Home / Church-State Issues / Video: Baptists, Beware! A Presbyterian Attack on Creationism Is Headed Your Way.
Print Friendly and PDF

Video: Baptists, Beware! A Presbyterian Attack on Creationism Is Headed Your Way.

Written by Gary North on August 30, 2014

I gave a presentation to a Sunday School class this summer. It was on the six-day creation and attacks on it from inside conservative Presbyterian seminaries. I attended one of them.

The theory is called the framework hypothesis. It dismisses the six days of creation as literary devices. God never wanted anyone to imagine that He created the world in a sequence, let alone a six-day sequence. Sadly, they tell us, Christians up to about 1924 did not understand God’s point. They thought six days meant — can you believe it? — six days. They did not see that the six days were a literary device: 1-4, 2-5, 3-6. See? Simple. Therefore, the age of the universe is whatever Wikipedia says, give or take a billion years.

The frameworkers proclaim that God took 13.7 billion years to get to His theological point.

This view, which goes back to the Netherlands in the 1920’s, was introduced to American Presbyterians in the Westminster Theological Journal in 1958 by a very young Meredith Kline, a new faculty member at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. In 1961 and 1962, it was answered, point by point, in three articles by Edward J. Young, one of the premier Old Testament scholars in the 20th century, who was also on the Westminster faculty. In 1964, these articles were published as a book, Studies in Genesis 1.

Kline prudently refused to respond for over three decades. Then he wrote a brief follow-up article in 1996. It did not respond specifically to Young’s line-by-line refutation. It mentioned Young’s book only once: in a one-sentence footnote. It was even less exegetically rigorous than his 1958 article. Kline waited for a generation for the church to forget Young’s critique, and then he reappeared with his framework hypothesis, as if nothing had challenged it. His students at Westminster West (Escondido theology) were not born when Young’s articles and book first appeared. The book was long out of print. The articles had not been read even at the time. Kline’s academic tactic was highly successful. I review this academically embarrassing story here.

Relying on Kline’s two brief articles, and refusing to respond to Young’s — as Kline also refused — men who refuse to discard the chronology of their year in a geology course in college can pretend to appear faithful to the text in Genesis. Of course, they cannot be faithful to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), to which they must swear allegiance in order to be ordained. Chapter 4:1 reads:

It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.

But what did those theologians know? They never took a geology course at an accredited university or college.

Isn’t the Westminster Confession enforced? Not on an agreed-upon “peripheral issue” like creationism and the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2. I wrote a book on this, which you can download for free: Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church (1996). It’s 1,000 pages — great for a year of Sunday afternoons. The crossed fingers strategy is over 150 years old. Why drop it now? It is part of the American Presbyterian tradition.

Because the Bible’s chronology places the universal flood within three years of 2359 B.C., this frameworking of the text of Genesis 1 and 2 does them no good. When you are forced by the text to declare that the races of mankind are less than 5,000 years old, you will be laughed out of humanism’s court anyway.

(On the dating of the flood, see chapter 17 of my commentary on the historical books.)

The framework hypothesis offers seminary graduates a way to wiggle out of the textual trap of Genesis 1. But there is no wiggle room in the chronology of Genesis 11. If Presbyterian ruling elders wanted to screen out the frameworkers, they could use the chronology of the flood to serve as a substitute for Genesis 1. They could grill them in their presbytery examinations. Those candidates who see what Genesis 11 will do to their academic self-image could then become Methodists or Episcopalians.

SEMINARY: RIVAL APPROACHES

It is time for presbyteries to set up their own online seminaries, give the training away for free on YouTube and WordPress.com, and bring candidates under real care of regional presbyteries. Young men would not have to go into debt. Older men could do this on a part-time basis after work. There would be far more candidates for the ministry. The range of talents would be wider.

In 1811, American presbyteries began to surrender to the newly invented theological seminary (Princeton) the spiritual authority to monitor the progress of candidates for the ministry. The Calvinist Congregationalists had invented the first seminary in 1808 — Andover — because Harvard had publicly gone Unitarian in 1805. But they still required their young men to graduate from Harvard or Yale, and then study three more years. This dramatically reduced the supply of Calvinists for Congregational pulpits, and by 1860, the Unitarians had taken over Congregationalism. They had the votes.

This was replicated by Presbyterianism. The liberals took over all but Princeton Seminary by 1900, and by 1926 were in control of the Presbyterian Church, USA. In 1936, they de-frocked nine Calvinist pastors for resisting — out of 10,000 ministers.

Lesson: the faction that sets policy for the seminaries will take over the denomination within 50 years. It has to do with screening.

It is time for presbyteries to reassert their authority to train pastors — where Presbyterian law has always officially lodged this authority. Internet technology makes this possible. Cheap.

If Salman Khan can teach 10,000,000 students every month for free, then a presbytery can do the same for maybe 10 to 15 students. Trust me. It really can. The presbyteries can farm out some courses across presbyterial boundaries. The Internet is in the cloud. It’s great for heavenly material.

Who knows? Maybe foreign students for the ministry will take courses. Khan’s students are all over the world.

I tell the story of the framework hypothesis in a video. I think you will be amazed that anything this lightweight, exegetically speaking, could capture conservative seminaries. But it has.

Presbyterian pastors have known about the framework hypothesis for over 50 years. But laymen have never heard of it. Yet laymen write checks to seminaries. Better that the checks go to a local presbytery to set up an online seminary, where donors can see on YouTube what is being done with their money. (Now there’s a terrifying thought for seminary fundraisers!)

Donors can henceforth donate to a presbytery’s seminary fund. This money is used to pay pastors to produce a one-semester or one-year course: half the money in advance, half upon completion. It needs to be paid only once per course. A seminary’s curriculum should be funded one course at a time, and only once. This would end the need for annual donations until the Second Coming.

Donors give away money that is then used to trap young men in massive debt. There are better uses for this money.

The presbytery-run seminaries could hire trusted professors at existing seminaries to produce courses over the summer. They could make this offer: “In five years, you will be out of a job. How about it?” OK, they could at least make the offer to trusted retired professors.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

It should not cost $35,000 to $50,000 to graduate from seminary. But it does. Students should not take federal loans to go to seminary, but they do. The seminaries encourage this. Here is an example from my alma mater. Read it and weep.

To get access to federal funds, a seminary must be accredited. This is the key. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary — which long employed Meredith Kline — explains this quite well.

