Choosing a faith

Phat, I tried to. It would not let me.I don't understand why you should be upset with me.
I post my sources, especially my Biblical sourced, when
I post.I will say nothing else about this on the subject at hand.I know that you won't answer, and I don't expect you to.But, if we cannot become sons of God, and if we cannot
become members of His family, then what exactly will
our relationship with Him be?Evolutionists on this forum can laugh at creationists, but
when someone makes fun of their precious Darwin they
suddenly become very defensive.I can take what anyone says about me, and I can tolerate
what others call me because I believe in what I write.It should work both ways.

Nope, we get annoyed by creationists making idiotic statements about evolution. You know that Darwin has been dead for over 150 years? He's a hero of ours because he was the first to discover that life evolved but the science left him behind long ago. He's not our Jesus. We don't read his book for scientific insight or get on our knees in worship. He's of historic interest only now. And by the way, had Darwin not discovered evolution, someone else would because it's just a fact of life.
​ It does work both ways but when you make truly stupid statements about facts you'll get laughed at all day long. If you want to get any respect here, you need to properly understand what it is you're fighting. There's no point talking rubbish about things you don't understand - you'll get called out every time.

Tangle, someone else did think of evolution. Darwin
stole the idea from his grandfather.Darwin, who thought that the simple cell was filled with
a jelly-like substance, had no idea about the science of
epigenetics.He based an entire concept on the varying sizes of the
beaks and feet of finches.Most competent geneticists and biologists today know
that organisms are pre-programmed to adapt to new
environments in a few generations.The Creator created them to do so. Random chance has
nothing to do with it.Epigenetics states that genes can be influenced by
behavior and environment (diets).And that physical/chemical codes determine which genes
are switched on.This is why finches have varying beak sizes and why
some mice grow longer legs than other, based on
location, etc...Epigenetics are reversible and does not change the DNA.Life has never been observed to come from non-life.There is no known observable process by which
information can be added to the genetic code of
organisms. This is not a minor issue. It is imperative.I get annoyed by those who claim that evolution is a
proven fact, supported by science.I get annoyed when evolutionists cannot give examples
of life coming from non-life.I get annoyed by evolutionists who insist that all
organisms evolved from a common ancestor, especially
since they are unable to prove (not guess-guess work is
not science) an observable process whereby
information can be added to the genetic code of an
organism.In order to state that evolution is the process by which
all organisms descended from a single ancestor they
must prove this assertion with observable processes.I am not looking for respect. Everyone who matters to me
respects me.I am defending the God whom I serve. He is all that
matters to me.

I'm not upset with anyone at EvC at the moment. Did you understand why I labeled you a Binitarian? One thing I have noticed about Biblical Creationists at this Forum is that they *all* to a tee pick on Darwin. Darwin becomes a sort of a straw-man. Similarly, had Henry Ford *not* invented the Model T, someone else would have done so, likely under a different name. Out of curiosity, I put your sentence into the search engine to check where you were getting your sources.
This is what popped up:
1) National Geographic--. Theory of Evolution
2) Evidence for evolution (article) Khan Academy --Evidence for evolution
3) Lamarckism | Facts, Theory, & Contrast with Darwinism--Lamarckism (scientific theory)Which only shows that there are far more names to question than simply Darwin. So out of curiousity, what are your sources as you attempt to learn just enough science to refute it?Ever since I came to this forum 19 years ago, I never cared one whit about disproving evolution. And I was newly saved when I first came here. Fair enough. Keep in mind though that this topic is not about evolution but about faith.

