End Times and Current Events
December 09, 2018, 09:03:47 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Does it matter if evolution is compatible with Christianity or not?

Shoutbox
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Does it matter if evolution is compatible with Christianity or not?  (Read 4537 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2013, 03:15:06 pm »

Yeah, I've seen a few of these online discernment/end times ministries embrace the gap theory. Not just Steve Quayle and Tom Horn, but a few others that are quite surprising.

Even Bryan, in his previous ministry he was at, admitted that one of the believers fellowshipping with them believed in the gap theory, but nonetheless they didn't dissociate fellowship with him.

I agree it IS a big deal - if the gap theory exists, then either that "previous civilization" God just let run in chaos(which would make his entire word lies), or it would just invalidate the entire events with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden(and hence invalidate the rest of the bible).

It would mean that death came before SIN, and makes the whole Bible into a LIAR. You have to accept the whole thing as is, or you have to reject the whole thing as is. You cant pick and choose, that option isnt there.
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2013, 03:25:49 pm »

Quote
You cant pick and choose, that option isnt there.

Oh, that option is in fact there alright, but with it comes a reward.

20  [Let] this [be] the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD, and of them that speak evil against my soul.
21  But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name's sake: because thy mercy [is] good, deliver thou me.
Psalms 109:20,21 (KJB)


18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Revelation 22:18,19 (KJB)


Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 05, 2013, 10:56:23 am »

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: July 05, 2013, 11:45:00 am »

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2013, 03:57:50 pm »

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2013, 04:09:20 pm »

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2013, 05:32:25 pm »

Genesis 1 in the KJV should be suffice for anyone! Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2013, 05:23:15 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/did-god-really-create-universe-mankind-200012480.html
Did God Really Create the Universe and Mankind?
7/23/13

Did God really create human beings?

This is a question that continues to be hotly-debated. As most scientists double down and embrace evolutionary theory, it seems the public at large is still conflicted regarding how, exactly, humans came to be in their current form.

A study conducted by YouGov and released on Monday found that nearly four-in-10 Americans (37 percent) believe that God created mankind in its present state. But that's not all, as these individuals also contend that men and women were created within the last ten thousand years -- a claim that many scientists would scoff at.

Additionally, 25 percent of Americans believe that human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but that God guided this process. This means that, combined, 62 percent of Americans believe that God played a role in human creation and development.

Another 21 percent of the population said that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years -- and that a higher power didn't directly play a role in the process.

As for this latter group, YouGov notes that it has grown since 2004, when those believing that God didn't guide  evolution was only at 13 percent. The outlet further explains:

The number, however, who believe in evolution without help from God has increased by 8 percentage points since 2004, when CBS conducted a poll using the same questions. In 2004, 13% of Americans said that human beings evolved without guidance from God. This number may continue to increase in the coming years, as the belief in evolution without the influence of God is most common among those 18-29 years old, with 31% of those in that age group believing it.

While a case can be made that belief in a purer form of evolution is running rampant, Gallup's numbers are not as high. The polling firm does find increases since 2000, when the proportion stood at 9 percent (and 15 percent in 2012), but they are not as steep as what is observed in the same time frame in the YouGov survey.

The latter firm also found that the nation is divided on whether creationism should be taught in schools. While 40 percent still favor teaching creationism and intelligent design, 31 percent are opposed and 29 percent are unsure.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2013, 05:51:56 am »

Poll: Majority Of Americans Believe God Played Role In Human Evolution

A new poll finds that a majority of Americans believe that God played a part in the evolution of humans.
 
A YouGov survey shows that 62 percent of Americans believe God helped create humans. Thirty-seven percent of those believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years while 25 percent believe human beings evolved from lesser life forms over millions of years but God guided the process. Only 21 percent believe that God did not play a part in human evolution.
 
Seventeen percent of those polled were not sure if God played a part in the existence of humans.

YouGov found that more people favored having creationism taught in schools than those that opposed. Forty percent of those polled believe that intelligent design – the belief that God created the universe – should be taught in public schools, while 32 percent opposed such teachings. Twenty-nine percent of Americans were not sure if creationism should be taught.
 
The poll also found that those who say God played no part in human evolution rose from 13 percent in 2004 to 21 percent in 2013, an 8 percent increase.
 
YouGov surveyed 1,000 people on July 8-9. According to its website, YouGov is a professional research and consulting organization to help deliver insight for political and media organizations.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/23/poll-majority-of-americans-believe-god-played-role-in-human-evolution/

He didnt have a hand in something that DIDNT HAPPEN!!!, 62 percent Thats 62 percent of people who have NEVER read the Bible
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: July 24, 2013, 06:17:03 am »

And while that poll didn't say it explicitly, it looks like a growing number of self professing Christians are buying into the evolution lie.

Not surprising considering all the leaven brought into these modern-day church buildings.

BTW - evolution is NOT science, it's a RELIGION.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2013, 03:42:53 pm »

Technically, I think one could say "theoretical religion".  Wink
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: August 12, 2013, 06:16:19 am »


Is It Necessary to Believe in a Literal Adam and a Literal Fall?


Recently, I saw a headline that caught my eye. The secular journal Nature published an article titled “Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time.” Now, secularists (and even some Christians) propose the idea that there was “Y-chromosome Adam” and “mitochondrial Eve”—basically the supposed ancestors of human beings.
 
