Who cares about secular archaeology... secular archaeology would deny lifespans of 900+ years for most of the Genesis 5 patriarchs too, so who gives a monkey's? But it's hardly surprising that Morton puts secular archaeology about Biblical history, since he puts uniformitarian 'science' above the Bible too.
God undoubtedly told this account [Genesis 1] to Adam... The second story was Adam's account, which like many newspaper accounts is not necessarily in chronological sequence like the first story... it was a collection of stories, written by eyewitnesses to the events they describe.Some of these would have been preserved on the Ark by Noah, and Moses, being a Prince of Egypt prrobably found them preserved in the libraries in Egypt. He must have been inspired by God to compile the stories into a single document which we today call the Book of Genesis... It certainly makes far more sense than believing that God dictated all that to Moses or that Moses made it all up.
This seems to be inconsistant with surveys. This makes evolutionists mad, because even though all the schools and media outlets teach that monkeys and Man descended from a common ancestor, most people have enough common sense to reject such a preposterous claim.
They [Giordano Bruno, Michael Servetus] were not martyrs to science but outright stinking heretics, denying the Trinity. But don't bore us here -- there are threads on TWeb dealing with the Inquisition.
Actually many of the Greek philosophers proposed evolutionary ideas, e.g. Anaximander, Epicurus and Empedocles. This also demolishes silly arguments like 'Newton was a creationist merely because there was no alternative.'
Trust Chicky [another poster] to believe in something as outdated as heliocentrism.
I refuse to play the game by the materialistic rules that you and Morton have swallowed. There is no point wasting time over geological minutiae when your whole framework is up the creek.
[Arguing against theistic evolution]And this overlooks the fact that evolution is a wasteful, cruel and inefficient process... and there is loads of death and suffering.
genesis is not a science book, it is a history book... If this conflicts with theories... then it is those human attempts which are wrong, not the ones revealed to us by a gracious God. Evolution is a dumb idea. One pundit mused that it takes a great deal of higher indoctrination to overcome common sense.
[Replying to 'you would not even consider the possibility of an old earth'] I would -- if the Bible taught it.
... you and Morton refuse to treat Scripture as supremely authoritative. That is the key issue. By going down your lines, I would be implicitly abandoning biblical authority and accepting the supremacy of autonomous human reasoning.
Your opinion means nothing when it's contrary to the facts.
I doubt that A[nswers]i[n]G[enesis] are going to 'correct' something just on the basis of [geologist Glenn] Morton's say-so. Who is he that we should take heed of what he says? The Internet is full of junk by people with no or little scientific qualifications.
So should we bow to the Scriptural teaching of the doctrine of eternal punishment, or do we allow human 'arguments from outrage' to override the clear teaching of Scripture?... if, as most of the Christian world has believed, the Bible does teach that the unsaved will be tormented eternally, then we should say that it is fit punishment, and build a model from there.
And you sir have lost all sense of perspective and common sense by claiming the extensive accounts of the creation and flood are metaphor and allegory.
Probably the only help for you in the current environment of evolutionary propaganda is to repent, turn to God, and trust Him to shake off your blinders. Only through God-aided lenses will you be able to see that what I am saying is a better explanation of the evidence we see.
The Bible doesn't say what happens to babies who die, whether born or unborn.... the fate of dead babies is not your concern. All we know is that God will act justly towards them.
Normally it's only the Christians who are expected to keep their religious views out of politics, while atheist always bring in their own religious views.
The Shroud [of Turin] is also contrary to the Bible, which says that Jesus was 'bound ... in wrappings (plural)... Shroud proponents can explain this away all they want, but the Bible should be used to judge claimed artefacts; not the artefacts used to judge the Bible.
But dishonesty should not be susprising -- the whole reason they push evolution is to exclude a Creator who has given us absolute moral laws (e.g. against dishonesty).
Hence, [St.] Augustine was able to believe, despite what scripture says, that God created all things instantaneously. Once a person goes that far in his 'interpretations' he might as well join Bishop Spong in that person's assertion that 'the only part of the Apostle's Creed I believe is that Jesus Christ died and was buried'. With Christian 'friends' like that who needs enemies?
This means that a person who believes we descended from apes or that all life came from a primitive protocell is inventing their own private version of Christianity which in a technical sense is not the Christianity of the Bible. This does not mean that their belief in Jesus Christ will not save them. It simply means that they are compromising with the world and in that sense could be said to not be genuine Christians.
Also, the Bible is the perfect Antidote to superstition...
Whether some [old earth] creationists 200 years in the past came to the wrong conclusion about the age of the Earth has no bearing on the truth of the matter.
Also, at least Christians who lie are going against their own belief system; atheists who lie are acting CONSISTENTLY with their own belief system.
