You take mystical and subtle text intended for the small elite (yes, there was no printing press and books when the Pentateuch was written were EXTREMELY rare) crudely and literally, like a Cargo cult member who found a book on quantum physics

So you think God was lying when he said he would preserve his word?

You don't seem to have any faith at all.

SYMBOLISM, Pole, symbolism. "In memory of me." At the Last Supper.

"In memory", does not mean "not real". If your dying grandfather asks to drink a glass of wine in his memory on anniversary, does he mean a fruit juice from supermarket? This circumvention is sooo lame!

Even Luther abhorred this Calvinist concept.

Without "words" and definitions, what have we?

Personal doubt, confusion, or discomfort in trying to organize or explain things.

Wow you really don't believe the Bible. Next thing you are going to tell us is there was no serpent and no garden of Eden. Is that what you believe?

The actual Church of Christ as really founded by Christ Himself in a certain concrete place and time, was not based on the Bible. New Testament was written by the members of the Church much later.

The serpent and garden of Eden were real, but the Serpent was not a snake, but Satan, Garden of Eden was not a plain garden but a world before the fall.

The serpent and garden of Eden were real,

You think Noah's ark is made up. Why not the Garden of Eden?

You think Noah's ark is made up. Why not the Garden of Eden?

Aaargh. I start to think that literacy is not so good for everyone.

The actual Church of Christ as really founded by Christ Himself in a certain concrete place and time, was not based on the Bible. New Testament was written by the members of the Church much later.

Jesus quoted from the old testament. He said it was reliable.

You don't believe the New Testament is inspired by God?

Why do you put your faith in Christ if you think the Bible is a bunch of crap?

I start to think that literacy is not so good for everyone.

Bad sentence structure. Could you rephrase please?

Bad sentence structure. Could you rephrase please?

Pewnie, mysle, ze pismiennosc nie jest taka dobra dla kazdego.

Ok I accept that that is as good as you can write.

In how many languages can you write?

He did it through the evolution. He made man from the clay ie from the ocean mud, and out of it He shaped plants, animals and man in a very long process.

The main issue with theistic evolution is in the literal distinction man and woman are created.

Genesis 1: NKJV

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Quite clear mankind is not an evolution of an already created animal. Mankind is distinct and made in the Image of God and His likeness.

Theistic evolution may be popular to get through cocktail parties but it surely goes against God's stated design of man and woman distinct from all other creation.

Then there's the case of how far to we allegorize the early chapters of Genesis. God's definition of marriage is in Genesis 2:24 which is quoted by Christ in Matthew 19. Then of course the fall of humanity is in Genesis 3, which later we learn why the second Adam, Christ must come for our redemption (or rescue for Eastern Orthodox).

Three tightly packed chapters which both OT and NT writers refer to as literal events and literal people.

Don't know about you, but I don't base my eternal hope on story time. Jesus quoted Genesis quite often. So does Paul in his epistles.

The actual Church of Christ as really founded by Christ Himself in a certain concrete place and time, was not based on the Bible. New Testament was written by the members of the Church much later.

How much later?

Jesus said to them, “VERY TRULY I tell you, UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you HAVE NO LIFE in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

If you all want a Bread of Life discourse debate I would recommend another thread in Bible Study.

Don't know how a creation and evolution thread turned into a Eucharist debate.

Scientists tried to accelerate generations and stumble into a mutation that might cause the fruit fly to "evolve." Instead, in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the flies grew weaker and de-volved.

An entire generation fed the XMen movies and comics are convinced if we are all exposed to gamma radiation we will become super heroes.

how Noe managed to fit countless thousand species of animals into his Ark, and how did he manage to get all those species from all continents?

You see, this is what people don't understand about about Christians.

Christians don't believe in evolution, yet they do believe in rapid speciation.

That is how all those animals became deposited over the earth.

Now as for insects, fish, or any other animal that wouldn't have been bothered too much by a flood, I feel the Bible authors felt no need to address that.

But, you can think as you may.

Even Luther abhorred this Calvinist concept

Actually it was Huldrych Zwingli.

The Reformed church believes in real presence at the Lord's Supper. Not in the elements. Meaning the elements do not change in some matter from what is seen.

When Jesus turned water to wine it actually changed. Every miracle of Christ showed the change. For example a withered hand became well. When God manifested His miracles on matter they were visible. As opposed to effecting a change of heart leading to repentance. That is unseen in the moment but manifested thereafter in the works and fruits of the Holy Spirit working in the child of God.