According to the article in Nature, secular scientists have redated when they believe these two ancestors existed. But you know, these evolutionary scientists have the entirely wrong starting point on this issue, which the opening line of the article makes clear:
 

The Book of Genesis puts Adam and Eve together in the Garden of Eden, but geneticists’ version of the duo—the ancestors to whom the Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA of today’s humans can be traced—were thought to have lived tens of thousands of years apart.
 
Did you catch that—the “geneticists’ version of the duo”? From the outset, Nature’s report shows that these scientists have lifted man’s fallible ideas above God’s Word. Similarly the article later concludes that the Bible’s reference to “one man . . . is a bit of a misnomer because this Adam was by no means the only man alive at his time.”
 
Scripture tells us that Adam and Even were historical figures. In fact, together they were the progenitors of the entire human race. Genesis 2 recounts the special creation of Adam from the dust of the earth:
 

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)
 
Eve was later formed from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:21–22). God completed both of these creative works on Day Six of Creation Week (Genesis 1:27, 31). So Adam and Eve were the first couple, according to the Word of the One who was there. The entire human race is related to them in some way (Genesis 3:20), just as we’re all related to Noah in some way, as he and his family repopulated the earth following the global Flood:
 

Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated. (Genesis 9:18–19).
 
Sadly, it isn’t just secularists who reject this biblical history—many professing Christians do, too! When I began my teaching ministry over 35 years ago, I said then that if compromise on Genesis continued to spread in the church, then the church would eventually give up an historical Adam. Well, today we’re seeing more and more Bible scholars and church leaders denying a literal Adam and Eve as they attempt to mix evolutionary ideas with Scripture. In fact, the topic of their historicity is such a major one in the church today that it made the cover of a 2011 Christianity Today magazine:
 


So, why is it so important that the account of Adam and Eve be true? Because their existence is foundational to the gospel! Now, I want to make very clear that belief in a historical Adam and Eve is not a salvation issue per se, but it is a biblical authority issue and a gospel issue. When we deny the existence of Adam and Eve, then how do we explain the origin of sin and death in the world? And if we cannot explain how sin and death came into the world, or if we believe that it was always here, then what was the purpose of Christ’s death and Resurrection? Why was the atonement even necessary?
 

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. . . . For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:12, 17)
 
The problem with mixing evolution with Scripture is that it undermines the very foundation of the gospel. Can a person still be a Christian even while denying the existence of a literal Adam and Eve? Thank God, salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ:
 

That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)
 
Rejecting a literal Adam and a literal Fall makes Genesis chapters 1–3 untrustworthy. In other words, it’s an authority issue—it undermines the authority of the Word of God.  And from there, it’s a slippery slope to making even the gospel message untrustworthy.  Personally, I just don’t see how someone truly and fully understands what it means to be saved if they don’t believe in a historic Adam and a historic Fall!
 
Of course, I do not want to have a person think that I question the legitimacy of their faith if they reject a literal Fall. But I do need to point out the inherent contradiction in such a compromise as it relates to the gospel message. Again, salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ (cf. Ephesians 2:8–9). But, to deny a literal Adam and a literal Fall is to deny the origin of sin, isn’t it? So for such a person who denies the literal historicity of Adam and the Fall, what does Romans 10:9 mean to them anyway? Only God knows our hearts and the nature of our faith.
 
We can trust God’s Word when He tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
 
For more information on mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam, as well as many other genetics questions, I encourage you to visit our genetics topics webpage.
 
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
 
Ken

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/08/09/is-it-necessary-to-believe-in-a-literal-adam-and-a-literal-fall/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2013, 11:49:53 am »

Quote
So, why is it so important that the account of Adam and Eve be true? Because their existence is foundational to the gospel! Now, I want to make very clear that belief in a historical Adam and Eve is not a salvation issue per se, but it is a biblical authority issue and a gospel issue. When we deny the existence of Adam and Eve, then how do we explain the origin of sin and death in the world? And if we cannot explain how sin and death came into the world, or if we believe that it was always here, then what was the purpose of Christ’s death and Resurrection? Why was the atonement even necessary?

Actually, the bigger issue is why, pretty much, the modern-day church has become so Apostate - it's not so much they've accepted Emergent/Postmodernism theology overnight(at the turn of the century, that is), but the seeds were planted many moons ago. The 1800's was when Wescott and Hort put out these fraud Alexandrian texts, was also the same era when Charles Darwin put out this evolution lie. And pretty much Wescott, Hort, and Darwin were all good buddies.

Next thing we know, after these texts get put out, liberal theologians start embracing the evolution lie, and it gets pushed into churches, where ultimately instead of churches taking a stand, they somehow believe "compromising" isn't such a bad thing. Now fast-forward to the present day - there's been many perverted bible versions, evolution has been taught in public schools for years, 99% of churches are 501c3, the list goes on. It's no wonder why the modern-day church system embraces Postmodernism junk from Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Rob Bell, etc, all of who believe in this evolution lie.

So yeah, not only can you see the rotten seeds were planted a long time ago, but there was a strong connection b/w the founders of the fraud Alexandrian texts and the evolution lie founders like Charles Darwin. What both had in common was that they put (fallen) man ABOVE the Lord Jesus Christ.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2013, 12:00:56 pm »

Actually, the bigger issue is why, pretty much, the modern-day church has become so Apostate

2 Timothy 2
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2013, 12:24:19 pm »

2 Timothy 2
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.


True - but it's amazing nonetheless how it took years upon decades upon over a century to reap its ugly head.

