In The Beginning God, Not Darwin, Created

Post Scripts ^ | 10/11/09 | One Vike

[tacticalogic]

Lol- arguing ‘theological differences’ to determien what is and is not science- precious!

You have a theological difference of opinion with the USGS.

[Iscool]

First off, there is no scripture that supports the gap theory, secondly, when children grow up thinking God is not the Creator and man is not the first to sin and thus death did not enter the world through Adam’s sin, you have made Go sand Christ a liar.

Who sinned against God first, Eve or Satan???

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Is God telling us that the heavens were there first???

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Noah's flood??? Did the world perish at Noah's flood??? Or did 'much' of the life vanish during Noah's flood??? Nothing to indicate that all the sea creatures and fish died off...Doesn't sound like Noah's flood to me...

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The heavens and earth which are now??? The heavens and earth are not the same ones that God made before Noah's flood??? The earth is the same isn't it??? It was just void of a lot of life after Noah's flood??? The heavens didn't get destroyed in Noah's flood...And the earth is the same one we had in Gen. 1:1...No way this could be Noah's flood...

I'd be interested in seeing your proof that the 'gap theory' is out of contention...

I wholehearted agree that the death of the inhabitants of our world came from the fall of Adam...And it's very clear to me that evolution is a myth...And I have no doubts whatsoever that Adam and Eve, the animals, birds, stars and the heavens we see were created just over 6 thousand years ago...

But there are so many things that don't fit into that 6 thousand year period...

So I'd appreciate you prooving that nothing existed prior to 6 thousand years ago...

[tacticalogic]

The scientific method is not religious.

Modern day science as it's practiced and promoted, has become religious.

It is your contention that all scientists practice a religion called "science"?

[CottShop]

[[You also fail at capitalization and punctuation.]]

You’ve added so much to htis topic=- thanks for your contributions- they’ve been spellbinding- well done- I think that it’s clear that if all you’ce got to offer to the topics are complaints about spelling, that it’s not my posts that ‘aren’t worth reading’ but yours.

[OneVike]

Imagine all you must deny to accept the idea that God used evolution instead of Christ, as in the idea of theistic evolution, OEC, or the Gap theory? The general idea of evolution is quite different then what the Bible says about creation week in the book of Genesis. Consider what you claim about Jesus saying is so. Then If Christ is wrong then how can He be God?

The Bible	Evolution theory	Exact opposite?
1) Earth before sun.	1) Sun before earth.	Yes
2) Oceans before land.	2) Land before oceans.	Yes
3) Light before sun.	3) Sun before light.	Yes
4) Land plants first.	4) Marine life first.	Yes
5) Fruit tree before fish.	5) Fish before fruit tree.	Yes
6) Fish before insects.	6) Insects before fish.	Yes
7) Plants before sun.	7) Sun before plants.	Yes
8) Marine animals before land animals.	8) Land animals before marine animals.	Yes
9) Bird before reptiles.	9) Reptiles before birds.	Yes
10) Man brought death in the world.	10) Death brought man into the world.	Yes
11) God created man.	11) Man created God (out of need).	Yes
12) Atmosphere between 2 layers of water.	12) Atmosphere above water.	Yes
13) All life was created by God.	13) All life just happened, and evolved.	Yes
14) There is a Creator.	14) There is no Creator.	Yes

There is no middle ground in exact opposites. Because you cannot accept one without totally denying the other. Because like I said in my article, when you choose evolution you also deny the trinity shown below:

Please answer my assertions before bringing more to the table, because you have yet to disprove anything I wrote.

[RegulatorCountry]

It is your contention that all scientists practice a religion called "science"?

"All?" No. Clearly not all. The science of "climate change" has all the hallmarks of a religion, though.

And, so does the conception of evolution, that seeks to explain the origins of life on this planet.

[ColdWater]

Thank you for the ping. But since your senseless rantings are on the religion formum I will allow you to post in peace.

[OneVike]

It takes more of a leap of faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God. So that make evolution a religion, because there is yet to be any provable evidence it is true. And since scientists are at the forefront of teaching evolution and they use science to do it with. That make many of today's studied sciences a form of.