Theological seminaries and divinity schools provide graduate level education, offering degrees such as Master of Divinity, Master of Arts in Religion, Master of Christian Counseling and many more. A bachelor’s degree is required for admission. Divinity and theological schools are typically accredited by a federal agency, and are eligible for federally-funded student loans.

“What’s that?” ask terminally naive laymen. “You mean federal money comes with strings attached?” Will wonders never cease?

Therefore, desperate for students, who in turn need federal loans to afford bricks-and-mortar seminary education, conservative Presbyterian seminaries have applied for accreditation, and have received it . . . for as long as the accrediting associations allow them to keep it.

Who controls accreditation? The liberals who control the mainline denominations, which the conservatives long ago abandoned out of principle, or else were tossed out. Today, the conservative denominations’ seminaries have reapplied for acceptance. Let me describe this relationship, in 10 seconds.

What is the theological justification for this subservience, according to the seminaries? “Education is theologically neutral.” Of course! Neutral education! With neutral standards! If Machen had only understood this! What trouble he could have avoided!

So, young men spend three years writing term papers. They preach maybe three practice sermons. In round numbers, that is $15,000 per sermon.

Does this make sense? Most Presbyterian pastors think it does. They have the votes to change it, but they don’t.

According to Gordon-Conwell, here is an alternative approach.

A relatively recent trend is the development of seminaries by churches. Still rare in the U.S., these schools may offer both undergraduate and graduate degrees that prepare students to understand and apply the Bible and theology in vocational ministry. Typically, they are not accredited.

One of the best-known church based theological schools is Bethlehem College and Seminary developed by Minneapolis Bethlehem Baptist Church.

The key words are “not accredited” and “Baptist.”

If most Presbyterian pastors did not have lifelong academic inferiority complexes, presbyteries would start free online seminaries. But the pastors suffer greatly. They can preach, but they don’t like to write heavily footnoted term papers. So, they defer to federally accredited theological seminaries. They let footnoting screen the next generation of pastors.

They have done this for 200 years.

A dozen pastors — active or retired — could produce the entire curriculum in three years: one pastor per course per year. They could post their courses online. Presbyteries anywhere could adopt them. Each presbytery does not have to produce all of the curriculum. It can sanction courses from anywhere. There is no geography in the cloud.

Why don’t they do it? Tradition!

If you want to annoy a Presbyterian pastor, send him a copy of this article. Ask him: “Is this really true? You guys really consent to this, when you could change it? Why?”

Here is the answer, of course: “Because we aren’t Baptists.” He won’t say it, but he will think it.

CONCLUSION

My lecture is posted on YouTube. Any pastor can do this. The technology is cheap: under $150. A smartphone on a $25 tripod, a $35 lapel microphone, a $25 cable to convert the smartphone’s earphones jack into a microphone jack, a $50 video editing program, and he’s ready to go.

For each seminary course (other than Greek and Hebrew), produce ten 12-lesson Sunday School courses: introduction, 10 lessons, and a conclusion. Make them practical. Explain why biblical theology is practical: applied theology. Seminary students are busy. Don’t make them study theology that is impractical. Seminary students need to be trained for trench warfare, not academic diplomacy. They really don’t need to study the writings of dead Germans — not at age 23. They need to understand C. I. Scofield and Hal Lindsey a lot more than they need to understand Barth and Bultmann. Then provide a reading list in a PDF. Produce some exams that a local pastor can administer. That’s all that a student needs from any classroom. It’s also all that a well-trained layman needs, with or without the exams.

I have another suggestion. It is admittedly radical. Tie the entire curriculum to the Bible and Calvin’s writings, including his 200 sermons on Deuteronomy. I can hear the cries of despair. “What’s this? A Calvinist seminary based on Calvin? This has never been attempted!” Why not give it a try?

“But,” pastors will say, “I’m just too busy.”

Meredith Kline was not too busy.

For three more videos on creation, click here.

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

94 thoughts on “Video: Baptists, Beware! A Presbyterian Attack on Creationism Is Headed Your Way.

  1. silenthammer says:

    GOD IS. He has been from eternity, and will be forever. We do not KNOW this, but we BELIEVE it. The Bible, in its many forms and translations, is an act of FAITH. It explains our relationship with GOD and with men. It has been translated, interpreted and argued since Gutenberg (and probably before). Why do we care if God actually created the "heavens and the earth" and all therein in 6 days, or the term "six days" is a metaphor the author of Genesis had to use to EXPLAIN how, to primitive, pagan, illiterate tribal people who were in slavery or escaping from it in a desert, exactly WHAT GOD TOLD HIM IN SPIRIT? Namely, that HE LOVES US, created this world for us to inhabit and enjoy, and then created us. That we, primitive and ignorant and totally "survivlaistic" would and DUD screw it up by DOUBTING GOD'S LOVE, AND DISRESPECTING HIS ADVICE TO AVOID SIN. "Evolution" is a term that so many revile,because they believe it precludes the existence of God. To avoid controversy, I use the term "natural selection," in which nature, through chance, eliminates certain species because the environment at the place and time of their existence became too hostile to live in. They either adapted or died. many MOVED and lived. All kinds of stuff happened in that long period of time. Can God set up a "falling dominoes" design that would go on for millions of eons? Well, if He created everything from nothing, then He can and could do ANYTHING! Please, don't argue about it. Listen to each other and allow them to have their beliefs. And DO as God told us: Love ogGod with all your being, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

  2. As a Christian, I always try to keep two things in mind: (1) there are over 30,000 Christian denominations; (2) never confuse religion with Christianity.

  3. Anyone looking for a real solution to the problems noted in this article should check out: schoolofchristinternational.com

    The curriculum is already done and is being used world wide. Literally thousands of churches have been born out of this school.

  4. @ silent hammer: If you've read Gary North's material, it's not obvious from what you write. The Bible itself is NOT "an act of FAITH', but is God's revealing himself to mankind. You evidently know nothing about the history of its transmission and I'm not going to explain it here. But if we believe that the Bible is such a revelation, we care that it's a trustworthy account of who God is and how he has revealed himself to us. What you are pleased to call "his advice to avoid sin" the Bible calls God's law.; you ignore God's plan of salvation entirely. IF you have any serious understanding of what the Bible teaches, you give no evidence of it in what you have written.

  5. SapientHetero says:

    It's scary that anyone can believe in the literal truth of the biblical creation story, but I don' t really have a problem with it as long as they don't try to force-feed their religious beliefs to my kids in school. It's a shame that the Bible is reduced by some to Bronze Age fairy tales. Is it really necessary to believe the universe was created in 6 days in order to receive Jesus' message of hope and love? I don't think so.

