Creation or Evolution, Which?

[BobRyan]

QR frame:

Curious, that whilst waxing scatalogical re 'Gd as found in nature' - some wrap themselves in numinous robes of "critical thinking" when it is faith that is 'foundational' to their synaptic processes.

Don't take me wrong, I believe that Gd spoke and Gd breathed manifestly; however, [...]

Is man part of nature?—of course! India has just 'noticed' the scientific community that it has created/evolved a transgenic chicken from the genes of a jellyfish and those of a chicken.

Say what!?

A new creature has evolved upon earth?—in our lifetime...

Not according to the 'faith only' crowd.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

God endowed man with so great vital force that he has withstood the accumulation of disease brought upon the race in consequence of perverted habits, and has continued for six thousand years. This fact of itself is enough to evidence to us the strength and electrical energy that God gave to man at his creation. It took more than two thousand years of crime and indulgence of base passions to bring bodily disease upon the race to any great extent. If Adam, at his creation, had not been endowed with twenty times as much vital force as men now have, the race, with their present habits of living in violation of natural law, would have become extinct. At the time of Christ's first advent the race had degenerated so rapidly that an accumulation of disease pressed upon that generation, bringing in a tide of woe and a weight of misery inexpressible.

{3T 138.2}

The above was meant to buttress purports of critical thinking? “Twenty times as much vital force...”!—wherewith the facts, goodfella? Sounds awfully like pristine guesstimation.

[BobRyan]

You need not expect to get any good works out of yourself. You have been trying. The evolutionist tries and is always trying without accomplishing it. Why go about trying to do good works, when you know you fail? Listen. There will never be any good thing in you of any kind whatever from now till the world's end, except it is created there by the Creator Himself, by His word, which has in it the creative energy. Do not forget that. Do you want to walk in good works when you go out of this house? It can be done only by being created in Jesus Christ unto those good works. Stop trying. Look to the Creator and receive His creative word. "Let the word of God dwell in you richly," then those good works will appear; you will be a Christian. Then, because you live with the Creator and are in the presence of the creative energy, you will have that pleasant, quiet peace and genuine strength and building up that belong to a Christian.

When He tells you that "we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them," then recognize the Creator, recognize only the good works that are created in you, paying no attention whatever to any work that is not crated there, because there is nothing good but what is created by the Lord.

Now you are created new in Christ Jesus. He says so. Thank Him that it is so. What! Will you be an evolutionist on that verse? That is the present tense, "We are his workmanship." We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Are you? The word is spoken. It is the creative word. How much time are you going to allow between that word of God and your being created new? Of the creation in the beginning, you said that any man who allows even a minute to pass between the word and the thing is an evolutionist. What are you now as to this word of God, which creates men in Christ Jesus unto good works? Are you an evolutionist here? Come, let us all be creationists.

Do you not see that in this way it will not require a long, tedious wearing process to be made ready to meet the Lord in glory? So many people are looking at themselves. They know that, in the nature of things it must take them an exceedingly long time to get fully ready to meet Him. If it is done by evolution, it will never be done. But when it is done by creation, it will be both surely and quickly done. That word I have before referred to is the word everyone here may take to himself. "While so many are hovering about the mystery of faith and godliness, they could solve the matter by proclaiming abroad [by telling it out], 'Jesus Christ is my portion forever.'"

Do you see how much we have been evolutionists? shall we quit? Come now, let us be creationists and be done with it. Let us be Sabbath-keepers truly. Let us believe the Lord. He speaks forgiveness. He speaks a clean heart. He speaks holiness; He creates it. Let Him create it in you. Stop being an evolutionist and let that creative word work for you, let that creative energy work in you, that which the word pronounces, and before you leave this house, God can get you ready to meet Him. Indeed, in that very thing you do meet Him. And when you have thus met Him and do thus meet Him every day, are you not then ready to meet Him? Do you believe that? You believe He made the worlds when He spoke, that light came by His word when He spoke, and that the leper was "immediately" cleansed when he spoke, but with yourself you think considerable time must elapse between the time when the word is spoken and the fact is accomplished. O, why will you be an evolutionist? Creation, creation--that is the thing.

