ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Why Evolution Is A Myth

Is there any reason why a Christian should embrace Evolution in order to help explain Creation? If not, why do so many do it?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 4/7/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



Warwick:

You said: StrongAxe, still you refuse to attempt an answer to my question. Genesis 1 gives the components of a 24hr day "What other time-period is made up of daylight and nighttime, and evening and morning?"

I cannot answer this question, because the Bible does not do so. I am not reading between the lines as you are. Once again, you insert "24hr" which neither Genesis nor anything Bible book does. Why do you do so? Do you find the wording of Genesis insufficient, that you must add additional words in order to make God's words unambiguous? If so, that means you feel the words are ambiguous and subject to different interpretations, otherwise you would not feel the need to add to them.
---StrongAxe on 4/14/12


Cliff, the perennial BiblioSceptic.

So you are saying the world and its inhabitants whom God declared "very good" continued in their prefall state after the fall?

BTW sharks and whales live in the ocean!
---Warwick on 4/14/12


Cluny , Romans 5:12 says death came after Adam's sin. However the fossil record, which long-agers place pre-Adam, records death, including that of man. How can we believe the NT when it says there was no death before sin if there was? I Corinthians 15: 21,22 clearly says death came because of Adams sin, that which Jesus came to conquer.

Genesis 1:29,30 shows God gave man and animals a vegetarian diet. But the fossil record shows carnivory! In verse 31 God says His finished creation was "very good." There is no way our loving God would call the death, disease and suffering as shown in the fossil record "very good."
---Warwick on 4/14/12


Oh yes, I can just see anteaters trying to eat grass!Sharks and whales trying to eat fruit and veggies!
There are over 600 carnivorous plants that trap and eat prey!
Is a spider's web just art??
It's hard to see reality with blinders on!
---1st_cliff on 4/14/12


Cluny:

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were permitted to eat fruits from any tree in the garden (except one). Eating fruits does not kill the tree that bears them. There is no mention of them being allowed to eat vegetables until AFTER the fall.
---StrongAxe on 4/13/12




\\Do you believe death was in the world before Adam's sin?\\

Yes.

The "Death" that St. Paul says came into the world after the Fall was HUMAN death.

Other species always died when eaten.

You don't think an artichoke continues to live after you cook it, dismember it, and consume it, do you?

Whether there were carnivores before then is another issue.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/13/12


Mark, those who hold views of Genesis other than the straight-forward reading cannot justify their belief from Scripture. Some hide the reasons behind their different belief. Others admit it is their long-ages/evolution beliefs which forces them to reject a straight-forward reading. One blogger talks of 6 time-periods of creation but cannot defend this from Scripture as 'time-periods' appears nowhere in Scripture.

If God's 6 days and 7th of rest in Exodus 20:8-11 cannot be taken at face-value the Israelites could not know what God meant by 6 days etc. Someone said they did know as by then 6 days had come to mean 6 24hrs. Even if this is so do you not imagine God knew this and now communicated with them in their terms?
---Warwick on 4/13/12


Lee how about a straight answer to two straight question?

Do you believe death was in the world before Adam's sin?

Was there animal carnivory before the fall?
---Warwick on 4/13/12


"Maybe because Genesis is a myth and not an historical record?"
atheist
Oh yea, well, maybe a few more comments from you and I will be totally convinced that your ancestors are monkeys. It's just a theory of mine now.
---Elder on 4/13/12


MarkV: "When we compare Scripture with Scripture"

Amen! When we compare Gen 1 and 2 with Exo 20:8-11, the conclusion is unmistakable - God did ALL the creating in six ordinary days and established the seventh day as a holy day of rest for mankind. Any other interpretation simply does not fit the obvious intent of the collective Scriptures. All this fighting to stretch the creative time period is nothing but a desperate attempt to force-fit long age Evolution into the Bible. My question is .... WHY?


---jerry6593 on 4/13/12




Maybe because Genesis is a myth and not an historical record?
---atheist on 4/12/12


Warwick, I know you mean well when you say that many turn the truth to a lie for their own purpose and will. But you have to also consider what is written in the context, and when details are not given, all kinds of speculation will arise. As we all know there is at least five positions concerning Gen. 1:1. Sure we know what position we have faith in, but others have faith in other positions, because details were not given. When we compare Scripture with Scripture some details are not given in another passage. Some things are exact, some or not, yet all of Scripture is truth. We believe it by faith. Explicit statements are fact. Implicit statements may or may not be fact, they only imply something which may or may not be the fact.
---Mark_V. on 4/12/12


Warwick//Your fable undermines the foundation of the Gospel and you say you don't care!
---
Fables are not truth, but in the case of creation periods all being of 24 hour duration is closer to a fable than it is much of anything else.