While those churches in the 1800's and early 1900's who "compromised" with this issue may not have lost their salvation, nonetheless they're going to have to give an account to God at the judgment seat of Christ.

Rom 14:10  But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:11  For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12  So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God
.


2Cor 5:10  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
2Co 5:11  Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.


Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: October 12, 2013, 05:50:58 am »

Why I Am a Six-Day Creationist

I spent a couple of days this week speaking at a conference at the Creation Museum—my first time visting it. Before I arrived I decided to put a little bit of thought into why I am a six-day creationist. I wanted to affirm in my own mind that I was walking into the museum already convinced of a position.
 
I believe God created the world in six days—six literal twenty-four hour periods. I believe the earth is young—probably less than ten thousand years old. I have always believed this. But why? As I considered this position, I realized there are three main reasons I hold to it.

The Bible Teaches It

The first reason I am a six-day creationist is this: I believe it is what the Bible teaches. There have been endless debates about the meaning of the word we translate as “day” in Genesis 1 and so much of the debate stands or falls right here. There have been many attempts, some of them quite compelling and some bordering on the ridiculous, to make it express something other than “day.” But in the end, I believe a natural reading of Scripture, and a natural reading of the author’s intent in the passage, leads to the most natural and obvious conclusion: God created all that exists, from nothing, in six literal days. This is what the author said, because this is what the author meant to convey, because this is what the author believed, because this is exactly how God did it.
 
The Writers Believed It
 
The second reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what the other biblical writers believed. When the subject of creation arises elsewhere in the Bible, I see no evidence that the writers held to any position other than literal six-day creation. If we hold that Scripture interpets Scripture, I see the Bible confirming the simplicity of God creating all things in six literal days.
 
Science Confirms It
 
The third reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what science tells us. I believe science confirms a literal six-day creation and a young earth. I find the science demanding millions or billions of years less compelling than the science supporting a much less ancient universe. Even though so many people today scoff at even the suggestion that the world may be young, I find the old-earth science built upon very shaky and ever-shifting ground.

My Conviction
 
I believe the Bible speaks with greater clarity and greater authority than what I believe I see or what I believe I experience. Where many interpretations of science appear to contradict a literal six-day creation, I am not ready to re-interpret a clear and natural reading of Scripture to make it fit with these observations. The Bible is infinitely more stable than science and infinitely more reliable. G.I. Williamson recently said this well: “ I do not believe that there is, or ever will be, any scientific discovery that will be able to discredit what God has spoken. Yes, scientific theories do appear to discredit that creation account. But be patient. In time it will be seen that those humble Bible believers were right all along: it was a six-day creation.” I believe this too.
 
I was and I remain a convicted six-day creationist, something that seems to increasingly be a minority position in the church. I do not make belief in a six-day creation a necessary mark of orthodoxy or a necessary mark of a Christian. But I do believe it is correct (I wouldn’t believe it otherwise, would I?) and I do believe it matters. How and why it matters is a topic for another day.

http://www.challies.com/articles/why-i-am-a-six-day-creationist

Awesome!!!
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: October 12, 2013, 01:07:06 pm »

Yep, let God be true...
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: October 16, 2013, 07:37:08 am »

Christian Apologist: Are Theistic Evolution and Evangelical Christianity Compatible?


Christian apologist and co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES) Norman Geisler took the stage at SES's 20th annual Christian Apologetics conference on Saturday to speak on theistic evolution and the biblical and scientific challenges that it poses on evangelical Christianity.

Geisler, a renowned philosopher, theologian and evangelist, addressed the crowd of pastors, scholars and attendees and began by explaining the in-depth details of theistic evolution while emphasizing that evolution is not compatible with Christian beliefs.

At its essence, theistic evolution is the belief that God used evolution as His means of producing the various forms of physical life on earth, including human life. In general, theistic evolutionists believe that God performed at least one supernatural act – the act of creating the physical universe from nothing.

"The Biblical challenge that theistic evolutionists argue is that a 'literal Adam' is not possible, they insist on a poetical interpretation of Genesis," said Geisler, meaning the accounts of the Earth's creation in the Bible are more rhetorical accounts than literal interpretations.

He noted that Genesis is not poetic in form and debunked the argument that it was written in figurative language.

"The use of verbs to describe sequential acts, the frequent use of direct object signs of relative pronouns, and the stress on definitions indicates that it's prose and not poetry," said Geisler, quoting an Old Testament scholar, Dr. Walter Kaiser.

He also said the notion of a poetical interpretation of Genesis is the reasoning behind the theistic evolutionist's idea that the creation of the Earth, as stated in the Bible, cannot be taken literally.

He also noted that there are no contradictions between Genesis chapters one and two, as believed by some evolutionists.

"Scholars say that you can't take those chapters literally because they contradict each other but they're actually complimentary accounts," said Geisler.

He said the first chapter of Genesis states the chronological approach to creation and chapter two is the topical approach. Chapter one also speaks of God as the creator, while chapter two speaks of Him as Lord, in the same manner, Geisler said the first chapter recounts the creation of animals while the second talks about their names.

Part of his lecture also focused on the scientific challenges of theistic evolution. According to Geisler, scientific evidence also supports that there was a literal Adam.