You and I are to call people to the supper; we are to say to all people, "Come, for all things are now ready." How can I call to a man that all things are now ready, when I myself am not ready? It is a falsehood to start with. My words will not reach him. They are but an empty sound. But O, when there is in that call the creative energy of the word that has made us ready, that has cleansed us from sin, that has created us unto good works, that holds us as the sun is held in the course which God has marked out--then when we go forth and say to the world lying in wickedness, "Come, for all things are now ready," they will hear. They will hear in the call the tones of the voice of the Good Shepherd, and will be cheered to come to Him for creative energy for themselves, to make them new creatures and prepare them for the supper to which they have been called.

This is where we are in this world's history. God's mark is being set upon the people. But remember, He will never set His mark upon one who is not cleansed from every defilement. God will not set His seal to something that is not true, that is not good. Would you ask Him to set His seal to righteousness that is altogether unrighteousness? You would not have the face to do that. You know that He is too righteous to do such a thing. Then He must cleanse you so that He can put His seal to His own work. He cannot put His seal to your work. His seal belongs only to a document which He Himself has approved. Let Him write His character upon your heart and then He can set His seal there. He can write His seal of approval upon your heart, only when His creative word has accomplished its purpose in your heart.

You can see in what a Presence we are; you can see in a measure how long it would take half to exhaust such a subject as this. But, brethren, when we do stop, let us stop in the presence of creation. Let us be no more evolutionists. Let not a moment pass between the word of God spoken to you and the accomplishment of the thing in you. Thus, living in the presence of creation, walking with the Creator, upheld by creative power, inspired by the creative energy--why, with a people such as that, God can move the world in a little while.

If at the beginning you thought this was a queer subject for such an occasion as today [it was the closing service of the week of prayer] you can now see that it is a strictly present truth. There are only the two ways. There is no halfway ground. Every man and woman in the world is either a creationist or an evolutionist. Evolution is infidelity; it is death. Creation is Christianity; it is life. Choose Creation, Christianity, and Life, that you may live. Let us be creationists only and creationists forever. And let all the people say, Amen.

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

February 21, 1899

by A.T. Jones

It is a good point he makes about the New Birth being the much-overlooked start. Sanctification and the Rom 8 "putting to death the deeds of the flesh" is an exercise that can only be done by a saved born-again saint.

in Christ,

Bob

[jasd]

Well, several days have passed since Bob Ryan posted his latest rejoinders to – himself jasd (who has forborne the auto-response) – without eliciting a peep of pique from Richard for taking the thread sideways. So, one infers a response to

Bob Ryan’s posts is in order, yes?

Following...:

>>Thus we see that evolutionists do have FAITH (and junk-science of course).<<

And, why should not evolutionists, as others of scientific persuasion, have “FAITH”?—junk-science also?—as even the purest of sciences – mathematics – sometimes incorporate “junk-science” as scaffolding when constructing; discarded when no longer serviceable, of course.

Anyway, FAITH, in one measure or other, is bequeathed to everyone.

>>And that Creationists have BOTH faith AND SCIENCE<<

“Science” as in “amalgamation” found in situ the context of ‘special writings’? The unorthodox utilization of the term “amalgamation” in those writings, when taken in context with other references from the same source re the matter – is embarrassingly JUNK – beg pardon.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

But you do argue the “either-or-fallacy”...; whereas, I incorporate the possibilities of both ‘faith and critical thought’.

>>Sadly - that did not show up in your post above.<<

It may be that your understanding of “critical thought” is uniquely your own.