  6. Thank you, Grant, you are the only one I have found on any comment site that knows that there is a difference between religion and Christianity! We will always have distortions in the churches because the man-made religions under the influence of Satan think they know more than God and want to do things their way.

  7. This is enough to make me want to unsubscribe from the Tea Party Economist.

  8. The Lord warned us this would happen more and more as we get closer to His return. We don't know when the rapture will take place but we do know what we should be doing in the meantime: 2 Pet 3:8
    2 Tim 3:1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.
    2 Tim 3:12-13 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
    2 Tim 3:2-4 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
    Heb 13:9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied, were not benefited.
    II Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (intellectuals seeking.)

  9. Sapient, I have a degree in geology and I believe in the literal truth of the creation story. There were way too many "just-so" stories in my undergraduate training for me to swallow it whole. Without the "Bronze Age fairy tales", Jesus' message of hope and love is based on nothing.

  10. desierasmus says:

    As overripe an example of chronological snobbery as I've seen in a while, by a victim of "schooling" who imagines that he got educated there: "It's a shame that the Bible is reduced by some to Bronze Age fairy tales. Is it really necessary to believe the universe was created in 6 days in order to receive Jesus' message of hope and love? I don't think so."

    Why Schools Don't Educate http://thesunmagazine.org/archives/937?page=3
    Weapons of Mass Instruction, the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbhQ7aepvkg
    the book: http://antioligarch.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/j

  11. Ok, on to the comment I was going to make re Gary's article before reading all the beside-the-point comments above…
    Why cling to the Presbyterian church in the face of this near-universal apostasy? Why not just do what I did, which is jettison it, and go on to other groups which continue to uphold the Word of God? I know this is conceding to the liberals a great old institution, but institutions are man-made, and it looks like this one has served its purpose. God can pick up one instrument and put down another. He's not limited in His choice of tools.
    BTW, I'm continually amazed by the ability of Gary's readers to get off-topic in their zeal to grind their particular axes and ride their particular hobby-horses.

  12. Go ahead, Longwood (or is it Shane?). We don't need this kind of unsubstantiated "dissing" in this forum.

  13. mjschlecht says:

    Please do not confuse the liberal Presbyterian church with the conservative Presbyterian churches. The Presbyterian
    Church of America was born 30 or 40 years ago by some men who were unhappy with the way the Presbyterian USA
    was heading. Presbyterian USA is a liberal segment of Presbyterianism. The PCA takes the Bible literally as a tool
    by which we live, in our churches and in our lives. The PCA has it's own conservative seminaries teaching men to
    pastor churches and the congregations.

  14. I am a product of a Baptist church owned seminary. I attended two, in fact. The cost was nominal (i.e., no debt) and the education was good (later I also taught at both those institutions). I am a supporter of this approach to Theological education. You are pretty much on the mark, Gary North.

  15. "don't try to force-feed their religious beliefs to my kids in school."

    They are already being force-fed the evolutionary religion in school so your point is irrelevant. Any belief, theory, or idea about origins of life is deeply religious. Evolution is certainly deeply religious as shown by its great faith in the Big Bang. Stop letting the pagans intimidate you into believing silly theories!

    Faith if the foundation of reason not vice-versa. Science is not neutral. There is no neutrality.

  16. Finally an example of how/why the Christian denomination of "Southern Baptist Convention" is showing its extremism…as it fights against the all the mainstream Protestant denominations!
    These Southern Baptist Convention evangelicals always lump ALL Christian denominations together and label ALL as Christians. And the Republican Party has fallen for it!!!!!!

  17. Stuart Shepherd says:

    I'm sorry, but it's EXTREMELY simple to understand ALL of it if you just look at the WORDS. The Bible is the WORD. It is filled with WORDS. CHRIST is the WORD. The creation WORDS are HEBREW. yOU MUST STUDY hebrew, NOT english!! to understand the WORDS. The Hebrew words translated to english as "world," "earth," etc. had both a physical and a spiritual meaning- as do ALL Hebrew words. It is God's language of His people chosen to be the entry of Holiness unto the earth and the Holiest of the Holy- Christ Himself. The "world" or "Earth" always meant this- the land Israel, the Jewish people, the Temple, etc. There is nothing in the Bible that isn't 100% "true," but the creation story refers to the first "man" (sinless at creation and with a spiritual capacity to commune with God). It happened just as writen, in 6 days, but the "world" and "earth" are the land of Israel, untainted by the (pre-existing) sin and evilness of Satan's "world" (the ENTIRE "earth") previously (as in Baptism!!!). God did not give us Science to mislead us. The earth age is undoubtedly as scientists have discovered. Evolution, as far as it has been proven, happened undoubtedly as scientists have discovered. They are 2 separate things!! There were people around, don't forget, when Cain was expelled by God for killing aAble. The "gentiles." The evolved. God "tricked" Satan into thinking he had full and forever dominion over men and the earth (ENTIRE). Sorry, but I'm right. The Bible is 100% true. Science is probably close to 100% true, as well. There is no discrepancy- AT ALLL. In fact, they reinforce each other!

  18. Cal Wortman says:

    The Biblical account of creation is true. Death did not appear on the scene until sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. Evolution requires death, therefore the theory of evolution is impossible unless we call God a liar. If you believe that the creation account in Genesis took billions of years, your God is too small. The Bible is very clear, God spoke creation into existence. Constant attempts to minimize God are becoming tiresome. Just believe God.

  19. Scripture clearly teaches us that God is unchanging–He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow on into the eternal future. Since the natural laws that govern how the universe came into being and is "maintained" today are His laws and thereby an extension of Him, by definition we must believe that they also are unchanging, and are the same today as they were in the past and will be into the future until such time as He may choose to transform His universe and establish His new Kingdom.

    Given the truth of the above, it is neither blasphamy nor heretical to accept the Biblical description of Creation as propositionally , rather than literally true. The natural world around us is repleat with clear evidence of the natural laws that were (and still are) involved in its creation, laws and evidence that God instilled in us the curiosity and intelligence to search out and understand, and give us a tangible realization of just how great His power is. This evidence does far more than just "suggest" how Creation ocurred, and the myriad steps that were involved, and the eons that he planned for those steps to bring His world to the phyisical condition that we see and experience today. To ignore this evedence is the real heretical blasphamy!