And I would want to know why Christian parents were sending their kids to the anti-God public school system in the first place. It's like the Israelites sending their kids to the Canaanites to be educated.
[Replying to 'way to invoke gods to fill the gaps']I only invoke ONE deity...
And I couldnt give a monkey's what a Mormon cultist like Schindler thinks, especially one who contradicts his own doctrines.
But that's par for the course with evolutionists, whether atheists or their churchian 'useful idiot' dupes.
One day an anti-creationist might surprise us all and actual respond to an actual argument instead of a straw man.
Experiments of this type confirm my feeling that the Flood had to be instituted to wipe out all of mankind due to ancient genetic experimentation of the kind arising today that eventually polluted virtually all the genomes of the natural order. There is a hint of this in the words of scripture that mentioned that "Noah was perfect in his generations", and thus was able to restart the human race to a relatively unpolluted genetic state. This would also explain why so-called 'innocent' life had to be terminated as well.
Also, evolution undermines the biblical teaching that humanity is ONE RACE because we are all descended from Adam...
The so-called 'sorting' of the fossils is one of the biggest frauds ever invented by evolutionists.
I have always been skeptical of 'supernova' because they are called that because they are assumed to be unbelievably distant and hence must be unbelievably bright to be seen as bright as they are to us. But what if they are not unbelievably distant? After all, the only reason we believe this is because of their Red Shift!!!
My own wild speculation, based only on ancient legends including those of Atlantis, is that genetic experiments had been conducted which essentially polluted the genomes of the entire human race, except for a few who like Noah were said to be 'perfect in their generations'. Thus, the necessity of a wholescale cleansing, including otherwise innocent children, and perhaps many animals as well. Perhaps someday we will find out the rest of the story.
My own attitude is that the Big Bang is illogical as a scientific theory right out of the box. Assuming that all the material/energy in the universe was once in a space smaller than the head of a pin is totally dumb.
In addition, the Big Bang assumes that the coordinates of the universe are expanding. This is ad hoc, because there is no direct evidence that this is the case.
[Replying to 'what did the animals eat after the global flood?]Forgetting exhumed carrion, which carnivores would rather eat than expend energy hunting, or fish trapped in pools left behind by retreating floodwaters.
Except that evolutionism has NOTHING to do with science and math and EVERYTHING to do with bigoted materialism. We already know that Jimmy has the typical humanist hatred of Christianity and Patriotism.
This because evolutionists are acting CONSISTENTLY with a world view that says we are just rearranged pond scum, so there is no transcendent source of objective morality. Therefore it is perfectly CONSISTENT with their world view to bear false witness. After all, morality is merely some chemical process in the brain that conferred some survival advantage on their alleged ape-life ancestors. Conversely, creationists have strong motivation to be truthful, because Jesus is 'the truth' (John 14:6). So on this grounds alone, it makes more sense to trust creationist websites like Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research over the gutter sites run by the infudgels etc.
If one follows these things for as long as I have it becomes obvious that evolutionary belief is a moving target because as soon as one argument for it is proven wrong another arises to take its place. This happens so regularly it could almost be considered a Law of Nature.
Since there is no credible conventional explanation for the geological layers, it amazes me when people say there is no evidence for a global flood when they are probably standing on it right now. Wasn't there a classic novel about hiding things in plain sight?
I used to be impressed by all the 'scientific' dating methods until I finally looked into the subject in detail. It amazed me how people could delude themselves so badly. Thus, I finally concluded that there is no real reason to doubt the veracity of the Genesis narrative regarding a short age for the Earth and probably the universe as well.
Of course, evolution is compatible with 'Christianity' of a wimpy liberal sort, e.g. the type held by 'Christian' women who unequally yoke with unbelievers.
This is an unfair match because we recognize that esince evolutionists are highly trained in storytelling and they have been doing this for years with ample government funding. This funding permits them to avoid earning an honest living like creationists have to do and to devote their every waking minute to making up new stories and publishing them in their private magazines.
Actually, Christians have every reason to be honest within their own world view, since Jesus is 'the truth' and He commanded us not to bear false witness. But atheists believe we are just rearranged pond scum with no transcendent source of morality. Therefore lying is perfectly consistent with their world view. That explains many of the posts by atheists on T[heology]W[eb].
Those of us who believe God are able to recognize the clues left in the record of nature that put the lie to the cleverly devised stories of those who hate God.
Not necessarily, because freshwater is less dense and is KNOWN to be able to float on saltwater for a long time.
Abiogenesis is frequently defined as not part of evolution but this is disingenupous because the vast majority (95%) of leading biologists have to believe it is true because they do not believe in God.
Those that hate God are blinded by their rebellion and devise clever stories of creation in which God has no part.