Re myself: I’ve proffered more substantively than that forwarded by the typical faither; ipso facto, the latent and indefinite vs the definite use of articles and the varied use of the cardinal and the ordinal numbers in the Genesis Creation Epic, the multiple strata of salt and sediment discovered in corings taken from beneath the Mediterranean seabed, etc – attest to my assertion.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

That’s funny, considering..., that the Theistic ‘evolutionist’, contradistinctive the modern iconoclastic ‘faither’, seeks also empiricity by the hand of Gd in nature.

>>Yes that is what the TE's "marketing literature" claims. But as I said - critical thinking is helpful just then.<<

Umm, a bit of disjointedness there, eh?—help me out, as I fail to see how your response to my quote corresponds.

Moreover, re “critical thinking”: “methinks thou dost protest too much”!—hopefully, your protest arises from a good place; other than that, I concur with you that the faither is limited by source material that is, well, admittedly sparse. Given that, verbal emotives together with feelings of angst are understandable. Anyway, there is that silver lining, as it were, in that Writ does

encourage one to faith; however, that is not to say that it requires, also, for one to place his or her intellect into a box, folding the flaps to immure.

>>You may wish to try it sometime.<<

And you may wish to read more attentively...

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Some are aware of and appreciate mechanisms – whether large or small, in vitro or au naturale, as it were; the mitochondria might provide an example.

>>A nice bit of misdirection from your own "Jellyfish - chicken" splice story.<<

Not at all – where we might conduct transgenics in vitro today, tomorrow it may be with such as nanotechnology, or perhaps with free DNA, or...,

as Gd opined demurringly, “...the people [...] have all one language, now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”

The computer and the Internet together have again, given man one language – or, one speech.

>>But not as misdirecting as you may have at first imagined.<<

Pardon, but no misdirection – the imagination seems yours.

I suppose the matter of the mechanics of transgenics, large and/or small may prove difficult accepting – to one rigorously settled in biases and predisposition.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Ahh, so “intelligent design” would not be limited to an evanescent or imagined Goodlike concept!

>>Nobody has ever claimed that mankind is not "intelligent" or that mankind cannot in any way butcher mechanisms in nature so as to produce amalgamations of various kinds.<<

No?—but I remember when you were bruiting about that all things were created by Intelligent Design; that is, THE Intelligent Designer Gd. It is gratifying to see that you’ve now come the circle to recognize that Intelligent Design may also have occurred by the hand of man, at the least, with “amalgamation”. That being so,

how much more might Intelligent Design have occurred at the hands of ‘...principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places’ (notice the plural usage and the implication of other dimensional or heavenly extraterrestrials ) – beings from civilizations of perhaps many Orders of Magnitude more advanced than ours (amongst whom, it is purported, was the highest creation of Gd; that is, Satan); perhaps, even having incorporated such a vehicle as panspermia (so as that – the whole creation groaneth and travaileth...?).

>>The false canard you so transparently employ - is not as hard for the reader to observe as you may have at first imagined.<<

Your above statement is, regrettably, too opaque for appreciation; you might consider clarifying yourself.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

—and very low Order beings could use practically any vehicle

>>That is how the evolutionist marketing literature reads. But science does not support the fiction. Hence a small degree of critical thinking would have served your argument well just then.<< [ed.jasd]

Curiously, your dialectics seem inordinately dependent upon turgid jargon; seemingly, very personal and meaningful to you. That having been stated,

we are a very low Order (correction: no, not even a first Order...) of beings in the scale of things – yet, we have decoded and cataloged the human genome using that information as vehicle, we have manipulated DNA using the mechanism of enzymes and electrical fields, we have utilized radiation, etc...

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

What might that suggest re beings inhabiting Orders of Magnitude of Four, Five, or higher?

>>Pagans already have that - they call them "family gods". Check out Hinduism sometimes. A facinating read.<<

The allusion that civilizations of a higher Order are only “family gods” of rustic villagers smacks awfully much of bias or shallowness. Anyway, sheesh, Bob, everyone has read the Bhagavad Gita, and probably the epic poem Mahabharata, as well.

>>And of course that kind of mythology would fit the junk-science religion of evolutionists - but even then we do not have a case of creating life - merely the ability to "butcher it less".<<

Mythology?—no more?—and you know that, how? Even now, we are attempting to develop the means to pilot aircraft by mental means only, that we might duplicate those of Hindu “mythology”. “Junk-science” does not seem so “junk” to the serious-minded endeavours to reproduce “mythological” technology. Hindu “myths” tell of interstellar travel and land and air battles such as that Biblically reflected, in part, in the Sodom and Gomorrah story; that is, bombardment from above – by ETs or ‘gods’ – warring between themselves.

Hindu literature also depicts the peoples of cities destroyed by the flying vimana machines – and afterwards, having to rid themselves of all metals washing the dust from their bodies by bathing in rivers and/or others sources of water – lest they die from open sores. We would be forced to do likewise today should we survive a nuclear attack and seek to avoid radiation poisoning.

Peoples of India still today reenact ritual washing in, primarily, the Indus.

The book of Ecclesiastes affirms that what is now, and will be, has been...

Per “butcher it less”, and reprising the Indian ‘chicken’: what part of “fleshier” and “more than twice the egg-laying capability” is “butchering” to you? I find what has been done to the soy bean more “butchering” than that done to the transgenic chicken; yet,

veggers have apparently adapted well, yes?—to hear tell...

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Evolutionary proponents expound natural force(s); I keep suggesting and reminding that man is a natural force.

>>A creative twist to their story in your part. Suppose you that the H-Bomb then is "evolution"??<<

Disabuse me, but isn’t ‘evolution’ resultant the influence of natural force(s)?—and is not man a natural force? That said,

Huh?—we speak of biology or that which is organic (or, in the case of the virus, that which is not quite...), do we not?

“H-Bomb”? Okay, indeed!—earthly fission and/or fusion have evolved; however, ...oh, how dunderheaded of me!—you reference radiation, yes? Well, yes, radiation can play a part in evolution; witness, the new species of flowers springing from the V2 craters in England ca WWII, compliments of Hitler. Hey!—Hitler was on’y sending the Brits bouquets of flowers, yes!? Ya gotta love the guy, eh?

(oh, okay, so THE Intelligent Designer had built in redundancy in thems original seeds..., but then, ‘redundancy’ might argue for orthodox evolution. uh-oh)

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Too many assumptions make Jack a dull boy.

>>Is this where you are about to tell us that evolutionism is dead?<<

My above quote was in response to yours, following:

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

But creationists never claimed that man cannot louse up nature.

...and addressed your assumption that the Indian scientist ‘loused-up’ their transgenic experiment. On point, on point, goodfella...

>>What an unnexpected turn in your story so far!<<

Pleasingly informative and serendipitous, YES!?—pennies from heaven, as it were...

Quote:

Quote:jasd

As reported, the loused-up transgenic ‘chicken’ is fleshier and produces more than twice as many eggs in a given time v the umm, umm, finger-lickin’ good – sort.

>>Hmm - just like non-stick frying pans - a short sighted new treat - that takes time to see the long term effects. Still "short sighted" is the very nature of the evolutionist marketing technique - as it turns out.<<

I thought “long term” was the province of the ‘evolutionist’... Anyway, hey!—I prefer non-stick. And, as counterpoint, I’ve read that the EGW devotee inveighs against milk, as not good; cheese, not good; coffee, not good; tobacco; flesh-foods; etc..., all not good. Too much “not good” is not good and is as that thing which gnaweth upon a man’s innards whilst he liveth. :-(

The above seemed somewhat apropos – so, be it noted: nightshade veggies contain nicotine, as does tobacco. Chocolate contains caffeine, as does coffee. Jesse made David take cheese to his brothers at war. Gd commanded that the COI must partake of flesh-foods. Etc. Etc.

Seems that there is “short sighted” and there is ‘short-sighted’ – the difference in the one case is a matter of degree and hypocrisy, yes?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

There seems, as well, to be an awful lot abounding in the Biblical creation – that can be defined only as major louse-ups – whatever, the theological construct(s) attending.

>>Indeed that is what the evolutionist marketing literature claims.<<

Writ informs that “all creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together...” Ain not that like, major screw-up?—notwithstanding constructs.

Okay, okay, I’m the sympathetic ear here.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Genesis relates a creation (especial emphasis upon the indefinite article): full stop, period. Times inherent in text, or its mechanism(s) – not limited.

>>Turns out the author of Genesis 1:2-2:3 is also writing in Ex 20:8-11 summarizing the point as "SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the Lord made".<<

Synecdochic. Perhaps merely, synecdochic. As I’ve previously noted, the linguistic inconsistencies in the Creation Epic bear in that – the days were not contiguous days but, for the most part, separated by unspecified periods between; perhaps, much as an OT interstitial calendar might.

>>There again your story telling hits the proverbial brick wall.

But if slamming into that brick wall is where your views "need" you to go - so beit.<<

“There again your story telling

hits the proverbial brick wall.

But if slamming into that brick wall

is where your views "need" you to go –

so beit.”

How delightfully prosaic!—that is really quite nicely done. You are full of surprises. That said,

read, but read carefully – and except for learning your letters and the multiplication table, eschew rote learning. [/kidding, sorta]

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

in Christ,

Bob

Ya’think?—let us hope.

You might try lightening up – it’s not the end of the world should I think your arguments are largely based upon a narrow sort of entrenched-rote-dialectics tandem an, umm, unusual manner of delivery; y’know, suffused with alla thems theatrical idiomatics and colloquialisms. [/being nice]

Well, so much for inimitable charm on my part

[jasd]

Well, hardly expecting that either Bob Ryan or myself has much more material to contribute to the dispositional matter between us - so, moving on to the subject - AT Jones,

and Desmond Ford with the question,

"Why is is that AT Jones is revered though having done a 180 on his beliefs, embraced pantheism, and rejected the .Org?--whereas,

Desmond Ford still remains a member of the .Org - differing only in aspects with the practice of iconolatry?" - with hardly a good word found for him.

Too harsh? Then never mind; I sometimes overdo hyperbole.

:-(

[BobRyan]

Too many assumptions make Jack a dull boy.

Originally Posted By: Bob

>>Is this where you are about to tell us that evolutionism is dead?<<

My above quote was in response to yours, following:

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

But creationists never claimed that man cannot louse up nature.

...and addressed your assumption that the Indian scientist &#145;loused-up&#146; their transgenic experiment. On point, on point, goodfella...

[jasd]

>>Somehow you missed the entire point.<<

I generally miss elliptical points.

>>My argument is not that "chimeras do not exist" it is that in creating them mankind is engaging in the amalgamation that we already know was being practiced pre-flood, thus bringing judgment down on his own head.<<

Specifically, because, of the entirety of mankind, only Noah remained – who was perfect in his generations. Gd informs that all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth – yet two by two and by sevens He took them through the flood. The denouement implied is, substantially, that

much of the animal kingdom today, must, of necessity, be “chimeric”, yes?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I thought &#147;long term&#148; was the province of the &#145;evolutionist&#146;...

>>Not so - evolutionist wild stories are repeatedly debunked given "time and information" - in the light of day - evolutionism wilts and dies.<<

Not so?—then it is also the “province” of creationists? I had supposed that I was the very minority who credited Creation with eons.

>>50 year piltdown fraud, 50 year horse series fraud, 30 year neanderthal fraud, Osborn's tooth-fairy junk-science, Ernst Haeckle's wood carving "stories".<<

Ah, my, the ubiquitous anecdote. Small refuge for the dialectician.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Anyway, hey!&#151;I prefer non-stick. And, as counterpoint, I&#146;ve read that the EGW devotee inveighs against milk, as not good; cheese, not good; coffee, not good; tobacco; flesh-foods; etc..., all not good.

>>Glad to see you get something right.

It apparently does not happen as often as one might have hoped.<<

Umm, I got it right – that the sectular devotee finds much that he or she perceives is dietarily “not good”?—or, that I am right in that the itemization, in fact, is – really not good?

You see what I mean about missing elliptical points?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Jesse made David take cheese to his brothers at war. Gd commanded that the COI must partake of flesh-foods. Etc. Etc.

>>That gets us back to the old "Adam created 20 times stronger" and the "devolution over time" element.<<

Not so. My quote is Biblical and yours contains an assertion that is entirely ‘whole cloth’ – can you identify that quote? Hint: it is in quotes!

>>Thanks for circling back to that point for us.<<

There is a tide in the affairs of man... Things go up, things go down, ...sometimes sideways, sometimes South.

>>It is a good reminder!<<

Indeed.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Writ informs that &#147;all creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together...

>>True - the first major louse up happens when Adam allows sin into the world - see Romans 5 for a reference on that point. Nature does not do so well after that.<<

Okay..., however, I take it that when Writ says “all creation” I must infer “all creation”; that is, inclusively, that which we behold in the heavens, that which we cannot see because our eyes are not opened, and creation as it is simply understood. That, is much beyond the purview of Adam...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Genesis relates a creation (especial emphasis upon the indefinite article): full stop, period. Times inherent in text, or its mechanism(s) &#150; not limited.

Quote:Bob Ryan

Turns out the author of Genesis 1:2-2:3 is also writing in Ex 20:8-11 summarizing the point as "SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the Lord made".

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Synecdochic. Perhaps merely, synecdochic. As I've previously noted, the linguistic inconsistencies in the Creation Epic bear in that &#150; the days were not contiguous days but, for the most part, separated by unspecified periods between; perhaps, much as an OT interstitial calendar might.

>>Which was debunked by the fact that the 4th commandment specifically summarizes the Gen 1:2-2:3 chronological sequence into the same seven day unit of time that existed at the foot of Sinai. "SIX days YOU shall labor...for in SIX days the LORD MADE" - not "six indefinite and disconnected units of time you shall labor".<<

Exactly. As I previously stated, “Synecdochic”. The expositor finds many instances where Gd utilizes lacunae in time reckoning. Genesis 1-2 provides the linguistic markers – that lacunae existed in the Creation Epic.

It is only by willfully rejecting the linguistics of Genesis 1,2 that one might impose the mundane upon it, that contiguity be found.

>>Same author - same subject - ward-wired unit of time directly into the text. Impossible to escape EVEN if you had "imagined" a way to get "evening and morning" NOT to mean evening and morning and even if you had imagined a way for "day 3" not to the following day to "day 2".<<

Please, Bob Ryan, upon more than several occasions, I’ve made clear that an evening and morning inescapably meant one complete day; and yes, each ‘numbered’ day followeth another – sunset, sunrise – when Gd spoke creatively. That is not to say that Gd upon every following day, as though punching a time clock, arose to speak. Linguistics, in text, forward strong indication that He did not.

>>There again your story telling hits the proverbial brick wall.<<

Or the dull of hearing...

Quote:

Quote:jasd

read, but read carefully &#150; and except for learning your letters and the multiplication table, eschew rote learning.

>>Just the substantive response I fully expected.<<

Ahh, prescience?—so admirable. Uncomfortable with “critical thought”?

Anyway, I recall placing an ameliorative [/kidding, sorta] as finial to the quote.

>>Thank you for going there!<<

...in kind, good fella, in kind.

>>A pleasure as always my friend.<<

A gracious note, thank-you

[BobRyan]

I am actually quite satisfied to have answers to some questions on genetic amalgamations - from inspired sources that you reject.