  20. Ronald J Van Putten says:

    This is not a comment to the above blog. However, I would be interested in your economic perspective( or any other published analysis) to " the Chicago Plan" as referenced in a video interview with Ambrose Evans-Pritchard the other day. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-26/intervie

  21. dick grace says:

    It is the battle over knowledge of Daniel 9:26 and II Corinthians 10:1-6. The harlots of our time don't know or teach the use of the armor of God of Ephesians 6:10-19. The churches of our time don't know God, are unprepared to fight the spiritual battle and useless in the work of the Kingdom.

  22. Grumpy Old Man says:

    Some arguments and comments on this thread are logical and understandable and some reveal the inability of their authors to process language, evidence and logical assertions. I hear Gary North clearly and agree with his excellent analysis. I hope to hear more of the same logic in the future.

  23. Lt Roger Wilco says:

    Listen up: here is the truth–there is no god. Stop worrying about it. Protect yourself from rabid believers like mus (remember Christians were killing each other a few centuries ago, Catholics burned reformers alive when they had the upper hand, then the reformers burned Catholics alive when the tables turned, and everyone killed Jews and still do). Those of us who are atheists have to watch our backs for believers are good at one thing and that is killing anyone who doesn't subscribe to their particular screwed-up god.

  24. Dr. North ISN'T confusing them. In the article, he's talking about the seminaries that most PCA pastors attend. On most issues, they are pretty good, but not so much on Genesis, and when you're not good on Genesis, it's unlikely that you'll be good on other subjects for long.

    Your church probably has a great pastor and good things probably get preached from it's pulpit. That's not the issue, the issue is laying a good foundation for the next generation. Being faithful is the most important thing, but it's also important to be aware and clever about what the enemy's plans are. Satan ALWAYS wants to undermine Scripture and Genesis is the easiest place to start.

  25. Dexrter L. Wilson says:

    Great sources for the truth are http://www.creationevidence.org, http://www.creationworldview.org, and Lee Strobel's book, "The Case For A Creator".;

  26. Please don't include all churches. There are some who truly believe in the Scriptures as written. Yes, and God could and probably did create just as it is presented in Genesis. Read "The Signature of God" by Grant Jeffery. Many proofs re:God inspired Scripture.

  27. I really feel sorry for you, Roger. You have your head buried in the sand and don't seem to know a thing about Scripture and its Truths. God bless you, anyway. I know He will, because He loves even you.

  28. Sean McDonald says:

    Apparently, because of one bad seminary that the author of the article attended, the entire seminary system is a failure. I would merely suggest attending a different seminary. For example, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary (Grand Rapids, MI) is an accredited seminary maintained by two NAPARC denominations (the Heritage Reformed Congregations and the Free Reformed Churches), which also maintains a strict position on literal six day young earth creationism. In point of fact, it is accredited by the Association of Theological Schools, the same entity which has given accreditation to Westminster Theological Seminary.

  29. People like Stalin and Mao have shown the world that, when it comes to killing lots of people, atheists make everyone else look like amateurs.

  30. J. Griffin Crump says:

    The Rev. Samuel Doak, cousin of my 4th-great grandmother, Mary Doak, was a graduate of Princeton and preached with his rifle in the pulpit. He wouldn't recognize most of today's Presbyterians.

  31. I think it's safe to say there are over 30,000 types of Christians who think they have "Christianity" and not "religion".

  32. Yeah. Uh huh. It's strange that the Bible even declares that a day is not be taken literally and can mean maybe a thousand years. Throughout history Christian theologians never assumed the world was just 6,000 years old. Right up until the "Origin of Species" everyone was assuming the Universe was around 20 million years old or so. For some reason when some Bible-belt folk caught wind of evolution they took a hissy-fit and decided the Book of Genesis is now literal history so they pretend they're some sort of demigod because they notion they share 98% of their DNA with chimps and bonobos is too much for their special-little-snowflake egos.

    Nonetheless Americans easily refute the 6,000 year old nonsense by looking to the night sky with binoculars or telescope and look at the Andromeda Galaxy. It's 2 million light years away and the light you are seeing when you look at it is 2 million year old.

  33. Why do we care about anything God says then? Why should we take Him serious about anything? Why don't we make up anything we want then if God doesn't care? God is not a God of confusion. If Jesus refers to Sodom or Noah or anything in the Old Testament, it is either because He is lying to us or He is confirming the authenticity of all the Bible. There is no in-between.

  34. KayLyn VanderVeen says:

    Amen and amen. Truthfully I thought this article was a tongue in cheek thing, but maybe not. We belong to one of the Evangelical Presbyterian churches. They preach from the Bible and keep the Word as it should be. Thanks be to God for them!!!

  35. Jeers1215 says:

    Are lightbeams somehow more difficult to create than stars?
    Are lightbeams somehow more difficult to create than mistaken theologians?

  36. what is a 'day' to God?
    We have no idea.
    When 'man' involves his puny mind into the affairs of a Supreme Being, he comes up laughably SHORT.

    Believe what you want. God is MATURE. He knows what He knows.

    We do not..

    Believe what you want. God does not care. He is too busy with the rest of the universe to care.

    God loves everyone and everything, something we don't do very well.

  37. These would be the same PCUSA folks who just passed their self-assigned "authority" to allow SSM couples to openly marry in their congregations and to initiate an investment divestiture move against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. Sorry, but wrote the PCUSA off the credible list after this news surfaced. Now, all of a sudden, they are euridite experts in cosmological matters? Maybe they should pay a little more attention to their largely uninformed and bipolar social and political platforms.

    Just love the hermeneutic revisionist approach, although this is nothing new. IMHO, it would appear far more difficult to prove that the Hebrew word – yom (day) – as it is used throughout the rest of the OT could have equaled more than a day according to the Hebrew language. 'Yom ahad' simply means – day one. Taking such things out of context has never come forward with any real coherent scaffolding. Of course the PCUSA will probably be embracing "Chrislam" by this time next year anyway. That, will be an interesting argument.