"There's proof, chronologically, beginning with the earliest genealogy, and geographically because humanity dispersed from the Middle East. Genetically, we produce after our own kind, so there must have been a first kind like us," said Geisler.

He continued, "Biologically, all human beings can interbreed which shows that we all have a common origin and chromosomally, all humans are traceable."

Geisler said the common belief among few evolutionists is that a population of about 100,000 was needed in order to begin the human race.

"Cosmic evolution, something from nothing, cannot be explained on any rational basis alone. Biological evolution, which is evolution from non-life to life, we know that's wrong. Macroevolution from microevolution, you can't get macro from micro. Psychological evolution, non-conscious life to conscious life, doesn't happen," said Geisler.

"Is theistic evolution compatible to evangelical faith?" he asked. "No."

His simple explanation was because theistic evolution does not take the book of Genesis and its accurate account of creation literally while adding that Evangelical beliefs are dependent on literal interpretations of the Bible.

"Both systems do not match because you'll either have to reject the inspiration of the Old and New Testament, the authority of Christ and essential Christianity or accept that there was a literal Adam," said Geisler.

To simplify his explanations, Geisler said believing in evolution is like believing that pots and pans evolved from a teaspoon.

"What if this doesn't convince the evolutionists? You can bring the horse to the water but you can't make it drink. All we need to do is provide the evidence and they'll make a decision, but just because they don't accept the evidence doesn't mean it's not true," he concluded.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-apologist-are-theistic-evolution-and-evangelical-christianity-compatible-106524/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: October 16, 2013, 01:15:34 pm »

Quote
"The Biblical challenge that theistic evolutionists argue is that a 'literal Adam' is not possible, they insist on a poetical interpretation of Genesis," said Geisler, meaning the accounts of the Earth's creation in the Bible are more rhetorical accounts than literal interpretations.

Yeah, this has also been part of the agenda of the "higher criticism" crowd - to take parts of the bible as rhetorical, and not literal. The book of Revelation, which is very important b/c it speaks about the end times, is one example where this crowd would rhetoricalize it - even some of those "traditional", "influential", "bible scholars" like Henry, Wesley, Spurgeon, Elliot, etc took this route. Having examined their fruit - can pretty much say wouldn't surprise me if they were Vatican agents.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: October 23, 2013, 09:11:52 pm »

Not sure where to post this, but nonetheless this is typical of these NWO-types - part of their Hegelian Dialectic game is, "Yes I mean it" vs "No you misinterpreted what I said"...(next article in next post)

http://www.examiner.com/article/rick-warren-aurora-shooting-the-fault-of-evolution
7/21/2012
Rick Warren: Aurora shooting the fault of evolution

The mega-church pastor of the Saddleback Church, Rick Warren, took to Twitter on Friday to express his thought about the recent shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater. Warren blamed the shooting on the teaching of evolution in public science classes:

Quote
“When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it.”

Warren who gave the invocation at President Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009 joins company with Republican Rep. Louis Gohmert. Congressman Gohmert blamed the shooting on secularism stating:

Quote
“People say... where was God in all of this? We've threatened high school graduation participations, if they use God's name, they're going to be jailed... I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have we done with God? We don't want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present.”


Gohmert’s reasoning actually reflects quite poorly on the character of his deity. According to him, God let those people die apparently because he didn’t like the U.S. Constitution. As a point of clarification, the First Amendment prevents government led prayer forced on to the people. It does not restrict high school students from praying privately at their graduation.

In the past, religious leaders who have blamed tragedies on atheism, science, and the First Amendment have been considered to be the fundamentalist fringe like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell. Many religious believers consider Rick Warren to be more of a moderate.

Atheist and Humanist leaders have not however blamed the shooting on the dogmatic religious fervor, which has such a strong hold on our nation. Instead, Roy Speckhardt, the Executive Director for the American Humanist Association had this to say:

Quote
“Our condolences go out to the victims and families of the Colorado movie theater shooting. In the aftermath of this terrible event, we hope that communities can work together, using reason, to prevent such tragedies in the future. Rep. Gohmert’s overt religious pandering has no place in the wake of tragedy like this.”

Speckhardt was no doubt unaware of Pastor Warren's twitter at the time.

Police have yet to release any information about the suspected shooter’s motives. Those motives may be quite complex and it is doubtful they could be boiled down to one boogieman.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 09:26:49 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: October 23, 2013, 09:19:31 pm »

http://global.christianpost.com/news/rick-warren-responds-to-accusations-he-blamed-colo-tragedy-on-evolution-78719/
7/23/2012
Rick Warren Responds to Accusations He Blamed Colo. Tragedy on Evolution

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in California, has corrected critics who claimed he had suggested in a tweet that evolution was to blame for human tragedy and presumptuously linked his statement to the recent Colorado shooting.

Several critics assumed Warren's tweet was in reference to the massive shooting spree that occurred in the early hours of Friday morning in Aurora, Colo., during which suspect James Holmes, 24, allegedly opened fire in a full movie theater, killing 12 people and injuring 59 others during the midnight premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises."

Warren is denying any reference to the shooting, arguing that his tweet has been misinterpreted.

"TWITTER'S limit on words allows no context for statements. A lack of contxt (sic) causes misinterpretation. So when you tweet what's on your mind, people preassume (incorrectly) that you are talking about what's on THEIR mind," Warren wrote in the "comments" section of a  blog post on Patheos.com criticizing his assumed comparison of evolution and the shooting.

**Then why do you bother to even have Twitter? Roll Eyes

Warren went on to explain that his tweet was a response to sexual promiscuity, as earlier that day he had received an email from a dad that read: "Pastor Rick, my daughter told me her teacher said in class 'There's nothing wrong with sex with multiple partners! Sex is a natural, inate (sic) drive, and any attempt to limit it to one, single partner is a manmade construct.' "[/b]

**Then why didn't you say it INITIALLY in your tweet? Or why didn't you PRIVATELY EMAIL back that person? Roll Eyes

"THAT is what I was commenting on. Unfortunately, you also incorrectly presumed the context," Warren concluded his comment.

The online upheaval was caused when Warren tweeted at 2:00 p.m. July 20: "When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it."

Two days later, Warren's tweet was deleted from his Twitter stream, but it remained on his Facebook page as a status update.

Several critics took his single sentence to be a direct reference to the Colorado shooting, arguing that Warren was saying the teaching of evolution caused suspect Holmes to allegedly kill 12 innocent people with little conscience, as he allegedly saw them as nothing more than animals.

Although Warren's statement did not mention Holmes or the Colorado shooting, it nonetheless sparked an online debate about creationism versus evolution.

"[Warren] should issue a full apology through the media to actual people. Science education is a serious problem in this country and blaming this horrific attack on the teaching of evolution in science classes doesn't help," wrote Staks Rosch in an opinion piece for The Examiner.

James McGrath wrote in a blog post for Patheos: "[…] whether one views people in a way that is scientifically well-informed, or based on ancient stories, or some combination thereof, the choice to value and treat others with respect still lies with us as individuals."

In the comments section of McGrath's blog post, a reader with the username "TomLosAngeles" defended Warren, criticizing McGrath for jumping to conclusions and using the Saddleback pastor's comment to start a creation-evolution debate.

"A more charitable reading would indicate he meant what I explained and what you say you also believe – that the Christian view of man is as more than an animal," commented "TomLosAngeles."

"Is this view of man taught in our public schools? My reading of Warren's tweet is that this view is NOT taught, and it's part of the problem with modern society," he added.

"What I'd like to see is you asking Rick Warren what he meant. Your latest posts looks like you want to play the evolution-creationist thing instead, so I imagine this is the end of it. But I don't think you gave him a fair shake," he concluded.

Others who initially criticized Warren later apologized for jumping the gun.

"The lesson, I suppose, is that we lept (sic) to conclusions too fast, perhaps conditioned by other pastors' previous actions in blaming tragedies on evolution […] But in light of this clarification, I feel compelled to retract my accusation," wrote a blogger on the website Why Evolution Is True.

Warren is the evangelical Christian pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif. The church boasts a weekly attendance of 20,000 people.

Warren has over 670,000 followers on Twitter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think anyone "jumped the gun" here - all of this "debate" was deliberate and by design.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 09:25:48 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #51 on: October 24, 2013, 03:01:04 am »

Not a very good design at that! How in the world did people get that impression from his tweet? Somebody out there was just looking to stir up stuff. If anything, I see more of a creation reference when he mentioned animals, but even then, I still get what he was saying.

Nothing but chaos around the unbelieving. Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: October 24, 2013, 05:58:52 am »

Quote
"When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it."

That is a truthful statement. and i dont see the connection to the Colorado shooting, but i would never apologize for that statement as it is very factual.   
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: October 24, 2013, 09:55:51 am »

Not a very good design at that! How in the world did people get that impression from his tweet? Somebody out there was just looking to stir up stuff. If anything, I see more of a creation reference when he mentioned animals, but even then, I still get what he was saying.

Nothing but chaos around the unbelieving. Roll Eyes

Yes, I know what you're saying - but it was the fact that Warren ended up getting defensive about the whole thing, and took down the tweet(and that merely a day later). This isn't the first time he got defensive and stood down in the face of attacks - another prime example was when sodomy rights groups attacked him for supporting Prop 8, and he subsequently went on Larry King to deny he ever supported it(and said how he has gay friends to justify his denial).

As a Christian minister for 30 years(supposedly, that is) - he SHOULD know that those who live godly shall suffer persecution. So he shouldn't even care what the unbelieving world thinks about what he says and does. And to boot - this isn't the first time he tried to stir everyone up with tweets like this(ie-remember the one earlier this year where he said he 'forgives' that illegal gun dealer for selling his son that gun, that lead to his suicide). He does so to promote NWO agendas.

Matthew 13:20  But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
Mat 13:21  Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.


Quote
That is a truthful statement. and i dont see the connection to the Colorado shooting, but i would never apologize for that statement as it is very factual.
   

Well yeah, that was the point - why did he come out and apologize for what he said, and even spin it to where he acted like he was merely responding to some email?(if anything, it sounded pretty childish) Like said above, why does he even care about what the unbelieving world says about him?

Yeah, I agree that the tweet itself doesn't sound like a connection to the CO shooting - but the way he got defensive and made up another excuse why he tweeted it only makes him look otherwise.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 11:16:20 am by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: October 24, 2013, 10:17:22 am »

Quote
Not a very good design at that! How in the world did people get that impression from his tweet?

In general, yes - that is how they play the Hegelian Dialectic game - they pick certain hot button issues and use it to polarize everyone. You saw the "religious right" do this with abortion and gay marriage for a good while(with Planned Parenthood being the "bad guys"). This is another example - you have "creationist pastor" Warren vs these "evolution" groups fighting amongst each other.

As for Warren being a "creationist" - he endorsed professing "Christian ministries" like Rob Bell's that endorse evolution, as well as an evolution book.

Anyhow - just wanted to point out how TPTB plays the Hegelian Dialectic game - they will drag out their polarization for a long time via a war of words, to the point where they wear out their flocks, and bring them to a compromise. Look at the "religious right" and modern-day church in America now - they're no longer being vocal in calling out liberalism, and they don't seem to have a problem with Obama.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: December 17, 2013, 07:49:13 am »

Can Genesis 1-11 Be Interpreted Poetically?

December 17, 2013 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)

 Some professing Christians try to hold to evolution and the Bible by interpreting the early chapters of Genesis as poetical or allegorical, but this is an impossible position because these chapters are presented in the Bible as literal history.

1. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are written as literal history, not as poetry.

"There are 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, 48 generic names and at least 21 identifiable cultural items (such as gold, bdellium, onyx, brass, iron, gopher wood, bitumen, mortar brick, stone, harp, pipe, cities, towers) in those opening chapters. The significance of this list may be seen by comparing it, for example, with 'the paucity of references in the Koran. The single tenth chapter of Genesis has five times more geographical data of importance than the whole of the Koran.' Every one of these items presents us with the possibility of establishing the reliability of our author. The content runs head on into a description of the real world rather than recounting events belonging to another world or level of reality" (Walter Kaiser, Jr., "The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11," New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. by J. Barton Payne, 1970, p. 59).

2. Genesis is cited as history by Jesus. In Luke 17:26-32, for example, Jesus mentions Noah, the Ark, the Flood, Lot, the destruction of Sodom by fire, and Lot's wife. Elsewhere Jesus mentions the Creation (Mk. 13:19), Adam and Eve (Mat. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-7), Cain and Abel (Mat. 23:35; Lk. 11:50-51), and Abraham (John 8:39-40).

Christ always treats Genesis as history, and it is impossible to honor Him as Lord and Saviour and disregard His teaching. In Matthew 19:4-5, Christ mentions both "accounts" of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 and treats them as history. Many theistic evolutionists, such as Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, claim to be "evangelical" and to honor Christ as Lord and Saviour, but this is not consistent with the rejection of His teaching about Genesis and human origins.

3. Genesis 1-11 is cited as history by seven of the eight New Testament writers (all but James); altogether the first eleven chapters of Genesis are quoted from or referred to 100 times. Genesis is always treated as history in the New Testament.

4. Genesis 1-3 forms the historical foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. To deny the historicity of Genesis 1-11 is to deny the gospel.

a. Jesus' genealogy is traced from Adam (Luke 3:23-38).

b. Adam is compared to Christ (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:45). It is obvious that the apostle Paul considered Adam an historical figure and Genesis as literal history.

c. The gospel is required because of the Fall of the human race in Adam (Romans 5:12). If the Fall is not real, the gospel is meaningless.
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: January 17, 2014, 05:53:37 am »

Theologian Hits Back at Writer’s Claim That Evolution Is ‘Settled Science’

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. hit back today at a writer’s claim that evolution is “settled science.”
 
Mohler published a rebuttal to Tom Krattenmaker’s recent op-ed for USA Today titled “Evolution Is Not a Matter of Belief,” calling the headline “one of the most misleading … imaginable.”

At the center of Mohler’s rejoinder was a reaction to Krattenmaker’s claim that evolution should be embraced as fact.
 
“In a time of great divides over religion and politics, it’s not surprising that we treat evolution the way we do political issues. But here’s the problem: As settled science, evolution is not a matter of opinion, or something one chooses to believe in or not, like a religious proposition,” wrote Krattenmaker, who described himself as a progressive. “And by often framing the matter this way, we involved in the news media, Internet debates and everyday conversation do a disservice to science, religion and our prospects for having a scientifically literate country.”
 
Krattenmaker’s point is that “belief” isn’t the same in religion as it is when speaking about science. In the faith world, he argues that religion involves accepting moral and spiritual truths.
 
In the realm of evolution, he said belief is more about calling something “an accurate account of what we observe” or something that is simply “scientifically valid.”
 
Mohler, though, charged that these arguments are flawed, claiming that there is certainly scientific consensus, but that there is no definitive “settled science.” Science, the faith leader argued “is never settled.”
 
“The very nature of science is to test and retest hypotheses and to push toward new discoveries,” he wrote. “No Nobel prizes are awarded for settled science. Instead, those prizes are awarded for discoveries and innovations.”

Mohler also charged that any belief — be it religious or scientific — requires that individuals embrace “basic presuppositions.” Like theology, he said that science must follow this same pattern. These baseline ideas are often the springboard for resulting theories and, though unprovable, without these unsubstantiated presuppositions, the attached theories cannot stand.
 
In order to function from an intellectual standpoint, he said both faith and science must follow suite.
 
“That anyone would deny this about evolution is especially striking, given the infamous gaps in the theory and the lack of any possible experimental verification,” Mohler wrote. “One of the unproven and unprovable presuppositions of evolution is uniformitarianism, the belief that time and physical laws have always been constant.”
 