GDR in Message One:

---

Firstly, I contend that there is only one cosmic intelligence that is responsible for our existence. It doesn’t matter what name you give that deity, it might be god, allah or zeuss. What matters is the characteristics or nature of the deity. As theists we all form our own view of the nature of our deity and that is an issue of faith. (For that matter everyone has a world view and live by some code whether they adhere to it or not.) My point is that it isn’t about choosing which deity that we choose to worship, but the nature of whatever deity we choose.
​
Secondly I suggest that the Bible was inspired. Now when I say that I recognize that people have been inspired to do all sorts of things. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings was inspired. So yes, I agree that God inspired people to write their stories and understandings, in the case of the OT, of Yahweh and then in the NT of Jesus as the true representative of Yahweh. That does not mean that He told them what to write, but to simply tell their stories and their beliefs which were all ultimately combined to make up the 66 books of the Bible.
​
So then as Christians we have to start with Jesus. I think a good place in how to understand that is when John in his gospel says that the “Word became Flesh” with Word representing God’s nature. Jesus said that we should “love our enemy”, “turn the other cheek”, “go the extra mile etc. He called us to love others and beyond that to love others sacrificially. That is the great commission. How then do you square that with the OT contending that Yahweh committed genocide, ordered His followers to commit genocide and even to have the community stone to death neighbours for ridiculous offences. YOU CAN’T. As humans we all look for “Blessed Assurance”. It is a faith. So then, is our faith in Jesus as God’s representative or in a literal reading of an inerrant Bible. It can’t be both.
​
The other Biblical translation for inspired is God breathed. I contend that is a better term. God breaths life into the Scriptures so that we can read the genocidal accounts and understand just how easy it is for us as humans to hate, and completely walk the opposite road to the road that Jesus calls us to walk.
​
For too many years the church has put the emphasis on personal salvation. All humanity, (and maybe even beyond humanity), are chosen. However, we aren’t chosen for salvation, but for vocation. We are all called to spread God’s love as embodied by Jesus into the world. As to what happens to us after our deaths is in God’s hands and with the resurrected Jesus we do have a small glimpse of what that might be.

---

​
​

The idea of evolution had be around for some time, many people had spoken about. Patrick Matthew actually wrote about it. But only Darwin developed the theory with evidence and the mechanism - natural selection.But you're making my point for me. If Darwin hadn't developed the idea, Wallace would have and if not Wallace then someone else. It's not the name put to the discovery that matters, it's the theory that results and develops from it. Oh dear. I'm going to leave it to others to explain epigenetics works and how mutation CAN add information to the gene pool. If they can find the patience Then you're going to remain angry for life. You could reduce your anger somewhat by understanding that evolution is not abiogenesis.

Out of curiousity, I typed Is Evolution A proven Fact? into the Duck Duck Search Engine.The only source among the six or seven listed that challenged the legitimacy of evolution came from Ken Ham. From Answers In Genesis which trains newbie believers into defending Biblical Creationism. The rest of the sources were interesting seeing as how they were not making the same argument (Evolution VERSUS Creationism) but were merely explaining the science and theory behind modern biology. If we were to somehow magically agree and throw out the entire theories behind Biological Evolution, what would we have left? Does anyone expect society to slap their foreheads, realize that the Bible is literally true and bow at the altar of Genesis? (Dont forget to visit Ken Hams enormous wooden boat depicted to look like the Ark of Noah! )Again, Im not at all sure why defending literal creationism is a hill worth dying on.This article was informative. 15 Answers to Creationist NonsenseAs was this one: The five most common misunderstandings about evolution

The Conversation:

---

5. Religion is incompatible with evolution

​

It is important to make it clear that evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory to explain how species change over time. Contrary to what many people think, there is also little conflict between evolution and most common religions. Pope Francis recently reiterated that a belief in evolution isn’t incompatible with the Catholic faith. Going further, the reverend Malcom Brown from the Church of England stated that “natural selection, as a way of understanding physical evolutionary processes over thousands of years, makes sense.” He added: “Good religion needs to work constructively with good science” and vice-versa. I fully agree.