  38. Stuart Shepherd says:

    Wrong. It's all about good and evil. Sin is behavior that is a manifestation of evil. This is Satan's world- or at least Satan thought so until God introduced Holiness through the first "man"- Adam and the nation of Israel (in a form) and the temple with the Holiest of Holies where God dwelt and pentulitmately in Christ Himself. Satan "ruled" "earth," along with the fallen angel cohorts for billions and billions of "years" before the appearance of even an atmosphere conducive to life existed on the planet. The Bible says that Satan is the "god" of this world and not only is that true because the Bible says it- but it's not difficult to see it just looking around!! ManKIND existed prior to Adam. Adam was the vehicle for God to not only draw sons unto Himself but to, eventually, snuff out evil itself in this universe or any other, including "heaven." Evil is a tool, in a sense, by God to reproduce in the likeness of Himself/His son. Only those who have completely triumphed over evil can do this, and one can do this without simple being filled with the Holy Spirit that God has so mercifully bestowed through the work that He Himself did in conquering evil on earth. Evil is not banished as yet (in case you haven't noticed), but is is conquered, and satan awaits his final destruction. He knows this, and he will "ratchet" the evil up in the very last days- to have his fun while he still can! Then, the end. Judgment day. Lake of fire. New heaven and new earth.
    Some type of evolutionary PROCESS (natural selection) DID occur, but it is IMPSSIBLE thermodynamically (including the concept of entropy) for it to have been the source of life, in its' complexity- the most comples entities in the universe. Impossible.

  39. Stuart Shepherd says:

    Well they're morons, then, and I wouldn't really be too trusting of their theology. At a minimum, they could have some humility and say they can't, in their understanding, congrue the scientific findings with the biblical account as they interpret it. God did not put all this evidence of the time of the formation of the universe and earth, etc and the amazing rational and reasoning minds that we have to "fool" us. I hate to speak for God but I know enough of His character through what He has revealed to know that that never happened and never would. a fool says in their heart "there is no God," but a fool is arrogant, as well, and without humility. Humility is the foundation of TRUE knowledge.

  40. It seems that writer Gary North is out of his time. He belongs to the "good old days" of Christian sectarian violence, such as when Puritans hanged Quakers for heresy.

    But it might be good to have people like Gary North around, since I hear there's a lot of witches out there casting evil spells on innocent people. If true, it might be a good idea to invest in firewood.

  41. "Bronze Age" – perhaps the favorite phrase of unbelievers online.

  42. You don't believe you are in any danger from unbelievers, but its' fascinating watching you pretend you do.

  43. Stuart Shepherd says:

    No, both God's laws and the Biblical description of creation are BOTH literally true. The "earth" and "world" etc used are ENGLISH words. In Hebrew they mean, variably, the nation of Israel, God's people (the Jews) the Temple, etc.- anything that represented God's means, including adam the first "man," for bringing/ introducing holiness and his redemption plan into Satan's world. Satan was here before the creation story!. The people outside Adam's family that Caion feared were here before the creation story. Jews (at least scholarly ones) have never had a problem reconciling the creation story with scientific findings. They knew this BEFORE the scientific findings- from what is written in Scripture. They do not involve themselves in controversy regarding this matter. We should not, either.

  44. Stuart Shepherd says:

    It's not about "logic"- it's about the revealed word of God. You and your logic are not God!

  45. Stuart shepherd says:

    You'll sure be calling out to God when you're about to be murdered or something. You'll sure start to believe in evil right about then. Hw 'bout if you had a hood on waiting for your head to be literally cut off by the moslems?!

  46. Stuart Shepherd says:

    A day, to God, is exactly the same as a day to us. Scripture repeatedly says "the sun came up" and "went down" and it was another day.

  47. SapientHetero says:

    Jesus' message of hope and love stands on its own, without the support of magic dust or other fairy tales. It's a shame that some have insufficient faith to accept that, and an even bigger shame that some feel the need to force their lack of faith on others.

    I have a degree in Astronautics, and I study physics, biology and astronomy in my spare time (now that the kids are grown). Do you really imagine our respective educational backgrounds make one of us more or less suited to understand the gospel?

  48. SapientHetero says:

    Evolution explains many aspects of the world before us, including the current growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. And evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the big bang theory; evolution deals with biology, while the big bang deals with cosmology. Perhaps you're confusing these scientific theories with the book of Genesis, which deals with both the origins of animal life on earth and the origins of the earth and "heaven" (which reflects the Bronze Age understanding of the universe that underlies it).

  49. You don't get it. Science is impossible without the God of the Bible. Without the uniformity of nature scientists are lost. Evolution is based on faith no matter which type you might call it; ditto with the cosmos.

    Any theory about the nature of origins is deeply religious; any ideas about purpose and meaning in life is also deeply religious. So I repeat the public schools already teach one form of faith based religion in school as you make silly statements to the contrary.

  50. So I await for your scientific explanation of the uniformity of nature without referring to the Bible. And don't put words into the mouth of God in your answer either like you did when you wrote that Genesis is only about animal life. Cute strategy. I guess scientists expected a detailed list of every single organism ever created as an appendix to the Bible.

  51. SapientHetero says:

    That's interesting, because I'm waiting for your scientific (or otherwise) explanation of the existence of a god who can create the universe in 6 days. Where did this being come from, and whence are his (or her) powers derived? Surely the existence of such a being is no less inexplicable than anything we see in nature.

    I reject your claim that any scientific theory about the nature of origins is religious in any respect, as well as the claim that science is impossible without the god of the Bible. Science, including evolution, is an attempt to explain what we observe, nothing more or less. Religion, on the other hand, is an attempt to coerce people into engaging in certain behaviors. Hardly the same thing at all.

    I suppose that next you'll claim that moral behavior is impossible without believing in your particular brand of religion. It won't surprise you to learn that I"m going to reject that too, and observe that religion has been the cause of much of mankind's inhumanity to others over the ages.

    No doubt you'll be flabbergasted to learn that I'm a strong fiscal conservative and somewhat less strong social liberal, by which I mean that I want government's hands out of my pockets and out of my life. Although I reject the mysticism that is apparently a key element of your religious belief I'm a strong proponent of Jesus' teachings as well as what I consider to be the core commandments from the Old Testament. Unlike many others, I feel no need to compel others to act as though they believe as I do; religion is a matter best kept between each individual and their god.

    If it makes you feel any better, I'm even more opposed to liberals trying to force their false gods of "social justice", "equality", etc. on the unwilling majority of Americans. But from my point of view, we're either free, in which case each of us can make up our own minds what to believe, or we're not, in which case whoever is doing the forcing is my enemy.

  52. Just as I suspected you demand autonomy. Nor did you explain the uniformity of nature. Its assumed within every single scientific experiment.

    Science assumes the uniformity of nature to do an experiment and then acts upon that assumption, therefore, science is an act of faith, not reason, in the uniformity of nature.

    " I feel no need to compel others to act as though they believe as I do; religion is a matter best kept between each individual and their god."

    So if someone stole your car you would feel no need to compel the authorities to prosecute them! Amazing. You just denied the entire basis of our legal system.

    Meanwhile you're just fine with shoving your system of evolutionary science, based upon faith, down the throats of everyone. You reject biblical religion in place of secular religion. Beliefs about origins is deeply religious just as science is also.