You refuse to realize that you are forcing an interpretation onto scripture that has little support. Suggest you read the Archer comment.


You may want to research what the gospel is and what it consists of.

Your view seems to be that what you believe has to be correct and that one must have all the correct beliefs in order to be a good productive fruitful Chrisitan.
---lee1538 on 4/12/12


Are God's days like sinful human fallen days?

I myself don't think so. After all, nothing else about God is like us.

Why should days be any different?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/12/12


warwick//The truth is there but you refuse to believe it.

It is you that refuses to acknowledge the fact that the record does not reveal the duration of the creation days.

I notice that you cannot comment on what Archer has to say regarding the problem with the Genesis record. Are you afraid that all the facts are not on your side, that you have nothing left with which to support your viewpoint?

Poor soul, what will you do now? Accuse those that disagree with you as being evil people?
---lee1538 on 4/12/12


Lee, your 'reasoning' is flawed. Nowhere in Genesis does 'creation periods' occur. God defines 1 day as having a light part (day) and and dark part (night). He adds "And there was evening and there was morning' seemingly to make sure we get the point, that this was the 1st ever 24hr day.

Can you provide a 'time period' other than a 24hr day which is composed of daylight and darkness, evening and morning? You can't and your fable falls.

The truth is there but you refuse to believe it.

Your fable undermines the foundation of the Gospel and you say you don't care!
---Warwick on 4/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


On 24 hour creation periods -

The 2d major aspect of Genesis 1 is the revelation God brought forth His creation in an orderly and systematic manner. There were 6 major stages in this work of formation and these stages are represented by successive days of the week. It is important to observe none of the 6 creative days bears a definite article in the Hebrew text: the translation 'the 1st day,' 'the 2sd day', etc. are in ERROR...In Hebrew prose, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite, only in poetic style could it be omitted. ...Thus they are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time." pp. 60-61 Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, G. L. Archer.
---lee1538 on 4/11/12


Warwick//some here passionately argue long and hard, against 24hr creation days as they believe in long-ages. Long-ages place death before sin whereas God says death is the consequence of Adam's sin.

And THEN there are those who could care less about either a young earth or an old age creation theory but simply cannot find anything in the Genesis record that speaks of all the creation periods being of 24 hour duration.

We can either conclude that you do not know how to read, or that you are seeking to battle those terrible evolutionists that took you to the woodshed and paddled your fat behind.
---lee1538 on 4/11/12


Warwick:

I seem to be the person with whom you argue most about the "24 hour creation day" issue.

First of all, I don't passionately claim that the days weren't 24 hours. I just insist that the Bible doesn't say how long they are. They may very well have been 24 hours, or not. The Bible does not EXPLICITLY say.

Second, Nowhere does the Bible mention "24 hours". Exodus says "days", not "normal everyday days". You read between the lines when you add "24 hours" or "normal everyday" to what the Bible actually says.

Third, why do you keep bringing up this same issue in many blogs, even unrelated ones like the "Chistians Reprove and Rebuke"?
---StrongAxe on 4/11/12


\\As you should be able to see on this forum there are still many that claim they are Christians but believe in much foolishness.
---lee1538 on 4/11/12\\

Oh, I know.

There are such superstitions as "Jezebel spirits" posted here all the time.

If the devil has power over the air, then is it a sin for Christians to breathe?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/11/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


Mark, God tells us he created in 6 evening and morning, day and night days. In Exodus He confirms these 6 days of creation and 7th of rest are normal everyday days. Throughout Scripture there are hundreds of ordinary 24hr days defined as per Genesis one.

In Genesis 1 'day' is used with a number i.e. "And there was evening and there was morning-the first day." It is used as a
singular or plural with a number 410 times outside of Genesis and it
always means an ordinary day.

For corroboration see the Holman Bible Dictionary p.397 where it says Genesis 1:5 defines a 24hr day.
---Warwick on 4/11/12


Mark, some here passionately argue long and hard, against 24hr creation days as they believe in long-ages. Long-ages place death before sin whereas God says death is the consequence of Adam's sin. Is this not correct? "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" Romans 5:12 In placing death before sin they undermine the foundational reason why Christ came to die. If it wasn't because of Adam's sin, why did He come?