Not sure how you have imagined that this would be less than satisfying on my part.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Jesse made David take cheese to his brothers at war. Gd commanded that the COI must partake of flesh-foods. Etc. Etc.

>>That gets us back to the old "Adam created 20 times stronger" and the "devolution over time" element.<<

Not so. My quote is Biblical and yours contains an assertion that is entirely ‘whole cloth’ – can you identify that quote? Hint: it is in quotes!

On the contrary - the Bible itself affirms the gift of Prophecy in 1Cor 12.

Far be it from me to reject the Bible in that regard or to call the Holy Spirit's work "nothing but whole cloth".

In fact I think Matt 12 strictly forbids doing such things.

And since this is an Adventist web site - my observation is valid here.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Genesis relates a creation (especial emphasis upon the indefinite article): full stop, period. Times inherent in text, or its mechanism(s) &#150; not limited.

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

Turns out the author of Genesis 1:2-2:3 is also writing in Ex 20:8-11 summarizing the point as "SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX DAYS the Lord made".

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Synecdochic. Perhaps merely, synecdochic. As I've previously noted, the linguistic inconsistencies in the Creation Epic bear in that &#150; the days were not contiguous days but, for the most part, separated by unspecified periods between; perhaps, much as an OT interstitial calendar might.

>>Which was debunked by the fact that the 4th commandment specifically summarizes the Gen 1:2-2:3 chronological sequence into the same seven day unit of time that existed at the foot of Sinai. "SIX days YOU shall labor...for in SIX days the LORD MADE" - not "six indefinite and disconnected units of time you shall labor".<<

[Guest]

I'm glad you guys are enjoying the thread. This is as good a place as any to argue about evolution. The debate between you two is always lively and humorous. I find it enjoyable.

But I do feel another quote from A.T. Jones coming on.

[abelisle]

Jones (38) Waggoner (33) in 1888. Would they even be delegates in our upcoming GC in Atlanta and if they were, who would "have their back?"

BTW - I too love the repartee between jasd and BobRyan but I really admire jasd's clever use of diction and syntax.

Alex

[Guest]

They seem to have quit. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything.

[karl]

Faith that God will do what He says He will do needs to be carefully separated from the belief that God will do what WE "name and claim" or that He will even create the thing He says He will create on OUR time schedule.

Faith believes, trusts, and WAITS. Patience is one of the virtues.

[olger]

Those who believe that evolution is a viable explanation of origins ought to just leave the small-minded people who are gullible enough to believe that God actually means what He says. There are plenty of liberal churches out there that will welcome such amelioration of interest.

[Guest]

Once again og, you have spoken the truth.

[doug yowell]

Once again og, you have spoken the truth.

og,on.

[olger]

ugh,

og

[olger]

I am well aware of a superiority complex among those who's "education" requires them to disbelieve the Bible. They should just leave us poor folks (who are actually dumb enough to believe that God means what He says) to our naivete and go find a nice liberal church that suits them. No hard feelings

Illustration. If a Catholic priest reads the Great Controversy, and accepts the sabbath and the state of the dead, and accepts that the RC is the Great harlot & Little Horn of Scripture, he has a moral obligation to leave the Catholic church and become an Adventist. Simple. The (Pope) is well within his rights to expect that this man would leave.

[Dr. Shane]

I hear what you are saying, Gerry. Some view this as wanting to run undesirables out of the church. (Those embracing evolution being the undesirables) I certainly don't want people to leave the church BUT,,, if they don't believe as we believe and are not interested in ever believing as we do, one has to wonder why they are choosing to fellowship with us.

If they are convinced of our other fundamental beliefs and only struggle with the issue of the six-day creation account, then I have no problem at all with them fellowshipping we us as long as they don't insist on us changing our doctrine to suit their beliefs.

[olger]

I understand, and thanks.