|
Theistic Evolution Debate vii
|
|||
|
And what is it that you use to witness to people who are non believers lucaspa – the book of creation? I thought that was what the word of God was for? I was quite clear the Book of Creation is not about salvation. It's about how God created. All that I do there is counter the atheists who claim that science disproves God. The Book of Creation and science won't allow that claim. And there you have it, no salvation in this man made book. And no it isn’t about how God created, it is about how theistic evolutionists think God created (its also what atheists use to justify their faith). What you trust is what you say it says. That's not authority. It's wishful thinking. And there is no wishful thinking more imaginative than that of evolution as it never occurred. But that's the problem, isn't it? Evolution did occur. If it hadn't it would not be such a widely accepted theory. After all, just how many flat earthers are there? Know any phlogiston chemists? But there are a lot of oxygen-combustion chemists and round earthers, aren't there? Once again, Crusadar, go to PubMed and use "evolution" as your search term. Start going thru the more than 120,000 papers and then get back to us on evolution being "imaginative" and "never occurred". Which makes scripture even the more true for many are indeed called but few chosen. But That isn’t the problem at all. The problem is that God did create and scripture gives us day by day account of this. The real problem is that some believers have trouble believing in what the Word of God says therefore created their own version of truth simply to justify their own selfish desires. I have no doubt there are thousands if not millions of publications about evolution, as myths masquerading as science are invented everyday and thrown out every other day, simply to deny the fact that God was Creator. But what does scripture say about man’s rebellion:
The subject was can we trust what the word of God says when it touches on morality and salvation or anything else? / That wasn't the subject, but the answer is "yes" that we can trust GOD for morality and salvation. The bottom line is whether we can take God for what He says or not. If we can take Him for what He says, then why question any part of His word? But God isn't necessarily the "word of God" as in the Bible. So I guess you can pick and choose which part of scripture you want to believe and not believe right? This is what I am talking about by a “schizophrenic faith” – the text itself never changes, it is only man’s view that does.
So I wonder what does it mean by “and the word was God? For instance, the Bible condones slavery, and we think that is immoral. The Bible condones selling your daughter into slavery, and we consider that very immoral. When has God ever condoned slavery? If you read your scripture correctly you will note that it was man who made slaves – not God. And besides under whose authority or what authority do you say that slavery is immoral apart from God’s word? Since scripture is the word of God, are you saying then that God is immoral because He condones slavery? The trick here is not to worship what you call the "word of God" but to remember to worship God instead. The goal of spiritual living is not to be tricked into believing by Satan that man’s words have the same if not more authority than God’s Word. We are still dealing with the fact that "what the Bible says" is what you say it says. That's not authority. Actually what we are really dealing with is what you are saying that the Bible clearly does not say. The Word of God is the final authority in and of itself. Once again, the final authority is GOD. All the Bible claims for itself in 2 Timothy 3:16 is that the Bible is useful for instruction in righteousness. It does not claim final authority. You have constructed a false religion to say that. Now, remember who created. “--- and the Word was God.” Since the Word is God and since God does have the final authority – God’s word is the final authority. Unless you are saying that your “word” of man overrides God’s “Word”? Now that would be very arrogant indeed!
Note the every word of God. That would include the words of God in His Creation, wouldn't it? Why do you deny those words? Except you and the men you have chosen to believe instead of God made those words up, so your words are actually the word of man and bares no resemblance to God or His creation at all.