This is not some side-issue and their passionate defence of this undermining nonBiblical belief shows where their allegience lies.
---Warwick on 4/11/12


Cluny -We no longer believe that Satan dominates the radio waves, What's this about? I never knew anyone believed that. Fill me in.
---
Some of the religiosities believed that is was wrong to listen to radio when it first stated to broadcast stating that the power of the air belongs to Satan.

Eph. 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

As you should be able to see on this forum there are still many that claim they are Christians but believe in much foolishness.
---lee1538 on 4/11/12


Warwick, you asked me twice and I disagreed with you here on 4/10/12. I do not believe in evolution, but I do not agree with you when details that were not explained in the five books of Moses you make as fact. And I believe it is ok, I don't feel I need them, God didn't think I needed them, or else He would have put them down. When a believer trys to pin something down as fact, and it is not explained, it is not right to say, this is the way it is period. If God said:
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day" I believe it. It does not mean a thing if we say, 24 hrs exact, because it does not say that. You say it does, but it doesn't.
---Mark_V. on 4/11/12


Send a Free Father's Day Ecard


\\We no longer believe that Satan dominates the radio waves, \\

What's this about? I never knew anyone believed that.

Fill me in.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/11/12


Warwick, I have a scientific background, as does my wife and many friends and acquaintances. My degreeS are in mathematics and physics. I was employed as a research analyst for over 20 works and worked with others in the scientific community. I have also taught several courses at the graduate level at various educational institutions.

Sorry but when something is not obvious to our observations, the only option is to gather pertinent data and built some kind of theory as to its reality.

Religious beliefs are based on INTERPRETATIONS of scripture and such as changed over the centuries as science has enlightened many. We no longer believe that Satan dominates the radio waves, nor do we burn witches if your cows milk becomes sour.
---lee1538 on 4/11/12


//1) When I started here several years back, I used my actual name, which unfortunately was not unique enough, since somebody else used it, so I picked a more unique name.

I had the same problem with the common name "Lee" so changed it a couple of times until I decided that the handle Christianet used was sufficient.

It is amazing that just because some Christians think alike, that there are some that are quick to accuse us of being the same person.

But the problem is often that our accusers belief system is not Bibically sound or simply illogical.

One erroneous belief is that creation days had to be 24 hours, another being that the New Covenant is simply a rehash of the Old.
---lee1538 on 4/11/12


Lee, I have a scientific background, as does my wife and many friends and acquaintances. I have also lectured on science. I know what the scientific method is from up close personal experience.

I was once involved in the formulation and testing of pharmaceutical products. A drug or diagnostic product needs to be found. Research discloses a starting point. Product development begins in the laboratory and testing is entered into. Ultimately the product is tested upon humans to see whether it is successful or not.

If it cannot be tested via this scientific method it is but conjecture and best guesses.

All the Biblical evidence is that the creation days were 24hrs. There is no contrary Biblical evidence.
---Warwick on 4/11/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


St Cliff, are you sloppy or trying to play tricks. The Holman Dictionary on p.737 (not p. 679) says "The Geezer tablet is believed to be the oldest Hebrew inscription found to date. The inscription is on a limestone tablet and dates from 925BC." Not what you said!

1) It is believed to be the oldest Hebrew inscription found to date. Beliefs constantly change and new things are likewise constantly found. Dating of relics is based upon assumptions therefore cannot be proven.

2) Being limestone (sedimentary rock) is is most likely post flood.

As I have said before lack of evidence is not evidence of lack!

What are all these impossible things Adam had to do on day 6?
---Warwick on 4/11/12


Warwick:

I happen to know Cluny personally, and he can vouch that I am a real person (and vice versa), and not the same as anyone else. I have only ever posted under different names on here under two circumstances:
1) When I started here several years back, I used my actual name, which unfortunately was not unique enough, since somebody else used it, so I picked a more unique name
2) I have on rare occasions accidentally misspelled my name here, so there are occasional postings with wrong capitalizations, etc.
---StrongAxe on 4/11/12


True science and true religion are NEVER in conflict. False interpretations of both create conflicts where none should exist. What scientific "evidence" can you present in favor of your Evolution-friendly, blind faith religion? Relatedly, how many violations of accepted scientific principles would you require before you would consider a theory false?


