showed you the lazy assumption-filled (so-called) Science that is used as the foundation
of the Secular Fairy-Tales that so many prefer to believe ... rather than the Words of their Creator!

How's your blood-pressure right now? Embarassed

I have no problem with showing you ALL of Scriptures that make Evolution impossible! (and soon will)!
But ... I believe it's only fair (and polite) for me to wait until Stu wraps-up his Mock-Trial against
the Mock-Science that you choose to impose onto the Scriptures!
I'll even throw-in the (REAL) Science that shows that Darwin (way!) over-played his hand!

I believe that Stu is having a hard time reaching you with his points ... because of the fact that he
agrees with you on the "Deep-Time" issue!
This is why I wanted to help him out with his fight against Evolution (Theistic or otherwise?) !!!
I'm trying to show him that you can't give the Enemy a stick-of-dynamite ... and then act surprised
when he (or she) takes out some matches and lights it!

The same thing can be said of you Lee!
You want to accept "Deep-Time" & "Evolution" as fact ...
then try to claim that there's Zero? common ground between You & this Clown?

I think that he should win the "Milestone Life-jacket Award" for this piece of literary poison! Twisted Evil
(or should I say Death-jacket!)

20 Bret*11

View user profile

123Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty Summary of Evolution Case  Agreement and Issues on Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:10 am

The Seems like you guys are abandoning ship since your ship is listing and sinking. Based on what Stu has presented, your anti-evolution stance has no solid Biblical support.  As they say, don't go in the kitchen if you can't take the heat.  Your Biblical case against theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) seems to be based on blasphemous and fraudulent fiction only. The prideful rejection of descent from earlier species has conjured up Stu's convoluted and complex rationalization. Your position against evolution is certainly not supported by proper or sufficient Biblical exegesis.

With that said we do have a lot of common ground.  We agree that Adam was a literal historical man, but do not agree that Adam was created fully formed by a special creation act of God. I have reached my views by studying the same passages as Stu has referenced throughout his case and others that he refuses to address while coming to a substantially different conclusion on how Adam, Eve, and other animals were created: evolutionary creation.  I have defined  this method in previous posts based on Biblical verses that I have referenced based on God's own statements about creating individual humans uniquely in their mother's womb. Stu has not addressed this or provided any Biblical verses against this view in his case nor why this method does not work for other plants and animals to make each new kind after it's former kind.
Amazing as it might be we have reached common ground on his following statements.

[Stu]- (1) 'God created everything, but He created only man in His image not the animals.'

[Stu]- (2) 'God is love and He created mankind for His glory and established a unique love relationship with him. Animals are incapable of having that kind of love relationship with God.'

[Stu]- (3) 'Adam and Eve were directly and specially created by God and are the original parents of the human race. Jesus validated their union as human parents....Scripture calls the union of humans and animals an abomination.' 

[Stu]- (4) One of the most fundamental Christian doctrines is Redemption. The NT definition is based on the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ as the “second Adam” for the “first Adam’s” sin.

We disagree on his following statement in 3): 'There is no scriptural evidence that Adam had a hominid origin (partial man/partial animal).' (these verses contradict this view: Ge 4:2 NET, Is 41:4, Je 1:5, 1 Cor 15:38-39 YLT) 

From these Scriptures Stu concluded incorrectly that:

[Stu]- From (1): 'Evolution of mankind from animals degrades the image of God.'

God built up the information content from dust through animals and subhumans successfully until His image was finally manifested in Adam, the first fully human hominid. He made each animal as He wanted and continues to make each human being as He wishes today. This results in no degradation of God's image, man was the crowning achievement of God's extensive efforts throughout history to make an animal that could support His spiritual image.

We significantly disagree on the certain aspects of the following statement.

[Stu]- From (2): 'Hominids would be unable to giving loving nurture to Adam as a human offspring. Such a theory would degrade the biblical definition of love.'

Adam's subhuman parents were certainly capable of nurturing the first human and other subhumans of their own kind; we observe nurturing of  infants by all mammals especially the hominids. We even observe interspecies nurturing between  mammals while infants mature to adults.  We can safely assume that Adam would have been cared for by his subhuman parents until he reached the ability to care for himself.  

However, Adam was the first physical being on earth capable of spiritual thought, love, and other characteristics which his parents did not have nor provide nor understand.  Adam's parents ability to express Biblical love would have been impaired but this is not so for Adam.  Adam's human characteristics to express love and understand abstract concepts such as sin, good, and evil surpassed those of his hominid parents. These characteristics are what reflected God's image. This concept is totally compatible with Biblical concepts. Because Adam was the first human.

We totally disagree on Stu's next statement:

[Stu]- From (3): 'Adam was specially created by God’s fiat as a fully formed human being. Adam did not have a hominid mother and to suggest that he did is an abomination and questions Jesus’ understanding and credibility.'

These claims are unsubstantiated by any biblical verses, only an incorrect series of assumptions has been fictionalized and blasphemed by Stu in his case.  The biblical concept of special creation is perfectly compatible with God developing a hominid kind of mammal and introducing a series of 30 million genetic changes or so in each individual's parent's womb over millions of years to produce the first human being Adam.  Evolutionary creation is therefore compatible with the special creation of Adam and Eve by the Trinity.  

[Stu]- From (4): 'If a hominid produced Adam that would compromise the fundamental doctrines of Fall and Redemption and would nullify Paul’s teaching of Christ’s Substitutionary Atonement.'

His conclusion would apply to Darwinism as a biblical case can be made against the contingent appearance of the kinds and human existence. Unfortunately for Stu's case, our debate is is about how the various kinds of plants or animals, Adam, and Eve were created by God so this conclusion is only applicable externally to our debate regarding theistic evolution of the Darwinistic type.  This statement only muddles our debate.

Sin is human spiritual product and came as a result of Adam's spiritual nature and disobedience to God's spiritual rules. Paul's reference to Jesus as the second Adam resulted from the rebirth of man's spiritual nature because of Jesus' atonement for mankind's sin. It is only because of this spiritual atonement that we human's can be spiritual children of God. It bridged the gap generated by Adam and Eve's original sin.  This is why Jesus is called the second Adam by Paul.  It has nothing to do with the debate on how Adam and Eve were created by the Trinity.  God could have created us in any way he wished. 

Stu's reasoning is unclear on this topic, evolutionary creation is unrelated to his conclusion. He seems to continuously muddle the two very distinct processes of creation.

I hope you will not run away from the evolution debate, I think it is just starting to get interesting and revisiting the age of the earth would be totally boring again after spending over a year on the topic. I give Stu a hard time on his views and tactics, but still love all my Christian brother's dearly.  I just wish he had chosen a different way to make his case other than blasphemy, fraud and fiction! I am also somewhat disappointed that my other brothers did not take a stand against it as well.


View user profile

124Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty *** No Biblical Evidence? *** on Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:45 pm

Stu ...

I'm not sure what you mean by "No Biblical Evidence" ???
Did you read my Post?
Doesn't Ezekiel count for something?
It mentions "the DAY you were Created" about Lucifer TWICE !!!

Are you saying that Lucifer was created at a later time than the rest of the Angels?
Are you saying that the word "Day" is referring to Angel-time Days?

I agree with you about NOT wanting to make something BIG out of this issue ...
because I don't see how this helps or hurts either of our positions on the AGE?

Am I missing something here?
Do you think this Issue has any bearing on the "Age of the Earth"... if so How?

20 Bret*11

View user profile

125Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 5 Empty Gen. 1:1 on Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:03 am

Heavens is plural.

View user profile

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 9]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum