Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[YoursTrue]

Actually no. The theory of evolution isn't a theory of the origin of life and would fit created life just as well as it would fit if the origin is by natural causes.

Really, it is an attempt to turn part of science into an "ism" to bring it down to the level of religious views. As it were a belief system and not science.

It is science and accepted based on logic, reason and evidence. That's why creationists and literalists have so much trouble with it.

Maybe my definition was not good enough. So here is a dictionary definition of evolutionist. Perhaps you agree or perhaps you do not agree. EVOLUTIONIST definition in American English | Collins English Dictionary

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Maybe my definition was not good enough. So here is a dictionary definition of evolutionist. Perhaps you agree or perhaps you do not agree. EVOLUTIONIST definition in American English | Collins English Dictionary

Evolutionists have to explain from nothing to the existence of the universe to the first living creature to all living things that have ever lived.
It is one of the greatest delusions ever.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know what i find really uncanny about this particular topic (ie a literal reading of Genesis Creation and Flood accounts)...

theologically one of the best defenses is found in Exodus 20:8-11

8Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

Unfortuntaly, most modern Christian denominations do not believe in the modern adhearance to the 4th commandment (ie that we must worship on Saturday) as a salvation issue. This inadvertantly discredits the keeping of the law and in particular, Seventh Day Sabbath worship, with salvation. Theistic Evolution is then able to ignore that commandment in order to avoid anything to do with TEism and salvation.

Fortunately, there is a bit of a workaround...

If Genesis is an allegory, and the sin of Adam and Eve resulted only in spiritual death:

why did Christ "physically" die on the cross as atonement for "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23) as evidenced by the Old Testament Sanctuary Service?

I have not once ever had a TEist be able to biblically support any counterclaim to the above question.

the actual biblical statement concerning the law and salvation is as follows:

Christ died in fulfillment of the wages of sin is death, but that does not in any way mean we are no judged according to the Law of Love.
What we actually find is that the Apostle Paul in Hebrews explains very concisely:

First, he explains:

Hebrews 4: 8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9There remains, then, a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10For whoever enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from His. 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following the same pattern of disobedience.​

Then Paul states that contrary to modern Sunday worship claims, Christ is not the one who started the New Covenant. In fact what Christ has done is become the guarantor of the new covenant (and that is a big distinction). The new covenant is actually found in Jeremiah 21:36-40. Paul tells us that Christ became a priest of the order of Melchizedek in order to become a mediator for that new covenant and that it already existed prior to His atoning death and this is perfectly harmonious with the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament Sanctuary Service.

Anyway, the important part about the law and salvation is that those who have confessed their sins are not judged by the law...Paul states in Hebrews:

Hebrews 12: 15See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God, and that no root of bitternessf springs up to cause trouble and defile many. 16See to it that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his birthright. 17For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected. He could find no ground for repentance, though he sought the blessing with tears.​

Then we may hold fast to the most important part of Christ's atonement i think...we are cloaked in Christs righteousness...we are judged righteous not because the law is no longer applicable but because of Christ has paid the wages of sin is death already and therefore in judgement we lay claim to the promise made by Christ:

Hebrews 4:16Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.​

If it is literal relating to a 24-hour sabbath day in the creation account then would you think that a person might think that once a week God rests? How do you feel about that? Because Jesus said something about that also.
So from the King James Version:
Isaiah 40:28 "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding."
As Jesus said, his father keeps working and so does he (on the Sabbath day). Therefore it must be understood in its proper context, which is that God does not need to rest, He does not grow weary like humans do, but He rests from something else which perhaps can be discussed.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolutionists have to explain from nothing to the existence of the universe to the first living creature to all living things that have ever lived.
It is one of the greatest delusions ever.

Here is where we agree. From my questions and seeing the responses on these boards, I have come to at least two conclusions.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Macro evolution never happened.
Different chromosome count stops it.
Any offspring if it even survives is sterile,

With interspecies hybrids, it makes a difference who's the dad and who's the mom - Berkeley News

New research from Berkeley looks at why some closely related species interbreed and produce viable young – like the mules and hinnies that come from the mating of horses and donkeys – while others don't

news.berkeley.edu

Why hybrid animals are sterile — Harvard Gazette

Study of crossbred butterflies sheds new light on why sexual differences in fertility follow the pattern known as Haldane’s Rule.

news.harvard.edu

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some who believes in evolution, like you.

I do not just "believe". I know. That is why it is so easy for me to refute your BS arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a religion and a Satanic one at that.

There you go breaking that darn Ninth Commandment again.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

There you go breaking that darn Ninth Commandment again.

Not me.
But thanks for recognizing the 10 commandments of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Macro evolution never happened.
Different chromosome count stops it.
Any offspring if it even survives is sterile,

With interspecies hybrids, it makes a difference who's the dad and who's the mom - Berkeley News

New research from Berkeley looks at why some closely related species interbreed and produce viable young – like the mules and hinnies that come from the mating of horses and donkeys – while others don't

news.berkeley.edu

Why hybrid animals are sterile — Harvard Gazette

Study of crossbred butterflies sheds new light on why sexual differences in fertility follow the pattern known as Haldane’s Rule.

news.harvard.edu

But they don't. Those are not examples of very closely related species. Those are examples where speciation has already occurred. When the numbers are very close and the two populations are closely related fertile interbreeding is possible:

Przewalski's horse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not me.
But thanks for recognizing the 10 commandments of God.

Oh I do not "recognize" them. I merely understand them better than you do. And those are the commandments that were written by a fictional character. Didn't you know that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Satan deceives all evolutionists and all billions of years believers.

I don't believe that.

How do I know that you are not being deceived by Satan?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe my definition was not good enough. So here is a dictionary definition of evolutionist. Perhaps you agree or perhaps you do not agree. EVOLUTIONIST definition in American English | Collins English Dictionary

It doesn't matter whether the definition was ideal or not. The fact remains that anyone accepting the science would not be the opposite of a creationist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not me.
But thanks for recognizing the 10 commandments of God.

I have a hard time believing that.

 

[YoursTrue]

It doesn't matter whether the definition was ideal or not. The fact remains that anyone accepting the science would not be the opposite of a creationist.

So an evolutionist can believe in creation, is that right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So an evolutionist can believe in creation, is that right?

I don't know. I'm not an evolutionist.

 

[F1fan]

So an evolutionist can believe in creation, is that right?

No, because what "evolutionist" suggests a well educated person. The word "evolutionist" is an attempt at a derogatory term, but it only works if you believe Christian extremist views like creationism. So to rational and educated people "evolutionist" means nothing.

There are educated people who accept science but still believe in a creation of some sort. These folks tend to avoid explaining themselves, probably because it doesn't make any sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know. I'm not an evolutionist.

I don't know. I'm not an evolutionist.

Again, there is a dictionary definition and a personal definition I suppose. So the term evolutionist does not apply. And I guess neither does creationist. But if a person believes in the theory of evolution, are you saying that he is not an evolutionist? It's good to know where people stand sometimes.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know. I'm not an evolutionist.

Looking back on this though, does one have to be something like an evolutionist or creationist to understand what it means?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A Christian can believe that God created without pretending to know how He did it. Or that belief has to follow some rigid, intractable, particular interpretation or we are all doomed. Good grief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Looking back on this though, does one have to be something like an evolutionist or creationist to understand what it means?

I have no idea what you are asking.