---jerry6593 on 4/11/12


//operational science is not about opinions based upon evidence. It is the result of rigorous testing.

For those things that cannot be proven by observation or replicated in the lab, one can only built scientific theories based upon available data.

If your academic background were in the scientific arena you would know that.

Sorry but the Bible does NOT reveal the length of the creation periods. What your belief is based upon is an assumption as the term "day" took on a different meaning after the 2sd period of creation.

You lose as usually Warwick in your futile attempt to justify observing the Sabbath.
---lee1538 on 4/10/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


Our problem with Warwish is that some evolutionists took him to the woodshed and paddled his little behind.

It is impossible to convince such a person that is determined to believe what he wants despite any rational arguments to the contrary.

Sorry but none of your arguments are convincing.
---lee1538 on 4/10/12


Warwick, I have no argument with God, my concept of Him is crystal clear.
My problem is with "would-be interpreters"
**grammar and logic**?
In 6,000 BC they had NO grammar or even written language (proof that they had,please)
Like earlier you say "proof that they didn't"
Holman's dictionary P.679 Hebrew "script" can be traced beginning with the Gazer Calendar 950 BC!(grammar)
What is "logical" about all the things accomplished in the 6th day 24hr. Physically impossible (for Adam not for God)
---1st_cliff on 4/10/12


Lee, operational science is not about opinions based upon evidence. It is the result of rigorous testing. Such results must be testable, observable and repeatable. That which is tested and retested and shows no exceptions is called a theory.

Such as evolution/long-ages are just beliefs based upon available evidence. They cannot be scientifically tested. It is the same evidence for those who believe Scripture or do not. In this case it is just the interpretation which differs.

That you would say creation "had" to take place over 6 24hr days shows your ignorance of Scripture and your unwillingness to read what others write.
---Warwick on 4/10/12


StrongAxe, Lee has appeared upon these pages for years deceitfully using different names to hide his identity. I was able to detect each of these identities by his writing style and style of argument. In my opinion you and he are most likely one.

It is not that only Lee disagrees with me, but that you and he have the same style. You started off different but have morphed somewhat. I consider Lee has been unable to keep up the slightly different style with which StrongAxe began.
---Warwick on 4/10/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


God made all things and children, and children play science.
---Eloy on 4/10/12


St Cliff, go argue with God it is His word which says "And God said, And God said...." It is in the same vein as "Let us make man in our image." Accept the Trinity and it is clear.

God chooses to speak things into existence, why do you quibble? You want Him to do things in a way acceptable to you. Read John 9:6 Why did Jesus anoint the man's eyes with spit and mud? Do you refuse to believe He restored the man's sight if you don't approve of the way He did it?

The evidence from Scripture, grammar and logic that the 6 days of creation are 24hrs is overwhelming. Contrary evidence does not exist. It is that you will not believe what Scripture says.
---Warwick on 4/10/12


//Real science is based upon the scientific method of testable, observable repeatable experimentation.

Not always necessarily true, as science may collect what data is available and then make some theory regarding some reality.

Theories despite what Warwick would like to believe are NOT established facts.

Evolutionary models are just that - working models built to explain some phenomena and improved upon when more data become available.

Religion on the other hand does not rely on any conclusion from available data but simply pontificates as to what others are required to believe.

One such belief is that the world had to be created in 24 hour days however, neither the Bible nor science can really confirm that.
---lee1538 on 4/10/12


Warwick:

I have been on these blogs for several years before I ever heard of lee1538. Do you seriously believe that only one person on this planet could possibly disagree with you, so if more than one person seems to do so, they must always be the same person in disguise?

Or could it be that "in two or three witnesses all truth is established" is not to your taste?
---StrongAxe on 4/10/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


Warwick//Real science is based upon the scientific method of testable, observable repeatable experimentation.

Science often poses questions that clash with established and traditional religious beliefs and continues to do so.

Science will ask questions and analyze available data while religions will advocate that one is to have faith in their interpretation of the Bible.

How were the fossils, the oil, the coal and other things formed? Religions really have no answer as such details are lacking in the Biblical account.

I can remember the day when there was those who believed man should not fly, that one should not listen to the radio since the power of the air was of satan, and they burned witches, etc. etc.
---lee1538 on 4/10/12


StrongAxe, Lee has used many names over time, to hide his identity and I think it likely StrongAxe is just another one. Why would Lee disagree with himself? That is because he is proven to be dishonest and would not think twice about subterfuge to conceal just another identity.