Now there is a distinction between what the Orthodox call a mystery with regards to the Eucharist, and Roman medieval metaphysics of Transubstantiation. But you make no distinction. As I said perhaps we should have a Bread of Life discourse discussion in another thread as you obviously don't know all the various views including the varied views the early church fathers had. There were 3 or 4 different views in that era.

how Noe managed to fit countless thousand species of animals into his Ark, and how did he manage to get all those species from all continents? He must have had countless biologists all over the world collaborating with him, did he?

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27)

An entire generation fed the XMen movies and comics are convinced if we are all exposed to gamma radiation we will become super heroes.

With 40+ genders to choose from.

Maybe alienating the sheeple from science isn't working out so great.

With 40+ genders to choose from.

LOL yeah forgot that.

That is no small amount of difference. Most arguments are about issues where the parties agree on 90% of the facts, but on this one, the agreement is hardly more than that planet earth and life both exist.

To me, starting with the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God" and building a scientific model around it is flawed for the simple reason that (at least most people) have never established any valid, objective reason for accepting the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God". You talk about strata being evidence of the Great Flood, but secular science also says there have been many great floods throughout geologic history, including the Black sea being flooded within weeks by a breach of the barrier separating it from the Mediterranean sea (which may have been the event upon which the story of the Biblical flood was based).

I don't see creationists argue that the universe is smaller than science says, and for me it seems quite reasonable that the universe is as old as it is large.

I am glad that my particular beliefs do not depend on evolution being factual or not. That we have an immortal soul, or stated accurately, we ARE immortal souls, and that what we HAVE for a short time are mortal bodies, which are far inferior to souls, that our human nature & origins adds NOTHING to our value as souls. Nothing at all.

Liberator, this all comes back to belief systems. Debating about evolution is a red herring. That's not what creationists are really arguing about. What they are instead arguing about is that the Bible is literally the "Word of God". That's what it's really about. As long as a creationist believes that, no amount of discussion about evolution will convince him/her otherwise, and for any secular scientist, no amount of debate about evolution will convince him/her that each species miraculously appeared by divine command.

So if you really want to convince anyone about creationism, you have to convince people that the Bible is the Word of God. Period. That's it.

Now we've had some of that discussion in the past and I've issued my challenges on this point. You promised to get back to me several times and it's up to you if you ever do. I have not judged and will not judge you for not doing so and set no time limit at all, even if you never do. But I will say this: I have yet to find a single person who has ever made any real effort at all to debunk my perspective on this subject, much less even come close to succeed in doing so, even though I have come to the arena a number of times. Under my model, God is more patient, more forgiving, never judges, never gets angry and so on. And yet there is full accountability for how we live, and a real purpose to life and for the existence of the universe and everything in it. And it doesn't matter if evolution is true or not or how old the universe. In fact the universe itself, for all it's wonder, is a mere tool created for a greater end. It all fits together so much better. Perfectly really.

So if and when you want to come to the floor on the REAL topic here, I'm game. Until then, arguing/debating about evolution vs creationism is, I will say most politely, a waste of time.

When relativistic time dilation is taken into account, the question becomes: In whose inertial frame did each of those "days" transpire?

That is the time scale in which DNA/RNA, and the associated cellular machinery, operate to effect the natural selection and creation of species.

The unanswered question then remains: where did DNA/RNA come from?

Without millions and billions of years, evolutionary history completely falls apart. Here are just a few of many credible evidences from various branches of science that tell of a world much younger than evolutionists claim. Evidence 1 Geology: Radiocarbon in Diamonds

Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly. For this reason, it can only be used to obtain “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years.

Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1–2 billion years old and related to the earth’s early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange.

Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years—a far cry from the evolutionary billions!

For more information, see Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. To learn more about diamonds and their formation, read this article by Dr. Andrew Snelling.

Evidence 2 Astronomy: Recession of the Moon

The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!

For more information, see Lunar Recession (based on this article) as well as The Age of the Universe, Part 2. We also recommend Video on Demand: Our Created Moon.

Evidence 3 Geology: Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field

Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.

Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)

However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.

For more information, see The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth and section two of The Age of the Universe, Part 2.

Evidence 4 Biology: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!

According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.

Could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recently these dinosaurs lived?

To learn more, see “Ostrich-Osaurus” Discovery? and The Scrambling Continues. We also recommend the article Fossilized Biomaterials Must Be Young by Brian Thomas of ICR.

Evidence 5 Anthropology: Human Population Growth

It’s amazing what basic mathematics can show us about the age of the earth. We can calculate the years of human existence with the population doubling every 150 years (a very conservative figure) to get an estimate of what the world’s population should be after any given period of time.

A biblical age of the earth (about 6,000 years) is consistent with the numbers yielded by such a calculation. In contrast, even a conservative evolutionary age of 50,000 years comes out to a staggering, impossibly high figure of 10 to the 99th power—greater than the number of atoms in the universe!