Nice statement of faith, and is not contradicted by science or evolution. Remember, TE holds that God is the sustainer of the universe and thus that God is behind and part of all the processes that we call "natural". It is what scripture says. It doesn’t contradict honest to goodness science - only evolutionary myth, I mean “science”. That’s funny I never heard that in any of the textbooks I use? Now I wonder do you actually say that to your students? Because I don’t – I’d get called down to the principal’s office right away! But you don't shudder in awe at the power of the Word of God that is able to bring forth things out of previous things thru physical processes? What a limitation you impose on your god! There is no awe in what does not occur, or in men’s wishful thinking is there? And despite what the Word of God tells you – you have very much limited God to your very own ever changing version of how God created – after all what awe is there in a so slow a process that you can’t even appreciate how it supposedly should occur because it can’t be detected – unless you look very hard, and make much wishful thinking! You can only worship God if He does things the way Crusadar wants them done? Actually Crusadar worships the God who can create something from nothing as His Word tells him. Crusadar is merely before Him on his knees in submission as he does not know how his God created, but accepts on faith what His Book tells him. As scripture does say:
Lucaspa however claims he knows exactly how his god has created therefore worships a god who has to create by his man made theory of evolution – which is even a bigger miracle in the making as it excludes the miracle maker. And if lucaspa can’t fit his god into the mold that he obviously have made for his god then no doubt he may lose all faith in his god – because his god doesn’t require faith to please - only reason. Pretty close to apostasy here. A belief in evolution is apostacy. Evolution is only an abadonment of a fallible human misinterpretation of the Bible. And recognition that there are more words of God than those found in a literal Bible. I just realized that the literalist god is pretty small. He can only be found in the Bible. How sad. You forgot to say that the God of the Bible spoke things into existence - now that is surely a display of omnipotence! The god of evolution however didn’t do that at all, in fact it wasn’t even sure of what it will end up with! Now does an omniscient being demonstrate his omniscience by the use of unguided, unknown processes acting on unknown chemicals in an unknown atmosphere with an unknown amount of time to have produced all the organic complexity found in the living world? When it says man was created from dust and woman from his side, was this simply allegorical or can it be confirmed scientifically? As it happens - true science does confirm that the nucleus of bone marrow cells contain already the 46 chromosomes required to create woman – minus of course the y chromosome – so God didn’t really have to create woman from scratch. After all God is not a God of waste, a perfect example of this is when after the feeding of the five thousand He ordered the gathering of the leftovers, so why use such a wasteful trial and error process to create when you already know what it is you want? It is sad indeed that evolutionists are still looking for the conditions that will result in the synthesis of life when the creationists have already found it– and that is that the synthesis of life requires thought and technical intelligence – an infinite source of intelligence to be exact. When a closed system is opened and subjected to intelligent tinkering we do get life or a copied version of it anyway. To put it another way if it can be shown that Nobel laureate Arthur Kornberg synthesized his own version of the biologically active PhiX174 virus for the first time in 1967, without the use of any intelligence, I will eat my own words. Here's the schizophrenia of creationism on display. The first reply is that creation shows that it is the result of an instantaneous demand. However, when I say creation does not show that, the reply is not from creation but from a literal scripture! Now, if creation shows an instantaneous creation, then let's see the data from creation. The data from creation is that design demands a designer. To question the assumed flaws of design does not invalidate that there is a designer. After it is an observed fact that life does not spontaneously arise from any organic soup given any period of time – the laws of nature is simply not enough to do such a thing as organize itself into the first life – after all scripture does say that God is the only source of life. I think I started the thread that points this out here a few months back. http://www.christianforums.com/t71173 False witness in saying that we are using God's method of creation (evolution) to deny God's existence. This is theistic evolution, remember. God using evolution as His method of creation. That's hardly denying that God exists. False witness is when man makes his concoctions to be equal or greater than the word of God to justify his disbelief in Him. And again only you say God used evolution, God’s word does not. It's still your word vs the word of God. After all, you just acknowledged that God created. So, God's Creation shows He created by evolution. Romans 1:20 doesn't deny that! Even your Biblical quote doesn't help you. These words in the "word of God" don't back your claim. Yes, God created, with the full capacity of His godhood as scripture says. Creationism isn't the word of God. It's a man-made theory based on a man-made interpretation of Genesis 1 and Genesis 6-8. A wrong interpretation since creation science demands a violent Flood, which is against what you find in Genesis 6-8. And again it says “In the beginning God created….. , not “ In the beginning evolution created. And it is obvious that evolution is entirely a man made theory based on man made interpretations of a fallen creation. I however do not claim that creationism is absolute, what I do claim is that the word of God is absolute. And besides since when have floods that kill and destroy become non violent – if you think they are then I suggest you move to where they normally occur