And it still doesn't mean the study of origins.


Perhaps a different word would be more suitable, so one doesn't confuse what evolution is with something evolution is not.

The hall mark of evolutionists is to declare "every change IS evolution" - by asserting "Evolution is just change over time". They do this so that they can then say "SEE we are now looking at evolution -- that dog has pups with brown fur"

They will often site the fact that you catch cold and someone else does not as "evolution" for example. These are atheist in-the-tank evolutionists doing it -- not YEC guys.

So the YEC group is constantly in the role of having to remind evolutionists that the salient point in evolutionism is NOT that some people get the flu while others do not -- rather the argument in evolutionism is "we guess that birds came from reptiles" it is in fact "we guess that all life seen today came from a common ancestoral single-celled life form which came from we-have-many-guesses apart from God"

in Christ,

Bob

The YEC Christian has no problem at all taking all the power and mystery of God and saying "that is God -- I don't have to explain God".

The atheist evolutionist does the same thing with nature. "That is evolutionism and we know it is true even though the lab refutes it in practice -- because we are here so any glaring gap is really just an unsolved problem we will figure out one day".

Their by-faith-alone statements are clear.

in Christ,

Bob

What difference does it make. Are you asking to sync the Bible with GMT???

in Christ,

Bob

True and that would leave us in BETTER shape than evolutionists who for many decades relied upon confirmed fraud to suggest that "evolutionism is plausible". (Most recently that confirmed fraud includes the case of Neanderthal man)

in Christ,

Bob

That misses the point. The key here is not "can you promote gay marriage and be a Christian" we know some denominations do it. It is not "can you deny Genesis and in fact the entire OT as reliable text and still call yourself a Christian" we know many do it.

It is not "Can you deny the trinity and still call yourself a Christian" -- we know millions do it today.

The KEY question to be answered is "DOES evolutionism's argument that the Bible is untrustworthy and the guesswork of man is much more reliable as it describes an entirely different account for origins -- a gap so extreme that eventually (given enough time) it leads to atheism as we see that it did in the case of post-Christian-age Europe as it embraced universal adoption of atheist evolutionism".

The question is -- does it do what DARWIN said it does??!!

Does it do what those who KNEW Darwin said it does (Huxley).

Does it do what the icons of Darwinism TODAY say it does (Dawkins, Meyers, Provine...etc)

(That would be the inconvenient details found in this link ---
http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthrea...html#Post193355
)



How so?

Colin Patterson apparently differs.



Read Romans 1 to see why someone who has no access at all to the Bible should consider that the world is MADE and did not simply evolve.




Realize of course that your are making the fallacy of arguing guesswork as though it were "evidence".

Recall Osborne's "irrefutable evidence" of "Ape man"???

in Christ,

Bob

"What difference does it make"? Would you like to discuss the implications seriously? I would. mel

OK, when the homosexuals stop calling themselves gay then maybe we can work with the creationists regarding their use of the word evolution. Maybe we should create a new presidential cabinet position for English-word police.

If you think it's that important...

Seriously though, is it that hard to use the common definition of the word, rather than defining it some other way?

Not at all. That is why I have no problem calling homosexuals gay. It is a very common use of the word. Nor do I have a problem using the word evolution to refer to the secular explanation of origins when discussing such things with people in creationist circles. It is a very common use of the word.