God says He created in 6 days, therefore it is 6 days, not 7. Usually people who talk about 7 day creation are not conversant with Genesis. How could a day of rest, a cessation of work, be part of a work week? A contradiction in terms! "Yeah I work a 7 day week but I take a day off."
---Warwick on 4/10/12


Warwich, I am not an evolutionist. But I do believe your wrong because your motive is wrong. Like Jerry, this topic is important for it is use to introduce Saturday Sabbath. Lee right when he said,
"And that is your situation. You will not allow for any other interpretation except your own"
That you somehow have the details not written in Scripture and others do not. No one has the details of things not written. The books of Moses passed down were missing a lot of details that the interpretors later called, "oral law" because they added to the books what was not detailed. God didn't think it was important to give details of everything but you think it is for your motives. Thats the reason I disagree with you.
---Mark_V. on 4/10/12


Warwick,**And God said** To who or what? (Holy Spirit?)
**By the "breath" of his mouth** (ruach=spirit)
**33.9 for He spoke** again to who or what?
**straight forward truth** assuming that it is accurately translated from an unknown language!
Rule of thumb=Yom followed by a number!
**six twenty four hour days is what God's word says ** Not!You reach that conclusion by "deduction"
---st_cliff on 4/10/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Lee: "Science has always been in conflict with established religions and will always continue to be. But science is based on evidence, not on blind faith that some Bible interpretation has to be true."

True science and true religion are NEVER in conflict. False interpretations of both create conflicts where none should exist. What scientific "evidence" can you present in favor of your evolutionary-friendly, blind faith religion? Relatedly, how many violations of accepted scientific principles would you require before you would consider a theory false?


---jerry6593 on 4/10/12


Warwick:

So now you're quibbling over 7 days vs. 6 days? I would think that since the Sabbath is a necessary part of the weekly cycle, the first day of rest would be a necessary part of the creative creative week as well. The difference is a "gross week" vs. a "net week". Is this a gnat small enough choke on?

I'm also amused that you think I'm lee1538's alter-ego. We sometimes agree, and we sometimes disagree. If we were the same person, why would we disagree? Remember what Jesus said about a house divided against itself.
---StrongAxe on 4/9/12


Cliff, you, like your buddy Lee, consider God's word is but "theory." It is true that I tenaciously cling to, and defend the straight-forward truth of God's word against BiblioSceptics. Isn't this normal for those who truly love the Lord Jesus Christ?

Spoke the world into existence-see Genesis 1 "And God said" verse 3, and 6, and 9, and 11, and 14, and 24, and 29.

Psalm 33:6 "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host."

33:9 "For he spoke, and it came to be, he commanded, and it stood firm.

Hebrews 11:3

Six 24hr days is what God's word says.
---Warwick on 4/9/12


Much science is based on proven inacurrate measurements from faulty humans, and on theory and speculation from fools whom think they know better than the truth, and which erroneous conclusions and theories they continually change and adjust over the years.
---Eloy on 4/9/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Lee, I repeat, God's word says He created in 6 24hr days. And nothing contrary is given in the whole of Scripture. The difference is that I trust God not the changing opinions of man which you prefer.

You are promoting the hollywood version of Galileo. The section of the RC church which opposed him did not do so because of what the Bible said but they had (like you) reinterpreted Scripture through the false so-called scientific beliefs of their day. What will you do when the science you worship is disproved, and discarded?

Real science is based upon the scientific method of testable, observable repeatable experimentation. Your views are untestable scientific speculations.
---Warwick on 4/9/12


Warwick //We don't need to imagine God created in 6 24hr days as that is what His word says, with no suggestion otherwise

You are truly unable to recognize the fact that your belief is based on your INTERPRETATION of God's Word.

When they tried Galileo for heresy because he believe the sun was at the center of our universe, his reply was that the Bible is true, but the interpretation is what is wrong.

And that is your situation. You will not allow for any other interpretation except your own.

Science has always been in conflict with established religions and will always continue to be. But science is based on evidence, not on blind faith that some Bible interpretation has to be true.
---lee1538 on 4/9/12


God didn't need to kill animals to make furs for Adam and Eve before the fall. ---StrongAxe on 4/9/12

that is my point, strongaxe. they were naked before the fall and did not have their own natural cover. only humans were naked/not naked. otherwise, there would be no need to cover them with coats and skins of other animals.

and i think that leej was describing an ape not an African.
---aka on 4/9/12


Lee, I am not surprized you and your alter ego StrongAxe think Genesis speaks of 7 day creation. It doesn't, it (and Exodus 20:8-11, 31:14-17) plainly speak of 6-day creation. It seems God's word is but "theory" to you. What a hypocrite you are.