He added, “That is an unproven and unprovable assumption.  Nevertheless, it is an essential presupposition of evolutionary science. It is, we might well say, taken on faith by evolutionists.”
 
And while Krattenmaker said that evolution is merely “a process by which species change over time,” Mohler hit back, claiming that the dominant theory of evolution centers upon the notion that something essentially came from nothing.
 
The two did agree that simultaneous belief in both God and evolution is possible.
 
Read Mohler’s complete argument here. http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/01/15/evolution-is-most-certainly-a-matter-of-belief-and-so-is-christianity/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/15/theologian-hits-back-at-writers-claim-that-evolution-is-settled-science/

Quote
The two did agree that simultaneous belief in both God and evolution is possible.

 Huh Evolution is not possible at all.

Quote
On the other hand, such a blending of theology and evolution also requires major theological alignments. There can be no doubt that evolution can be squared with belief in some deity, but not the God who revealed himself in the Bible, including the first chapters of Genesis.

Seems after reading what he actually wrote he doesnt believe that evolution and the Bible can coexist together. Evolution is NOT compatible with the Bible at all. ZERO ZILTCH NADA!!!

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #57 on: January 27, 2014, 05:42:35 am »

Creationist Ken Ham Says Christian Evolutionists Overlook Biblical Authority

Creation Museum CEO and President Ken Ham has written a blog post, blasting a Christian academic for overlooking Biblical authority in an attempt to explain the long lifespans of people mentioned in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.

Ham, the founder of the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis, supports a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, and maintains that compromising God's Word in Genesis makes the Bible untrustworthy.

To make his point, Ham cites the example of an article written by Jim Stump, a PhD in philosophy from Boston University and the Content Manager at BioLogos, a group that promotes evolutionary beliefs.

Stump begins the article saying, "It is charged, people living for more than 900 years stands in conflict with BioLogos' acceptance of contemporary science… I should note that our acceptance of science does not at all imply that we think God never performs miracles. If God wanted to make Methuselah live to be 969 years old, we certainly believe that God could intervene in the natural order of things and make that happen. The question rather . . . is whether that is really the message of the text."

Stump makes it sound like anyone who believes in a literal Genesis has rejected "contemporary science," contends Ham. Accepting a literal Genesis means rejecting evolutionary ideas, and not observational science, he points out. "If it were true that biblical creationists had rejected all of science, there would be no creation scientists!"

Ham also criticizes Stump for claiming that the overall message of Genesis 5 and 11 overrides the need to understand the genealogies as literal history.

In his article, Stump says we don't really know what it meant to the ancients to attribute these numbers to the lives of the patriarchs, suggesting it was nothing more than symbolism.

"Actually, we do know what these numbers meant – they mean exactly what the text says," responds Ham. The patriarchs lived for hundreds of years because the lifespan of humans was longer shortly after the Fall, he explains.

Ham goes on to ask how Stump would explain the lifespans of people like Noah or Moses. "Moses was 120 years old when he died. Now, is that just a symbolic number? When do the genealogies become trustworthy again?"

Ham urges his readers not to be taken in by "such elaborate ideas, which are nothing more than fallible sinful man's attempts not to take God at His Word!"

"How arrogant is finite man in thinking he can tell God what He got wrong. How sad so many Christian academics think they can put themselves above the infallible Word!" Ham concludes.

A December 2013 Pew Research Center poll found that 60 percent of American adults believe that evolution is how the human species came to be, while 33 percent believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning. About 24 percent of respondents said they believe a "supreme being" guided the process of evolution, while 32 percent said that evolution is entirely due to natural processes.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/creationist-ken-ham-says-christian-evolutionists-overlook-biblical-authority-113391/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: May 27, 2014, 06:25:17 am »

Creation Museum Unveils ‘Exceptional’ Dinosaur Exhibit to Challenge Evolution

Leaders of the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky unveiled a new $1.5 million dinosaur exhibit last week which they say ‘will challenge evolutionary theory.’

Since 2007, the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum has displayed exhibits which affirm and illustrate the history of the world from a biblical perspective. According to the museum’s website, the Creation Museum “brings the pages of the Bible to life” with many high-tech exhibits.

In a press release last week, Creation Museum leadership announced the grand opening of a brand new dinosaur exhibit featuring a well-preserved allosaur skeleton. The exhibit, titled “Facing the Allosaurus,” features one of the best-preserved Allosaurus fragilis skulls ever discovered, according to the release.

“Allosaurs, sometimes confused with a T. rex, were large theropod dinosaurs,” the press release explains. “This allosaur, named Ebenezer, is exceptional not only for its almost-complete, three-foot-long skull (including 53 teeth) but because its bones, rather than mixed and scattered, were found together (with many in their articulated position). The creature probably weighed 2.3 tons.”

Ebenezer was donated to the Creation Museum by Michael and Stephen Peroutka of the Peroutka Foundation, who said the exhibit showcases God’s power in creation. During a private dedication of the new dinosaur exhibit on Friday, several Answers in Genesis leaders commented on the skeleton’s importance.

“For decades I’ve walked through many leading secular museums, like the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C., and have seen their impressive dinosaur skeletons,” Ken Ham, president and founder of the Creation Museum, stated. “But they were used for evolution. Now we have one of that class, and it will help us defend the book of Genesis and expose the scientific problems with evolution.”

Ham said dinosaurs play an important role in the evolution versus creation debate.