---

Phat, what Pope Francis or Malcolm Brown believes or
doesn't believe means nothing to me.The Holy Bible has final say regarding all issues.If the Genesis account in chapters 1 through 11 are not
to be taken literally, how can we regard any of the Bible
literally?If Genesis is simply metaphor, how can we be certain that
the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are not metaphors?Which of the Prophets, Apostles, and other Biblical
characters knew about the true origins of man?Were they all in the dark?What was God metaphorically trying to say in Genesis 2:22,
when He stated that Eve was taken from Adam?What was Paul metaphorically trying to say in
1Timothy 2:11-15, when He wrote that Adam was first
formed, then Eve.Recently, a noted TE stated that Noah's flood was not a
worldwide flood. He went on to say that the flood was
confined to a small area.He actually believes that Noah spent decades building a
massive Ark, and filling it with animals in order to survive
the regionalized flood.Why didn't Noah and his family just move to another
location in order to evade the flood?As I said, TE's believe that chapters 1-11 in Genesis are
to be taken metaphorically.The Apostle Peter states in both his books that the
global flood happened.The scriptures from the very first to the last treat the
creation account as having actually occurred.I am not finished with my reply to your post. I will
continue after taking care of some animals. I want you
to fully understand why I dismiss this so adamantly.

And therein lies the rub.If you insist on taking the bible literally you look a fool - the earth is provably not 6,000 years old, the earth has never flooded and species are provably not immutable. But if you take the bible as a metaphor you can interpret it anyway you like.Which is why there are 38,000 Christian sects and why Christianity is in permanent schism.

Phat, once again I stress "no transitional fossils."Genesis speaks of a finished creation, in which God said
that all was good.He then rested from His work. This carries the meaning
of a finished act.According to evolutionists of all disciplines, it is not
finished. We have been evolving ever since God told
this big lie. We are evolving even now, according to TE'sTE's straddle the fence. They are mocked and laughed
at by atheists. And they are not taken seriously by those
who accept the literal interpretation of Genesis.If the creation account in Genesis are to be taken
metaphorically, who gets to determine the meanings.
Does the actual meaning have any significance?Darwin, who was a disillusioned preacher, became
an atheist. Darwinism is atheism.Evolution has no direction, goal, or purpose.Evolution states that death is a natural process. Paul
states that death is our enemy.Evolutionists have a strong belief that the universe and
all it's inhabitants and organisms are moving upward.The Bible stresses that sin entered a perfect world,
which leads to death and decay. Romans 8.One must believe in one or the other.Romans 5:12 ..."by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin; and so death passed upon all me..."Romans 5:14 "Sin reigned from Adam to Moses, even
over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that is
to come."1 Corinthians 15:21 "For since by man came death,
by man came also the resurrection of the dead."22. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive."1 Corinthians 15: 45 "The first man Adam was made a
living soul."The Bible states, without the slightest hint of ambiguity,
that Adam was the first man. And that death entered the
world through him.We know that death has been with us from the very
beginning of time.TE's are forced to accept the premise Adam was in
actuality a humanoid that existed long before homo-
erectus.Sticking with this line of reasoning, can we assume that
all creatures, especially pre-homo sapiens, were created
in the image of God?And, if not, why not?Did Jesus give His life, assuming that He actually were
crucified, for beings other than man?Will finish later.

Phat, I wonder if TE's think that apes, not man as they
see them today, were the the ones made in the image
of God.I'm serious!!!Genesis records that plants and animals reproduce after
their own kind, with absence of a common ancestor.How do TE's know that this is not what Genesis really means?How do they know when to take an assertion factually or
metaphorically?Why is Eve called the mother of all living?Why does Paul state in 1 Corinthians 15:39 "All flesh is
not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,
another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another
of birds."The ones who know that Paul is speaking metaphorically,
and not literally, must be super, super, intelligent.Why does Paul say in Romans 1: 20 that all of this is
clearly seen.It is impossible to clearly something, if nothing that the
Bible states as facts are actually facts.Remember no transitional fossils.Of what use is the Bible if it is not authoritative, and full
of binding truths?Why would Jesus say that humans are of much more
value than many sparrows?Why would John tell us in 5:45-47 to trust and believe in
the writings of Moses.Why would we believe in the writing of Moses if we
cannot even understand it?When the OT records that "life is in the blood," or that
God ordered the Israelites to bury their fecal matter, and
that those with infectious diseases should be
quarantined, and that running water is much more
effective than still water for purifying the hands, how did
they know what He actually meant?If each day of creation amounts to eons of time how could
plant life which appeared on the third day survive for tens,
Or hundreds of millions of years without the sun, which
they say appeared on the fourth day?Also, how could the plants and trees survive without the
birds and insects, which appeared on the fifth day to
pollinate them?These are monumental questions.Why does the Bible record that each day had an evening
and a morning?If each day were comprised of eons of time a more
appropriate rendering would be evenings and mornings.There is much more than this, but it should not take more.