    What you folks you mean is you deny any system of biblical ethics. There are no moral absolutes in your world. Fine. I get that.

  53. SapientHetero says:

    That's right, I demand liberty and condemn any who seek to enslave me regardless of their excuse for trying.

    I didn't explain the "uniformity" of nature, whatever you mean by that, because I feel no reason to play your game. Your belief in a god "explains" nothing; you simply state your belief without any support for it and expect others to be impressed. Why, then, do you insist that those who accept the evidence for evolution do anything more than you require of yourself?

    So far as the rest of your post, I suggest that you go read what I actually wrote instead of putting your words in my mouth.

  54. First, just for the record, the Hebrew word 'erets, which is used some 2500 times in the OT, is translated (with a few minor exceptions) in context variousky as world, land, country, earth, ground and field (Strong OT: 776)

    Second, by way of full disclosure, I am a born again Christian, and have spend considerable time in in-depth studies of both the old and the new testsments, so I have more than casual understanding of their content. I also by academic training and experience am a scientist, with knowledge of both biological and earth sciences.

    Third, the point that I made, and which you ignore in your response, is that the phyical EVIDENCE that is present all around us today in both the geological and the biological record allows us, using the intelligence and reasoning powers that God has provided us with, tto gain clear insight into His narural laws and how they have driven the physical and biological processes by which our world has developed into what we see aorund us today. And nothing we see contradicts the Biblical descrption of creation if we understand that that description is propositionally, rather than litreally true. To insist that the science is wrong, is to refuse to accept the infallibility of God's natural laws, laws the the Bible itself tells us are unchanging and are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow,

    Scripture is full of figurative descrptions. One of the more obvious is Josh 10:13 " And the sun stood still," in response to a command from the Lord, while the nation took vengance on their enemies.At that time it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth. We no now that it is the earth that had to stand still, not the sun, since the sun does not move. Scripture was written in terms that the people of that tiime could reasonably understand. The same applies to the creation story, which pretty much follows the far more complex and lengthy process sequences that science eventually revealed. The 4.6 billion year age of the earth is based very simply on the evidence that God has revealed to us.

  55. Dr. North, on what chronology do you base your 2359+/-3 global flood date? That differs by about a decade from the Ussher/Jones chronology which, in my current thinking, seems most accurate. Thank you.

  56. "any who seek to enslave me regardless of their excuse for trying. "

    You are already a slave! All humans have a choice to either serve God or Satan. There is no other choice. You think you serve nobody but yourself. How sad.

    These aren't games either whether you understand science and the uniformity of nature or not. If nature wasn't so predictable then the scientific method is impossible. So kindly explain how your evolutionary worldview accounts for predictable daily conditions in a world of matter alone where chaos, chance, and change are assumed.

    I know. You cannot. Only the God of the Bible accounts for logic, intelligence, morality, reason, etc. Evolution accounts for chaos, chance, and a world with no meaning. Or maybe you can account for these things. Go ahead.

    In any event its clear who you wish to serve; just stop bashing Christians or be prepared to defend your worldview.

  57. Arnold Rowntree says:

    Thanks Gary, since talking to a minister called Kevin about a year ago I've been all for this. He does it by taking in a few young men into his home and discipling them in person. Somehow his presbytery is tolerating him. This will give many more the confidence that it can be done.

  58. SapientHetero says:

    Wrong; all humans have the choice to either let others do their thinking for them, or to do it themselves. I choose to do my own.

    So far as your argument about predictability, many systems exhibit emergent properties that arise from chaos; consider the formations in which birds fly, for instance. I could explain in details but seriously doubt you could follow the math. Also, you seem to be confusing evolution with physics.

    I know, but you cannot because you're blinded by your religion. And you STILL haven't explained where this marvelous god of yours came from. What was his origin? Who created him? Or are you one of those "turtles all the way down" people?

    And I'll bash anyone who seeks to limit my freedom to think on my own and act on my thoughts. Why don' t YOU stop bashing people who disagree with you and let us live our lives without your interference?

  59. SapientHetero says:

    If the shoe fits…

  60. SapientHetero says:

    Perhaps he confused his 'flood date' with his 'angels on the head of a pin' calculation.

  61. "And I'll bash anyone who seeks to limit my freedom to think on my own and act on my thoughts.

    A typical science hypocrite! You are the one limiting freedom by insisting that only your faith based evolutionary religion is taught in school.

    You cannot tolerate others having the choice of other options in school as it convicts you of your sin, so you seek to banish all other religions from school except your own of course. As a said a typical hypocrite is thinks he is free but is a slave.

    And any decent scientist understands the uniformity of nature and how its essential to the scientific method. But under your worldview there is no uniformity of nature so you borrow from my worldview to practice your hypocrisy.

  62. SapientHetero says:

    Why is it that religious fanatics have so much trouble distinguishing between the freedom to do their own thing and the "freedom" to impose their wishes on others? Joe Stalin would be proud of the mental gymnastics you engage in to excuse your pathological need to enslave others.

    What I can't tolerate is people who pretend that teaching their religious beliefs is the same as teaching sound science. I can't tolerate people who maintain that they're being robbed of their "right" to teach their religion to others' children.

    You're just as bad as the liberals who twist the language in a dishonest attempt to frame their obnoxious arguments in terms that people will support. Your religion is NOT science, and it never will be. Your point of view is not shared by a majority of Christians, much less a majority of all Americans.

    I suggest that you go look up "hypocrite" in the dictionary. A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another, not someone who you believe is mistaken in their beliefs. So, for instance, you're a hypocrite if you think your religious beliefs should be taught in public schools but those of other religious beliefs should not. I imagine that describes you perfectly.

    Thanks for sharing your muddled reasoning and basic misunderstandings of language, logic and science. It's obvious that you don't care about others' rights; indeed, you don't seem concerned about rights at all, only getting what you want regardless of whether it's fair or reasonable. You've made it clear that you're just as dangerous and irrational as the liberals you no doubt object to.

  63. Sean McDonald says:

    "Well they're morons, then, and I wouldn't really be too trusting of their theology. . . . a fool is arrogant, as well, and without humility. Humility is the foundation of TRUE knowledge."

    Matthew 12:37: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

  64. "What I can't tolerate is people who pretend that teaching their religious beliefs is the same as teaching sound science."

    Aww, tsk tsk. Why so intolerant? You are one blinded by your evolutionary religion who cannot dare acknowledge the deeply religious nature of his belief system about the origins of life. Your faith is great in secular science I see. So go ahead through life thinking you have autonomy which is your true god.