“Evolutionists use dinosaurs to reach children more than anything to promote their worldview,” he said. “Our museum uses dinosaurs to help tell their true history according to the Bible.”

Dr. Andrew Snelling, a geologist for Answers in Genesis, shared the history of the historic dinosaur skeleton. He said Ebenezer was discovered in northwestern Colorado, and the skeleton is different from other allosaur skeletons.

“[Ebenezer’s bones] were arranged in their correct anatomical positions relative to each other, rather than in a scattered assortment of bones as is often the case,” Snelling explained. “Also, much of the spine, 97% of the skull, and 53 curved, serrated teeth, up to 4.5 inches in length, were found. Of the 60 Allosaurus specimens found, only a half-dozen have such a complete skull, and it may be one of the two finest allosaur skulls in the world.”

After the unveiling of the Ebenezer exhibit, many evolutionists bashed the Creation Museum via online comment threads, alleging that the biblical creation model is not a valid scientific argument.

“The only thing this Creation Museum exhibit is testimony to is the gullibility and scientific ignorance of its sponsors—and their willful refusal to examine any evidence which contradicts their thesis,” one commenter wrote.

“The Bible should come with a disclaimer saying that it is a work of fiction and not a history book,” another commenter proposed. “This [Ebenezer exhibit] is absolutely ridiculous.”

Nevertheless, many Christian scientists maintain that the biblical account of world history is accurate and correctly makes sense of many scientific discoveries. For example, as previously reported, Canadian scientists last year discovered well-preserved dinosaur skin which purportedly could not survive millions of years, as evolutionists claim.

http://christiannews.net/2014/05/26/creation-museum-unveils-exceptional-dinosaur-exhibit-to-challenge-evolution/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21412



View Profile
« Reply #59 on: May 29, 2014, 05:18:16 am »

The Creation Debate Rages On

The Creation account in the Bible Book of Genesis continues to be one of the most hotly debated topics in our culture.

Nowhere is this debate fierier, than on college and university campuses. Even Evangelical Christian campuses, where one would think Creation was accepted without question, are engaged in polarizing deliberations over the origin of man.

Recently, Bryan College an Evangelical Christian school in Dayton, Tennessee, with a total enrollment of approximately 1,400 students, stepped onto center stage in this continuing debate

As a Christian school, all faculty and staff members must subscribe to Brian College’s 8-point Statement of Belief. Included in the 80-year-old Statement of Belief is a reference to the creation of man.

“[We believe] that the origin of man was by fiat of God in the act of creation as related in the Book of Genesis; that he was created in the image of God.”

To further clarify the college’s stance on the Genesis Creation account, the school’s Board of Trustees issued a statement late last month, clarifying the Statement of Belief.

“We believe that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve,” the Board explained. “They are historical persons created by God in a special formative act, and not from previously existing life forms.”

Two professors at Bryan College have objected to being required to subscribe to the clarified statement of faith and have filed suit against the college. They state in their suit that their contracts are not being renewed due to their refusal to subscribe to the Statement of Belief, particularly the statement on the Creation of man.

Over 300 students signed a petition in support of the professors and a no confidence vote against the President of the college.

However, some Bryan College alumni say the school’s commitment to the biblical creation account is admirable.

“The Bible just flat out really does say that the universe was created by God over a time period of six days and that mankind had no ancestors but was, instead, crafted by God’s own hand,” Seth Julin, a 1993 Bryan College graduate, wrote in a letter to the school’s student website. “The Bible does make those claims, and no amount of scoffing, theorizing, pontificating or wishing it were not so will overcome that fact.”

Surprisingly,” most Christian colleges do not believe in the traditional historically held view of the Genesis six-day creation account. They generally accept the secular Big Bang scenario (adding God to it in various ways) and many even accept and teach evolution as a fact.”

In fact, there are 106 Christian colleges in what is called “The Christian College Coalition.” Five of the 106 hold to the literal understanding of the Genesis Creation account and 101 do not, believing rather in some form of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

But what about American society in general?

In a December 2013 Harris Poll, respondents were asked their views on Creationism. 36% of respondents said they did not believe in creationism, 31% affirmed a belief in creationism, and 33% were uncertain as to the origin of life on Earth.

Surprisingly, a Pew Forum poll suggests that 23% of Evangelical Protestant Christians find evolution to be the most likely explanation for the origin of man. -

So it is clear that that, although many people believe in evolution, many do not, and an equal number do not know what they believe. In fact, many people continue to believe in the Genesis creation account.

Nevertheless, the debate between the Genesis Creation account and Darwin’s Evolution Theory rages on, even in the Christian Church.

It is important for all to remember that Darwin’s Theory has never been scientifically proven, nor can it be.

Charles Darwin, in his book “The Origin of Species”, noted that without appropriate fossil evidence, his general theory would be disproved.

Today, with over 100,000 species represented in the fossil record, not only is the theory not proven, the lack of evidence for the general theory of evolution is greater than ever, with no substantiation of the intermediate life forms necessary for the theory to hold water.

On the other hand, we do have the infallible, unerring Word of God and the Book of Genesis which clearly states how life on Earth began.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) and Genesis 2:7 further tells us that “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.”

Since none of us was present at the moment when God created life on Earth, we do well to remember what He said to Job in Chapter 38, “Where were you…?”

Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2014/May27/274.html#6pfuhiiKgRA2XayY.99
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy