/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I hate to say it, but only if Muslims slaughter a bunch of people. I'd rather they didn't it.

American creationism thrash?

Never. If the world keeps going for a few more centuries it will continue to change to a point beyond the stupidity that humans and dinossaurs lived together. I'd rather admit they didn't exists.

Now if you talk about the creationism defended by the Church Fathers or St. Thomas Aquinas, pretty sure once people start falling for the bait that one can extrapolate natural selection over millions of years, being impossible to prove that on a scientifical basis.

>>767666

I guess most of the Church fathers and Jesus were just rambling literalists, then.

>Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? (Matthew 19:4-5)

>In the beginning

Not "billions of years after an endless cycle of death before Adam".

From Luke:

>50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.

>from the foundation of the world

Not "billions of years after the foundation of the world", and Abel was a real, literal person.

Personally, I choose to believe Christ, not a brand-new interpretation incorporating a historically recent theory created to explain the creation of life from non-life without God. The theory of evolution in all its iterations requires a demiurge, not the true God revealed to us, who made all things "very good" from the beginning.

>>767693

What about dinosaurs?

>>767693

From whose beginning? Man's beginning, or the world's beginning?

Is the foundation of the world the beginning of the world?

>>767696

What about them?

>>767701

>Is the foundation of the world the beginning of the world?

Why are you even asking this question? They mean exactly the same thing.

>>767701

This. I find no trouble if the world has billions of years.

And even if we take the works to mean 7 exact days men wasn't created on the beggining of the world, but at the 6th day.

So that's not an argument.

The theory of the big bang is basically a proof that real creationism exists, against the atheists of that time refused to believe, until experiment gave a possible proof for it.

What we must deny is the fags that say man came by evolution.

Adam and Eve are as real as everyone here, and they were the very first human beings and everyone that ever existed came from them.

>>767701

Because the beginning of a thing need not be its foundation. The foundations of a house are only laid after their beds have been dug and the ground leveled and cleared. Work on it begins before the foundations are laid.

>>767713

I’m literally not “crapping in scripture”. That is a false accusation, and using personal insults will not convince anyone that you are correct. In fact, personal insults are against rule 2 of this board. All forms of modernism absolutely must be rejected, and retroactively trying to alter scripture to fit whatever new theory has been invented to explain the world *without* God must be rejected. Evolutionary theory is Gnosticism pretending to be science, as evidenced by the supposedly required cycle of death and animals becoming more and more like God. And before you start with the “well, what is death really?” meme, it is Biblically defined as when an organism stops breathing. Which, again, is required for evolution to work.

>>767714

Different person but I have a question. Why does it matter if possible believe in litetal creation or not? Is it more important that we focus on the future to be good Christians rather than something that happened in the past? Why do you act as if it's the most important thing a Christian should focus on?

Subscribing to creationism doesn't save you. Faith does.

>>767729

It is not settled science; all transition art forms are eventually discovered to be “separate branches” or straight up fraudulent. Even scientism’s venerated Tiktaalik has Ben show to have had unattached shoulder girdles, meaning that it could not hold itself up off the ground.

YOU are the one resorting to childish, hateful name-calling.

>>767736

Nothing you just said is correct.

Evolutionary theory has been completely re-written multiple times, because it always turns out to be wrong, again and again. That’s not just “some tics”.

And medieval make believe? Are you serious? This view has been held by the church since the first century. The church fathers who interpret it non-literally were always outliers, and none of them ever believed that man came from lower animals.

>>767727

<still using graphics from "Dr." Hovind's old sermons

Speaks volumes on the people you take as an authority. Why not do some research on your own instead of relying on a creationist second-hand source?

>>767746

Why don’t you do your own research instead of using some secular scientist as a secondhand source?

Nothing in the image I posted is false. Read the Bible yourself and see the order described there, and compare it to the order of events given in most secular interpretations of world history.

>>767770

>Why don’t you do your own research instead of using some secular scientist as a secondhand source

I don't, more importantly no one oversteps their boundaries more than Hovind does. He has a degree in Christian education from a diploma mill, and then has the audacity to openly mock anyone who devoted several years of their life to studying and researching these topics in their given field. If you think I'm objecting to Hovind solely because he's a Christian, you're dead wrong.

>Read the Bible yourself and see the order described there

Depends on how one reads it, just as with any other portion of the Bible. How else would we have so many denominations and interpretations?

>>767788

We have so many different interpretations because rather than accept that there can be only one correct interpretation of the word of God, people decide to ignore the parts that make them uncomfortable. There should be only one denomination.

Aside from that, interpreting Genesis to fit secular science requires essentially inverting every part of the narrative.

>>767788

Because heretics splitted from the Church following their vain wisdom.

>>767741

>Evolutionary theory has been completely re-written multiple times

Uh-huh.

>>767812

Yes, it has. Modern evolutionary synthesis barely resembles the evolutionary theory of the 50s.

>>767818

What are you talking about?

>>767703

Where do they fit into all this?

>>767919

Standard response would be them either (A) living along side us for a time or (B) they never existed and God was just messing with us. Either presents a lot of issues, as do other forms of life from different time periods. Lots of handwaving

>>767713

He's right though. Denying what Jesus or the Church fathers said is making them out to be idiots. And you may as well just give up your faith. It'd be no different.

I'd prefer you didn't though. I see that you'd rather not. But you're not thinking through the implications of questioning any of this. It leads to damning positions.

>>767919

Look up Kent Hovind's seminars on dinosaurs on YT

>>767922

Yeah I think this is the biggest problem with YEC, but thats not to say Darwinism is legit either.

>>767992

<Darwinism

I never understood this reasoning, it'd be like calling the heliocentric model "Copernicanism." Just as the earth isn't the center of the universe nor fixed in its position, man is one with the rest of the natural world and separated only by his duty to the Lord.

>>768136

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Copernicanism

>>768138

I meant more in a derogatory fashion, as though it's just another "-ism" in the long list of them that all good little American protties are meant to hate.