    Your faith in the big bang, evolution, and science is great. Nor do you understand the nature of reason, logic, and moral absolutes so you put words in my mouth. To make yourself feel better you equate belief in the Bible with Communism! Nice trick.

    Do you always argue against the words you put in the mouths of others? Without the absolute God science is impossible and you don't even know why.

    I still am waiting your explanation for the uniformity of nature that makes science possible. But I know its not forthcoming from a religious zealot like yourself who is aghast that another belief system other than his own might ever be taught in the public school.

    Or try to prove how reason is the foundation of faith. I know you think that is true since you worship the evolutionary belief system. Go ahead and give it the old college try.

  65. SapientHetero says:

    Each word you write reinforces my conviction that you're a liberal who happens to also be a religious bigot. You're incoherent, intolerant and filled with hate for those who see the world differently than you do, yet imagine yourself to be superior to those whose thoughts you can't understand. THANK GOD the legal separation of church and state protects us from people like you. Too bad we don't (yet) have similar protections from your fellow liberals.

  66. "And I'll bash anyone who seeks to limit my freedom to think on my own and act on my thoughts.

    A typical science hypocrite! You are the one limiting freedom by insisting that only your faith based evolutionary religion is taught in school.

    You cannot tolerate others having the choice of other options in school as it convicts you of your sin, so you seek to banish all other religions from school except your own of course. As a said a typical hypocrite is thinks he is free but is a slave.

    And any decent scientist understands the uniformity of nature and how its essential to the scientific method. But under your worldview there is no uniformity of nature so you borrow from my worldview to practice your hypocrisy.
    Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/08/30/baptists-

  67. SapientHetero says:

    Evolution is science; your religious beliefs are not. There is no equivalence between the two. And if we did teach your religion in schools, we'd have to teach others as well. And then we'd have to teach various religious alternatives to physics, chemistry, biology, medicine…. This is why we don't allow government to promote religion in America (or at least we didn't, before "W" Bush violated the Constitution to promote Christianity; now we have Obama building on "W"s precedent to teach Islam in public schools).

    By the way, I'm STILL waiting for your scientific (or otherwise) explanation of the existence of a god who can create the universe in 6 days. Where did this being come from, and whence are his (or her) powers derived? Surely the existence of such a being is no less inexplicable than anything we see in nature.

    And I'm sure I'll keep on waiting, because in the end you believe what you do because you want to, and no other reason. Unlike evolution, for which there is ample physical evidence, there is no proof that your god exists. That, my friend, is one of the main differences between science and religion and the reason why evolution is taught in school and your religion is not.

  68. SapientHetero says:

    Are you saying I'm a "time snob" because I think we understand more about the world these days than Bronze Age humans did? ROFL!

  69. For the 3rd and FINAL time I request your proof that evolution is not based on faith. Every scientist assumes the uniformity of nature in order to conduct ANY experiment and then acts upon that assumption. That means its an act of FAITH. But since you don't even understand the uniformity of nature you cannot even follow logic. Nor can you account for logic either or even your own reason. You ask for evidence for God when God says you have all the evidence you are ever going to get. Its Romans 1:19 by the way. So you KNOW God exists but you suppress that truth because you adore your sin. Its that simple. Now go cry about more evidence it will do you no good or express your other religious views in science. They do you no good either because you serve sin rather than the living God. I get that. So until you answer my questions I'll ignore your petty hypocrisy.

  70. desierasmus says:

    There were no doubt time snobs in the Bronze age as well. In fact they appear in every age, but on the whole I suspect the Bronze age victims of the malady had a more modest set of knowledge claims, and a much more accurate sense of how much they didn't know, than you do. You are besotted by the mythologies of your own time, and are plainly unaware of it, a variety of invincible ignorance that is a too common product of contemporary institutional school experience, which specializes in producing tethered minds. http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=11375

  71. "because I'm waiting for your scientific (or otherwise) explanation of the existence of a god who can create the universe in 6 days. Where did this being come from, and whence are his (or her) powers derived?"

    Part 2 of my answer to your silly request:

    Christ answers for me in Luke 16:31 which says that if someone arose from the dead to give you the proof you think you need then you still wouldn't believe it.

    Evidence is not the problem. You already have enough. You just refuse to submit to the Creator so repent while you still have time.

    Luk 16:31 "Then Abraham told him, 'If your brothers do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even if someone were to rise from the dead.'"

    If you had any integrity you would agree that all beliefs including evolution should be available for kids to learn in school at their own option. But you cannot tolerate any other religion than your own being taught. Worse you label others who believe differently as lunatics and fanatics. Clearly you lack the confidence in your own belief system.

  72. What I find is scary is that so many Christians do not take the Bible literally and try to fit God into their box. God did not and does not need billions of years to create anything. He took whatever time he took. Maybe it was six thousand years, since one day is as a thousand years to Him. Maybe it was six 24-hour-periods. Maybe it was eons. Who cares? As long as people find Christ and believe the Bible is 100% true, which it is, God can take whatever time He wants. But He certainly doesn't need gazillions of years to create. And it's time for the myth of evolution to disappear.

  73. Humble Believer says:

    For as long as you suck the government teat and impose your materialist mythology on the rest of us with our taxpayer dollars, you have no moral leg to stand on because you are nothing but a government fink,a parasite, and a hypocrite. You are also no scientist; the assertion that we "should" or "ought to" do anything is wholly metaphysical and supernatural. As the scientific method only applies to surmising natural causes and effects, it is wholly incapable of dictating to us that we ought to believe in *anything*, let alone the materialist miracles of something from nothing (the "Big Bang"), life from non-life ("spontaneous generation") or order from chaos (the rest of the evolution myth to which you are so blindly and stupidly committed).

    Neither does science dictate that we should fund or in any way support any of the legions of government-teat-sucking useless eaters (a.k.a. evolutionists) searching for non-existent natural causes of wholly mythological events that never occurred for the sake of a model based on nothing but the wishful thinking of atheist fools. Evolution is not science at all, but a materialist belief system based on the fool's errand of trying to find a natural cause for everything in the universe. In such a materialist setting, you have no free will, no rights, and no moral authority whatsoever, as everything you think to do can only be the predetermined product of chemical reactions a long string of reactions. As such, the only thing your "science" dictates is that you can dictate nothing whatsoever; the natural processes that the scientific method helps make known to you are incapable of providing you with any self or will whatsoever.