and see first hand and report on how non violent they really are. Here again we have the schizophrenia of creationism. Identifying creationism as scripture. It's not. Well duh, creationism is only mentioned in scripture – and evolution is not. It is what God’s word says. And the Word was God. Gee, I think we do have different bibles don’t we? I guess your bible is evolution – the answer to every thing in the universe right? Now I understand. I suppose you do have reasons for your insistence that creationism has been falsified by so called “Christians”. They weren't "so-called". Many of them were ordained and remained Christians thruout their lives. Some of them -- such as Rev. Adam Sedgwick -- opposed evolution. However, they recognized that creationism was wrong. Could this be the problem lucas? For a professing Christian you seem to be most dependant on simply what other believers say about their faith and never once told us what God has revealed to you about your own faith. Could it be possible that you may be lacking in your own faith therefore you must depend on others for their faith? Of course you do know that you can only believe for yourself as no one can believe for you, don’t you? The reason, of course, comes from your use of "so-called". It shows that there was no bias against Christianity at work here. So instead of respecting the integrity of these men, you now have to attack them: So since you seem to be an authority on Christianity – us bible believing literalists want to know how you determined that these men have integrity worth respecting. And how the heck did you determined that? Did you examine their hearts lucaspa – for that is where it matters to Christ – hence His rebuke of the so called “men of God” in His days because He saw into their hearts. Neither I nor you can do that, we only have the Word of God to compare their integrity with – and it is evident that most if not all have deviated to extremes from the Word of God. It is however simply your own delusion, as real science does support God creating as Scripture tells us. Scripture however tells us that these “Christians” have simply fallen into disbelief or have simply sought something much more to their liking to justify themselves before men rather than God - after all it was a time when man was beginning to advance in understanding the things that God has made – but then the gumption of some to attribute it all to have been the result of a blind process. Creationism was falsified before evolution was conceived. Young earth was dead before 1820. The Flood by 1831. Both long before Darwin had ever conceived of evolution by natural selection. More delusions of grandeur. Which part has been falsified lucaspa? Since creationism as you say has been falsified which part should we throw out from the creationist camp? Any suggestions? Bust since creationist arguments center on the idea that design demands a designer, should we throw away all our use of intelligence in designs and work on the evolutionist model of no design? Should we also abandon all the technological advances earned through hard work and intelligent input in favor of natural selection when we build better planes, synthesize more effective vaccines? And since creationism has been falsified, how does evolution account for matter behaving creatively as the evolutionary process tell us – despite observations from the real world? As they do maintain that matter on its own will give rise to biological machines in an unknown manner at an unknown point in time – when no where has such a process been found to naturally occur even to this day! (and mind you they have had a long time to look, over a century now since Darwin’s demise) And what have evolutionists actually found? That there are more unknowns than ever! The unknowns I believe are what can be referred to as “fudge factors” which is not real science as it is based on zero evidence. What we are finding is that the deeper we dig into the mysteries of life the more we find that life is infinitely complex, much like its Creator is said to be. As I pointed out above, many of the men who falsified creationism still resisted transformation of species and argued for the special creation of humans. And there you have it – men, fallible men that is. So, Crusadar, your contention falls apart in the face of historical fact. You think so lucaspa? Your gumption however betrays you. The historical facts you have chosen says nothing about being able to see into the hearts of men do they? That is where falsification of anything starts – the underlying presuppositions for the so called “falsification” as you should know what gets reported does not always reflect the true position of individual does it? What Popper seems to be saying is that evolution not only became an alternative to Biblical Creationism, it provided a purely naturalistic explanation of origins without invoking God. That is what Popper is saying, but what I've shown above is that Popper is not correct. Evolution didn't do that. The key here is that "purely naturalistic" you used. Popper has simply accepted the mythology of atheism here and the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God. Science can not back that statement. Science has no way of telling if any natural explanation is "pure" and does not involve God. Come on now, there is no distinction between naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution at all is there? The only difference is God is crammed in despite what scripture says. Only you think there are differences because you have convinced yourself that there are! The problem here is that you have also accepted the atheistic mythology and statement of faith! After all, you agree with Popper about evolution, right? How can you witness for Christ when you really believe atheism? Actually the problem is that you have conveniently ignored the justification for using a system of belief that can also be used to deny its own basic premises. Simply speaking about or agreeing with what others believe in no way says one must believe the way they do – as some truths are universal you know. What would be the implication if one could justify not needing God as the source of life? A justification in doing what anyone wishes to do without worrying about future retribution. In denying that God created as scripture tells us we are in fact denying life, which is God, as He is the only source of life and without Him we are dead – physically and spiritually. There are two separate issues here: There is really only one issue when you get down to the bottom of the barrel and it is nothing more than your fallacious attempt to set your delusionary second book of God as having the same footing as the only Book of God. You might as well give up because it’s not going to happen. The source of morality and whether morality can exist without some form of punishment lurking in the background. Morality exists because it is written into the heart of man, a conscience to know what is right or wrong. Without consequences there is no need to conform is there? Start that as a separate thread if you want to pursue it further. Here is as good a place as any. Personally, there are a lot of theological problems with this view of morality. Theologically perhaps, Biblically no. The oft-repeated lie that denying that God created "as scripture tells us" is the same as denying that God created. Repeatedly setting up this strawmand doesn't make it any less a strawman. However only incredulity of scripture begets strawmen lucaspa, it is not from taking scripture on what it says. Your insistence that it is easily falsified stems simply from a deeply rooted incredulity of scripture due perhaps to a dependence on evolutionary myth if it is your bread and butter. As believers of God, we do have different views on how God created, but show me where the true meaning of “create” is not misused in evolution when referring to the creative process of God. The core meaning of create can only be attributed to a mental process, and not something occurs on its own. One more time: TE denies that God created according to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. And for the last time. Evolution denies that God created period. For not only does evolution mention nothing of God, God’s Word mentions nothing of evolution – as both do and can exist exclusively without the other! TE says God created by the processes discovered by science. So, your worry has no foundation because no one here is denying that God created. Are you sure lucaspa? What you really mean is believed on faith, not discovered. What we see in the real world testifies against the working of your beloved cow of evolution, especially as shown by the first and second law of thermodynamics in energy conservation and entropy increase? Why does evolution contradict the fact that whenever the Word of God refers to Him creating it is always in the past tense “created” meaning that the act of creating is done? Evolution however requires that creation is continual, no verse in scripture supports that God is continually creating anything - it always says created. Atheists deny that God created, but that is a separate problem -- for them. And so again where is the logic in God who most certainly want His creation, man, to come to know Him use a system of creation which can also be used to deny His existence? Wouldn’t he be undermining His own objective? And it is a problem when we adopt their justification for their denial of God. But Genesis 3 doesn't tell us that, does it? It's remarkable how you ignore the Bible when you say you are following it. There is more than one book in the bible you know. Romans 8:22 simply tells us that "creation" is "groaning" because of the spiritual downfall of people. It doesn't say anything close to what you say it does. I really don't understand how you can abuse scripture so badly. Spiritual downfall my foot! It is death and suffering that causes groaning, no one groans because they are unbelievers, they groan because they suffer as it is what we all have in common do to man’s rebellion - as it is written. Scripture tells us that in a future time to come the earth will be restored where lion and lamb will sit together once more. "the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum The result of which many a stray paths that man has taken throughout his brief existence – to worship the creation rather than the Creator. You are accusing God of setting up stray paths for man to follow? Remember, that book of created things was written by God. No lucaspa, go read Romans 1:22 on - man rejects God because of his nature, as he does and will find any and every justification for his rejection of God, evolution is simply one of those excuses masquerading as science and has nothing to do with God leading anyone purposely astray. You are going to try to ride this distraction as long as possible, aren't you? The idea that you get salvation from Creation is yours. Not mine. I'm not going to let you lose sight of that. I'm simply saying that Creation is also from God and by God. You keep trying to dodge that, but you can't, can you? So I see, there is no message of salvation in the fossil record – could all those fossil be a clue perhaps of what happens when men turn away from God and seek not His provision of salvation – as He has brought His judgment upon man once and will again. I don't see how. After all, those fossils are simply remains of organisms once alive that are now dead. Every living creature dies, so how can they be a clue? Also, why would God arrange those fossils to show evolution if evolution didn't happen? Why don’t you take off your evolutionary glasses for once and listen to what God’s word says? They are remains that are the result of a catastrophic flood! A judgment of God on man’s wickedness, a taste of God’s judgment, then and in the time to come. So now that the ride is over, just how does one come to Christ simply by looking at God’s fallen creation? You are the one that quoted Romans 1:20; you tell us. Man can’t come to Christ, just by looking at God’s creation, he can only lament for the wretched state he has brought upon himself – it is only through faith in Christ that we are given salvation. And what does scripture say about faith:
So faith does not come by seeing creation, but by hearing the Word of God. "Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939. There is no clash, when you view the world through the Word of God. There is however always clash when we allow ourselves to dictate which part of scripture we can pick and choose to believe – due to outside influence. One book is filled with words that are written into the hearts of men, the other tells him there is no escape from death, pain suffering and all atrocities man has brought upon himself unless he finds the truth in the word of God which leads him Christ – the answer to all his sorrows. And you have missed the point completely here is where the message lays: it is that unless man finds the Truth in the Word of God, that is Jesus, there is no escape from death and suffering - now and in the eternity to come. What is evident is that there is no greater loss than the death of a loved one, despite the false teachings of evolution that say death is a part of life it brings little comfort to the many who are touched by death everyday. So why did man evolve such bitterness towards death – something in which is inevitable? All other lesser creatures share not man’s natural obsession with the reversal of death or aging? Why does man build so much tradition and ritual around the dead if it is a meaningless process of life as evolution tells us? LOL! Not what Pope Pius said, is it? Now really, who are we going to believe in lucaspa, the almighty “dead” pope or the living Word of God? Of course we already know the answer to that question don’t we. It's still not what Pope Pius said, is it? Using ad hominem isn't going to get around: And there you have it, the word of a dead pope taking precedence over God’s word. Like I said, the pope is dead. And yet God lives and so does His Word. So who are you going to put your faith in? 1. That there are two books of God, but you won't admit to one of them. There is only one book of God – which mentions nothing of the other book so there is no need to admit anything. 2. That you misrepresented what Pope Pius said. The pope is only a man of God, not God. It is idolatry to say that the word of the pope is on equal footings with the Word of God. And besides shouldn’t we be more concerned about misrepresenting the Word of God as you are doing and not a dead pope? 3. You are not quoting the "living Word of God". That Living Word is Jesus, and you have told us you don't believe the Living Word, just your interpretation of the Bible. That’s baloney and you know it. Where did I say I did not believe in Jesus? I think I’ve talked more about Him in any single post than you have in all your evolutionary rants. Now who really shows belief in Christ, the one who proclaims Him quite often or the one who barely mentions Him. But you seem to be denying your own position: And what position might that be? It was right there in the sentence after the one of mine you quoted: But you seem to be denying your own position: "Then what you are saying is that by looking at creation we can come to an understanding that we are sinners and need Christ to redeem us – without ever reading scripture?" You seem to be answering "yes" to your own question!" Are you really sure that I am denying my own position? Read it again in the light of this scripture verse:
From looking at creation alone we are not lead to Christ, we come to an understanding that God is behind creation, but the revelation that Christ can deliver us from the body of our death, where the death here is physical, cannot be realized in creation. This realization is instead a special revelation only found in the Word of God. Creation only points us to our wretched condition of pain, suffering and death – only God’s Word can provide the solution to our condition but only if we come to accept Christ as Lord and Savior through trust in God’s promise of salvation as revealed in Scripture – something that your “book of creation” cannot do. Aren't you saying here that the Book of Creation tells him that there is no escape from death unless he finds truth in the word of God which leads him to Christ? Yes, that is what I am saying, your point being? If not, what are you saying? And how does the Book of Creation do this? What specific data in that book tells us that we need Christ for salvation? By looking around you what is it exactly you see lucaspa, a beautiful flawless creation or a creation filled with errors, dangers, pain, suffering, and death? And who is the only one who can deliver us from all of this? And as mentioned above creation does not lead one to know Christ only the desire for deliverance from it – it is the Word of God that leads to Christ. So, since you find the Book of God's Creation so spiritually reliable, why do you reject the Book when it tells you how God created? No lucusap, what I find is that God’s creation is a remnant of what it use to be before sin took its hold and says anything about how God created. It only points to Him as the Creator, only you are saying that it shows how he created. God's Creation. You know, the universe that God created and which God put everything in it? It's fun to watch you run in circles trying to get away from your own position, but don't you feel foolish? Hasn’t it become obvious by now that it is entirely your very own book which has no affiliation with God – whatsoever? However lets look at these imaginary circles, like your imaginary book, that I am supposedly running around. First of all foolishness comes entirely from man for have you not read: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." 1 Corinthians 3:19-20 Now to say that evolution is not entirely a concoction of man is to deny scripture as it says nothing of evolution! Now lets see who is really the one chasing his own tail in justifying faith with foolishness. Since God’s Word says “and the Word was God”. Lets look at scripture for insight about man’s foolishness in saying that God used evolution as His preferred method of creation. In Matthew chapter 5 we are given a very clear character description of God, in that since Christ claims that if we have seen Him we have seen the Father – meaning that they are the same in character. For if we know a person’s character we can make a fairly accurate guess at the methods that he would use to solve a particular problem. Since an individual’s character determines their methods, what does scripture reveal to us about God’s character and how He could have used a method such as evolution - which is against everything that God stands for.
Is it just my understanding or does it reflect God’s character in that those who are poor in spirit are those who will inherit the kingdom of heaven? And according to what exists within the evolutionary struggle for survival, where is this notion of the poor in spirit? For if one is poor in spirit one becomes food for the spirited! So why does the Word of God teach what is opposite of His supposedly creative process? Unless perhaps it is not His creative process.
What is this? The meek shall inherit the earth, but that is not what is seen in the preferred method of creation of theistic evolutionists is it? The meek does not inherit anything, rather they become trophies for the dominant. Isn’t it strange that a Creator who teaches us to be meek would use a creative process that denies His own character of humility - even unto death? Did Christ really mean what He said then about being meek and poor in spirit? But according to evolutionary theory this is not the case! How can God the creator who teaches us to be meek use a creative process which blatantly violates His very character of meekness?
Now is there such a thing as mercy in the struggle of life? For if there is then evolution would cease to occur!
And what about the lovers of peace, what becomes of them but martyrs and victims, this is evident in the continued struggle of life which pervades all levels from the lowest to the highest of organisms – especially in that of man himself. And so to justify that evolution as the preferred method of creation by God, invalidates the very character of the one who said the above. So what we come down to is that in the light of scripture the circles I seem to be running and your second book are only that - imaginary. But lets look upon the words of Solomon, perhaps the wisest man who ever lived for some words of wisdom:
Now let me get my popcorn and just sit back and watch how long you will be chasing your tail when you attempt to explain why Jesus Himself taught us virtues that go against His method of creation. I know of no such book except perhaps the one you obviously made up. You have been trying to deny the Book of Creation thru about half the post. You start with the quote of St. Augustine and continue thru the quote of Pope Pius. I shouldn't have to tell you to pay attention to what you are doing. Like I said you cannot deny what is not there – that is creation through evolution. Of course there is a Book of Creation. Shouldn’t it be called the Book of Evolution? Actually it is not a book at all but a fallen creation in which you claim is a book. Romans 1:20 tells you there is. You say there is:
Now imagine that, the power of the Word of God able to bring forth things out of nothing." What do you think those "things" are? The Book of Creation! Something out of nothing is what it means. The Word of God was what brought forth all that exists, it was not a process – but I guess that’s too incredulous for you isn’t it? So your god of evolution can’t create something out of nothing so he opted for evolution instead. Maybe the god you believe isn’t a god at all – but a god of your own making? Of course you only claim God wrote a second book – something in which the first book mentions nothing of. In addition to Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 1:20, there is Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Yes it is through faith we understand that God created something from nothing, and that we are without excuse if we believe in anything apart from this – and in the beginning God did create the “heaven” (singular) and the earth. Yes I accept this, what would be your point? Now, what did St. Augustine call this? The "book of created things". The Bible does indeed say God created. That's the second book -- duplex cognito" as John Calvin put it. By the way you don’t pray to Augustine do you? Once more Augustine was simply a man of God, not God. No one is denying God created anything – only you are saying that. I'm really surprised to see what lengths you are going to deny God as Creator. But I guess you have to in order to preserve your god of Biblical literalism. Then you should also be surprised when I say that no such thing was ever said. I believe that God created as scripture tells me, how is that denying God created? You obviously give the credit to an unknown process, now how is that not denying God as creator. You must have ignored what I said from an earlier post: “God I know nothing of how you created, therefore I believe whole heartedly in what you have said as to what you have done, for you are my Creator and I am simply before you on my knees in total submission.” Theistic evolutionists however come before God and say: “I can’t believe what you say in how you created because of my faith in my own book of human intuition, therefore I will continue to doubt your Word even though it may be spiritually as well as intellectually schizophrenic to justify both.”
|
|||
| BACK | |||
|
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelations 4:11 KJV
about site | artworks | e-books | feedback | homepage | links | site map | writings |
|||