Just a few thoughts for you.Firstly the Bible is not "a" book. It is a collection of 66 books written over roughly 7 centuries by who knows how many authors. There is no reason whatsoever to dicount the Gospel stories by not taking the Genesis accounts literally. Each book was written at different times in different circumstances, with different objectives.The clearest and most significant problem is with the OT accounts of Yahweh commanding and committing genocide and ordering public stoning for something as simple as picking up firewood on the Sabbath. Then in the NT Jesus tells us to :
1/ Love our enemy
2/ Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
3/ Turn the other cheek
4/ Go the extra mile
5/ He who lives by the sword dies by the sword - etc.The OT and the NT cannot both represent God.Nest let's look at what John says in the first chapter of John. He sys that the Word became flesh. He did not say that the Word became a book or a library of books.So you are left with a choice. Do you believe what we have quoted by Jesus in the NT or what the ancients wrote in the OT? It can't be both.So how should we read the Bible as a whole. I suggest that it should be read as a narrative telling the story of the Israelites climaxing in Jesus. In it we can see that over the generations there is a progressive understanding of the nature of Yahweh up to the time of Jesus.I would also say the the OT and the NT have a symbiotic relationship. We need the OT to understand the NT as the NT is full of quotes and references to what is in the OT.. At the same time we need the NT to sort out the true nature of God in order to understand much of the OT.This goes back to my point of this thread. What ultimately matters is not the name of our deity but the nature of our deity. If you are prepared to worship a god that can order public stonings and genocide then although we both call ourselves Christian we are not worshipping the same god.Paul writes that all scripture is God breathed or inspired. That is no reason to understand the Bible like a newspaper account. A metaphor can just as easily be inspired as a literal account. I would add that by trying to read it literally we actual miss what God would have us understand from what was written.
Cheers

Tangle, I do believe in the Bible, and I do not mind being
called a fool.I know that atheists, and even partial believers, insist that
the Bible, especially the OT, and more specifically the
first five books written by Moses, is pure fiction.They claim that not a word of it is true.Steward R.A. Macalister began evacuation a site in Gezer,
in 1902. Gezer is located between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.What drew his interest was the tips of twelve standing
stones. He unearthed the large stone.Located at the base of each stone were clay jars that
contained the burned remains of children, who had been
buried ritually.In front of the standing stones was a large stone, with a
flat top, and a basin in which to catch blood.On the altar was the skeletal upper half of a young girl,
perhaps six or seven years old, who had been sawed
asunder.Nearby he found the decapitated heads of two young
kids. Portions of their severed neck vertebraes were
attached.This had been a "High place" of the Amorites. The
Amorites were the strongest tribe of the Canaanites.A Canaanite high place is a place of sacrifice and
worship.A short distance from the altar Macalister unearthed a
cave containing another altar and jars filled with the
burned remains of infants.The cave also contained a heaping pile of burned
human bones.Macalister unearthed numerous idols, consisting of
many bronze serpents, representing the chief Canaanite
God, Molech

You do like dubious old sources: William Dever, quoting himself at Bible Archaeology Society

You're a fool for believing that the earth is only 6,000 years old. The rest just adds to it.

I have been to Gezer. None if the subsequent excavations support much of what Mcalister claimed.