You are also caught in your own deceit. You have said SDA's claim salvation is through works but then quote them "Salvation is all of grace and not of works," Which part of "not of works" eludes your comprehension? I am sure you would not purposely live contrary to 9 of the 10 Commandments but have a phobia regarding the other one! But what of another Christian who obeys 9 but dishonours his father and mother. Is this the way one saved by faith should live?
---Warwick on 4/9/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


G'Day Warwick, I see you're still tenaciously clinging to the 6/24 theory even though it is impractical and unprovable!
Billions of planets,stars,meteors etc. millions of light years away
For who's benefit? A few humans on earth?
Spoken into existence? Is this not a "theory?"
God uses Holy Spirit to accomplish his will ,not speech!
---1st_cliff on 4/9/12


Warwick//again I ask you "who here has said we can be saved by observance of the 10 Commandments?"

And again again again I answer this question.

"Salvation is all of grace and not of works, BUT ITS FRUITAGE IS OBEDIENCE TO THE (10) COMMANDMENTS." Article #19 SDA Fundamental Beliefs.

This leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that if you do not do the Jewish Sabbath on Saturdays, you simply are NOT A CHRISTIAN.

Grace to Adventism is simply a provision that enables one to obey the law and thus merit eternal salvation.

So Warlock, you really should forsake your love for wine and join the Adventist church. You are already hooked on their theology of 7 day creation.
---lee1538 on 4/9/12


Lee, you are such a hypocrite. You are so persistent in attacking anyone (but particularly Adventists) who you deem hold nonBiblical views. But then below you waffle on about your own nonBiblical views of creation, views for which you have never been able to give any Biblical support. Not even any support from science.

We don't need to imagine God created in 6 24hr days as that is what His word says, with no suggestion otherwise. If Scripture gave any support for your views you would have proudly given it. But you haven't, for obvious reasons. Even you admit Exodus 20:8-11 says God created in 6 24hr days. Maybe you have forgotten this? Maybe it was on 'paper' before you thought through the consequences for your exotic views?
---Warwick on 4/9/12


Lee, again I ask you "who here has said we can be saved by observance of the 10 Commandments?"

You have avoided answering this fair question because you cannot honestly answer it. This has never stopped you in the past so why the shyness now?

An answer please.
---Warwick on 4/9/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


aka:

God didn't need to kill animals to make furs for Adam and Eve before the fall.



lee1538:

What do you object to? That many of the adjectives describe African features? Do you assume God is Caucasian? All such superficial details are besides the point. To worry about what color God's hair and skin color are, because we are made in God's image, is as irrelevant as assuming that George Washington was 1" tall, 1/100" thick, and had green skin and hair, based on HIS image on the dollar bill. Those are incidentals about the form of the image itself, and have nothing to do with the Washington's subsstance - just as our physical mammalian forms have nothing to do with the Gods substance such forms embody.
---StrongAxe on 4/9/12


We really have nothing...that describes what our original parents even looked like. Perhaps they had very dark kinky hair, very flat big noses, big lips, were very dark complexed and often walked on all fours. ---lee1538

no...we do not have anything much to go on about their looks, but we do have some attributes that are unique to humankind. no animal works and keeps a garden. animals cannot communicate with spoken words. there is no animal that is naked/not naked. plus, why would God have to kill animals to clothe humans if they already had a natural made coat?

atheist-the Illuminati is probably the closest answer to the truth. the survival of the fittest explains and justifies class order and extermination of the weak.
---aka on 4/9/12


\\And btw did not brother Joseph also have visions similar to those of Ellen White?\\

if you mean Joseph Smith, no.

They were deluded by different demons.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/9/12


//Perhaps they had very dark kinky hair, very flat big noses, big lips, were very dark complexed and often walked on all fours."

Do you really believe that this describes God's image? Perhaps your god, but not mine.
----
yes, I can see you have another problem as you view God as someone that has a human body. But this is akin to what the Mormons believe, that as God is, man can become and as God was, man is now. All that is necessary, at least in Mormonism is to obey the 10 commandments and live a good moral life.