[tacticalogic]

"All?" No. Clearly not all. The science of "climate change" has all the hallmarks of a religion, though.

And, so does the conception of evolution, that seeks to explain the origins of life on this planet.

The hype of "climate change" has the hallmarks of a cult. The science has gotten corrupted by politics and money, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Evolution seems to be a diffent question than origins, and the age of the Earth a different question than biology.

The crux seems to be whether, within the realm of Christianity, it's blasphemy to consider them separately, or to speak of them in contradiction to the literal account of creation in Genesis.

Beyond that, the question seems to be whether science becomes a religion if it commits that blasphemy.

[OneVike]

What?

[whattajoke]

e ALL know I’m a lazt tyypist- this is common knowledge- so your johnny come lately ‘observations’ are a tad outdated- but thanks for playing- now run along

Understood and accepted. I promise to never point out your typing skills if you promise to never - for the millionth time - make some lame joke about my screename reflecting upon my intellect. Truce?

[tacticalogic]

It takes more of a leap of faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God.

That people believe in theistic evolution is evidence that those are not mutually exclusive.

The argument seems to be over belief in the doctrine of YEC.

[RegulatorCountry]

The hype of "climate change" has the hallmarks of a cult. The science has gotten corrupted by politics and money, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Oh, now. "Climate change" has sin. "Climate change" has redemption. "Climate change" even has an apocalypse.

Evolution seems to be a diffent question than origins, and the age of the Earth a different question than biology.

Tell that to the Primordial Soup-Nazis, who promulgate the notion that all life originated in pond scum, zapped to life by lightning or some such.

As far as the concept of "deep time," necessitated by the truly astounding lengths of time posited, for life to have arisen from nothing and self-organized into the sentient beings posting on this FR Religion Forum today, it was originally conceptualized by an atheist, James Hutton. As it would have to have been. Christians in the late 18th century accepted a catastrophic, global flood and a six-day Creation.

[whattajoke]

So unless you want to partake in the debate between YEC and OEC, which by the way is a Christian in house debate, then go find another thread to disrupt.

OneVike - May I offer my two cents on your thread? Disclosure: I accept the theory of evolution as fact. But that isn't my point at all.

I applaud this thread and encourage what you are trying to do here. For years I've been interested in the factions of creationists - both in the real world and on Free Republic. The top creationist thread starter here posts articles touting "Intelligent Design" on a daily basis and yet, he himself is a YEC. Many times I've asked him how he can support ID, which clearly states such things as "God is not part of this paradigm," and the "top" IDer, Michael Behe, accepts modification through common descent and an old earth among other things. He admitted under oath that ID is equal to astrology in terms of scientific merit.

We have geocentrists here. We have OECs and YECs. All point to the bible as their guide in such things - but none have the temerity to debate among themselves. They prefer to just write how stupid evolution is.

I think the internal debate (YEC vs OEC, geo vs heliocentrists, Flood vs. Not really a worldwide flood, etc) is great. It doesn't happen enough... and I wish this thread would really delve into it.

[OneVike]

Yes, and my point works both ways as to why someone would believe in God yet not have enough faith to believe He did what He claims to do, yet they have more faith in science that has been proved to be flawed. Why would any one who says God is God think him less smart then scientists who do not believe in Hem.

So I say again those who believe in evolution have more faith, just misdirected, kind of like those who believe in Islam, or Buddhism. If you want to stick around and debate the logic of this thread then I must assume you come from religious argument or you would not still be debating whether or not the logic I put forth in the article is true.

[metmom]

What RC said...

When it becomes an ideology that replaces religion in people’s life, those who adhere to it do.

[ColdWater]

So why are you here?

I was pinged by the author of the thread. You too?

[metmom]

I think the internal debate (YEC vs OEC, geo vs heliocentrists, Flood vs. Not really a worldwide flood, etc) is great. It doesn't happen enough... and I wish this thread would really delve into it.

Why?

[reg45]

I remind everyone of one important fact: It has to be created before it can evolve.

[metmom]

Did I ask you?

Or did I really ask you and you’re just confused?