Clearly, the claim that humans have inhabited the earth for tens of thousands of years is absurd!

For a better look at these calculations, see Billions of People in Thousands of Years?.

Evidence 6 Geology: Tightly Folded Rock Strata

When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.

There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.

This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who believe these layers were formed rapidly in the global, catastrophic Flood described in Genesis.

To find out more, see Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured.

Does the age of the earth really matter?

While each of these evidences reveals reasons why the earth cannot be billions of years old, the real issue is not the age of the earth. Instead, the real issue is authority. God’s infallible Word must be our ultimate authority, not the unstable foundation of human reasoning. Are we trying to fit our interpretations of the world (e.g., evolution) into Scripture, or will we simply let God speak for Himself through His Word?

If we can’t trust the first chapters of Genesis, why should we believe when Scripture says that faith in Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation? (Romans 10:9; Acts 4:12; John 14:6)

But when we take Scripture as written, it’s clear that the earth can’t be more than a few thousand years old—and from a biblical worldview, the scientific evidence agrees!

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well.

Every massive object exists in a gravitational well.

Shocking and awing the sheeple with buzzwords does not unexist observable reality.

Time is a derivative function of state change which progresses relative to E in the inertial frame in which it is observed.

How long is a "day" in the context of the moment when E=0 made the transition to E=(All the energy that exists in the universe)?

If we can’t trust the first chapters of Genesis,

Did the literal King of Tyre literally live in the literal Garden of Eden?

The 6000 years old premise conflicts with the self-evident observable reality that we can see light from celestial bodies that are billions of light years away.

God made a finished product. So you are incorrect. What you said proves absolutely nothing.

One bettle does not prove either evolution or adaptation but evolutionists are desperate to prove their theory

evolutionists are desperate to prove their theory... And creationalists are just as desperate to pursue theirs.

When relativistic time dilation is taken into account, the question becomes: In whose inertial frame did each of those "days" transpire?

So god created plants. Then it was dark for billions of years. No that doesn't work.

You're trying to make the Bible fit into your tiny minuscule bit of knowledge you have.

Can you articulate your "beliefs" without plagarizing and parroting?

https://www.google.com/search? q=This+is+a+major+problem+for+evolutionists+who+believe+these+rock+layers+were +laid+down+gradually

Just like Genesis says:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Liberator, this all comes back to belief systems. Debating about evolution is a red herring. That's not what creationists are really arguing about. What they are instead arguing about is that the Bible is literally the "Word of God". That's what it's really about. As long as a creationist believes that, no amount of discussion about evolution will convince him/her otherwise, and for any secular scientist, no amount of debate about evolution will convince him/her that each species miraculously appeared by divine command.

That is far from the truth.

If the Bible said one thing and we observed other things then we wouldn't believe it. At least I wouldn't.

But the Bible fits perfectly with the natural world we observe.

And it has more then a couple of youtube vidoes behind it.

Genesis says the earth was with out form and void. Not what you quoted.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1

Nope. Light was created first. Then matter condensed from it.

If there is a god and he can create light. Then he can create it already shining on the earth. Comprende Now if you don't believe in God then I can see how you think it is a bunch of nonsense either way. But you seem to say you believe. So you are putting up unnecessary stumbling blocks and making it conform to your errant thinking.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1

What does Genesis 1:3 say?

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

What does this mean?

You have to add to scripture to make your pet theory work. I stick to the text. You must not have to much faith in God being able to deliver his word to his people purely.

That is ok it is on your skin not mine. Think what you want. I don't care.

E=MC^2

What does this mean?

You don't need that to understand the Bible.

E=mc^2

Here maybe this will help.

Remember the earth was without form and void at the time.

You're wrong.

You must not have to much faith in God being able to deliver his word to his people

"Fallible and uninspired have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible"

Did the literal king of Tyre literally live in the literal Garden of Eden?

Remember the earth was without form and void at the time.

You mean like in the plasma at T=0+1?

Did the literal king of Tyre literally live in the literal Garden of Eden?

It would seem so from Ezekiel below.

Mortal, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, carnelian, chrysolite, and moonstone, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; and worked in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you. In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from among the stones of fire. Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade, you profaned your sanctuaries. So I brought out fire from within you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all who saw you. All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever (Ezekiel 28:12- 19).

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Correct. What AKA was saying is true. A finished product. Meaning the light from the farthest star was created from source to our solar system.

Why would God keep everyone in the dark for billions of light years?

Important to point out that there is purpose in God's creation and we see it in Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning (time) God created (causation and purpose) the heavens ( space) and the earth (matter). For big bang types it's all there.

So the literal king of Tyre was literally in the literal Garden after literal Adam and Eve got literally driven out of the literal Garden in Genesis 3:24?

It's both.