Tell me Jerky, do Adventists believe God has a wife or wives? Just thought I would ask.

And btw did not brother Joseph also have visions similar to those of Ellen White?
---lee1538 on 4/9/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Lee: "Perhaps they had very dark kinky hair, very flat big noses, big lips, were very dark complexed and often walked on all fours."

Do you really believe that this describes God's image? Perhaps your god, but not mine.


---jerry6593 on 4/9/12


lee, religion is just as foolish as the foolishness of evolution. And people who choose to spend time with science should spend time studying the Holy Bible which contains the truth, then they will acquire real knowledge and wisdom rather than foolishness.
---Eloy on 4/8/12


Since Oil and Coal are formed from dead vegetation and the fact we find fossils today of animals that no longer exist, should tell us that the earth went through an evolutionary process.

However, some religions want us to believe that God having a magic wand brought everything into existence in six 24 hour days, that the earth is only 40,000 years old.

How do we reconcile this belief with the Bible? Simply that we need to adjust our interpretation to fit the known facts. Otherwise we would still be ignorant like those who believed that the earth is at the center of the universe and continue to persecute the likes of Galileo.

Religion has always been the enemy of scientists and those who will not be submit to their bondage.
---lee1538 on 4/8/12


Eloy//Christians should stay with the Bible when witnessing, and not any foolishness like evolution.
---
But what should scientists stay with when they do research, religious foolishness such as the theory that the world was created in six 24 hour days?
---lee1538 on 4/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


Jerry6593, Christians should stay with the Bible when witnessing, and not any foolishness like evolution.
---Eloy on 4/8/12


\\evolution is a myth, because it is proven to be foolishness and the oppositie of the truth.
---Eloy on 4/7/12\\

Likewise, youm are a myth, because youm are proven to be foolishness and the opposite of truth.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/8/12


//The Bible account describes the creation of man and animals as instantaneous, complete, and not the gradual completion theorized by Darwin.

We really have nothing from the Bible that describes what our original parents even looked like. Perhaps they had very dark kinky hair, very flat big noses, big lips, were very dark complexed and often walked on all fours.

---lee1538 on 4/8/12


The illuminati??????
---atheist on 4/8/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


Lee: "Perhaps Adam & Eve were the first prehistoric people and that evolution started with them."

The Bible account describes the creation of man and animals as instantaneous, complete, and not the gradual completion theorized by Darwin. You have your choice whether to believe the writings of Moses or those of Darwin on the subject. Any TRUE Orthodox would believe the writings of Moses, just like Jesus did.

"how do you explain the fact that your great to the nth power ancestor, was a primate as your nose, lips and jaws are much like those of an ape?"

My ancestry goes back to Adam and Eve - perfect, complete human specimens made in the image of God.


---jerry6593 on 4/8/12


That is a lot of people whom I do not know personally. So, I can't speak for all the people who do that, Jerry. Each person is unique, known to God. I have found that people who do the same thing can be very different in their reasons or whatever. But basically I'd guess ones feel they have to answer to people who claim to be scientific. But evolution has no repeated experiments to prove it. So, it is not the result of the scientific method. It isn't even a hypothesis, because a hypothesis is a step to clear-cut experimenting which proves the educated guess, one way or the other.
---willie_c: on 4/8/12


Casey //If man's sin was the reason death entered the world (as Romans 5 says), then how can death have been in the world before man was created (as evolution requires)?
---
Perhaps Adam & Eve were the first prehistoric people and that evolution started with them.


---lee1538 on 4/7/12


Jerry, evolution is a nefarious plot of the Illuminati to corrupt the youth of the world.
---John.usa on 4/7/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


There is a very serious question for those who try to reconcile Christian beliefs with evolution. If man's sin was the reason death entered the world (as Romans 5 says), then how can death have been in the world before man was created (as evolution requires)?
---Casey on 4/7/12


evolution is a myth, because it is proven to be foolishness and the oppositie of the truth.
---Eloy on 4/7/12


Evolution in the scientific world is merely a working model by which differences in life forms may be studied and even improved upon.

If we find the remains of a small horse dating centuries ago, we can use an evolutionary model to account for what we see today in a horse.

Can evolution account for changes across the different specifies? Doubtful, but how do you explain the fact that your great to the nth power ancestor, was a primate as your nose, lips and jaws are much like those of an ape?
---lee1538 on 4/7/12


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.