    Your materialist mythology is therefore self-refuting: you have no compelling scientific reason why I or anyone else must believe in it, yet your mythology is based on everything having a compelling scientific reason to happen. You try to dictate to us that we owe you your liberty to disagree with us; but liberty has no material cause and is therefore unscientific. You try to dictate that we must pay taxes to teach your materialist mythology to children; but morality comes only from free will and free will has no natural cause and is therefore unscientific. You try to dictate that we must not impose our beliefs in such supernatural effects as miraculous six-day creation, resurrection, virgin birth, and the like on you and your children in public schools; but the decisions of the government officials who run those schools and those of us who vote them in or out of power have no natural cause and are therefore unscientific.

    Science dictates no course of action whatsoever to us; only wholly unscientific supernatural interventions from the metaphysical realm can dictate any of those things. Only religion and its handmaiden philosophy can dictate what we ought or ought not to do; the scientific method is their slave, dictating only whether what we decide to do is feasible or not. Evolution is impossible because nothing can never bring forth something, life cannot arise from non-life, and order cannot arise from chaos except through supernatural will and power. To assert that God *must* have used wholly naturalistic processes to create everything in the universe is to make an arrogant and blasphemous demand that God take orders from His creations. Neither you nor I nor any of your fellow idolaters can tell God what to do, and you will be severely punished if you persist in this arrogant heresy of yours.

    Jesus' message of hope and love is meaningless without God having the will and power to implement it. When Jesus tells us in Scripture that God created the universe in six days (yom is unambiguously the Hebrew word for a literal morning-and-evening day) and in person that "not a jot nor tittle nor the slightest stroke of the pen" of said Scripture can be altered even though the heavens and earth pass away (Matthew 5:17-20), we'll pretty much have to take him at his word; it's either that or assume he's lying and his message is just some kind of cruel trick on us. (This would have to be some incredibly diabolical and ingenious scheme, considering how very many prophecies in Scripture have come true already.) I choose, with my wholly unscientific free will, the former. You face the same choice: either Jesus is telling the truth and you'll have discard your materialist myths and follow him, or he was not telling the truth and is therefore either not God or not a loving God in any event, which would make any hope you gleaned from his message a false hope.

    If you choose the latter, you may well still believe in God's existence (for all the good that does you), and be religious or clean-living or whatever else you like to think yourself to be, but you are by definition admitting to not being a Christian, which leaves you with no moral authority to dictate to those of us who are Christians what we ought to believe. Theistic evolution is a logical dead end for a Christian. You cannot serve both the God of Scripture and the materialist mythology of evolution, try as you might.

  74. Humble Believer says:

    Au contraire, arrogant materialist. The Hebrew word "yom" used in every part of the creation story means literal morning-and-evening day. You've obviously never read very many of those Christian theologians we've had throughout history, or you would know that St. Augustine and practically everybody up to the time of the "Enlightenment" with its arrogant Deists and other addled heretics, asserted a roughly six-thousand-year world history.

    As for the stars and light above, your measurement assumes a constant speed of light at all times and places (an increasingly dubious assertion even among your fellow materialist mythologists) and no time dilation from the universe's expansion. (You realize, don't you, that this universe is indeed a "space-time continuum" as they say in Star Trek? That means, space and time being integrated, expanding or contracting the one respectively expands or contracts the other as well, though which of our puny instruments could provide the necessary frame of reference to measure such a dilation's effects on us, I'd like to know.)

    Considering that we are sinful and nature in our solar system has been adjusted to fight back against our exploitation of it and defend itself from us, I can easily believe we've been quarantined from other worlds to keep from spreading our misery to them. For all we know, there might well be other solar systems out there with other sapient beings, and if they have not fallen as we have and are sinless, they might well be not only millions or billions or even trillions of years old, but eternal!

    Your "refutation" of the literal miraculous creation is easily refuted itself as another of your materialist myths based on your faulty perception of the universe and inadequate instrumentation to interpret the data. No Christian needs believe in materialist myths on the basis of audacious assumptions that time and space are uniform and constant. If anything, the more cosmic phenomena we witness, the less reason we have to believe that any of it is particularly uniform or constant. The light you are seeing is not necessarily very old at all from our frame of reference, though the system from which it originated certainly might be… and the light from us might not even have reached anyone living there yet!

  75. SapientHetero says:

    That's so pathetic I'm not even going to bother to address your non-points. But thanks for making my point; you and others like you are just as bad as the communists in the Obama administration who want us to worship at the alter of "social justice", "income equality" and the rest of their empty leftist buzzwords. The only difference between you is the religion you want to impose on us.

    I'll tell you what; you leave me alone to believe what I want to believe, and I'll do the same. But I'll never agree that the price of teaching my children biology in school is teaching your religion alongside it. The fact that you consider evolution to be religion tells me that you don't know the first thing about it. Is it too much to ask for people to know a little something about a subject before ranting about it? I've read in depth about both Christianity and evolution and see no conflict between them. Perhaps the reason you do is that you don't know the first thing about evolution?

  76. Humble Believer says:

    Yeah, yeah, tuck your tail between your legs and run like the whipped lapdog that you are. The reason you don’t address any of my points is because you can’t: you know I’ve shown you up for hypocritically projecting your own totalitarian impulses on us! As to buzzwords and catch phrases, you must think your “Bronze Age fairy tales” and “force-feed their religious beliefs” nonsense didn’t peg you for a know-nothing know-it-all the moment you got here. What’s next, some “Nobel-Prize-winning scientists” and “Occam’s Razor” and “scientific consensus” blather?

    Would you know, I used to believe all that evolution crap you’re peddling back when I was a kid? I never even knew anybody didn’t believe in evolution until I was in the seventh grade. That’s also the year I stopped believing in evolution. You know why? Because that’s the year I finally escaped those government brainwashing centers that you and your fellow child-abusing government-worshipers so euphemistically term “public” schools. That was the year I started realizing how hollow and worthless authorities and institutions I had previously considered a permanent fact of life really were. That was the year I realized schools weren’t about education and the so-called “scientific community” was an unscientific materialist priesthood. That was the year I came to realize I could not believe in both the divine supernatural interventions described in the Bible and the materialist sorcery promoted in my “science” books.

    Ah, but how you do project your own ignorance onto others! You’ve “read in depth about both Christianity and evolution” you say? Yes, you’ve probably read all kinds of nonsense *about* them, but have you actually studied them for yourself, or do you merely parrot things that your fellow mythologists tell you about them? Do you understand the difference between a miracle and a coincidence; facts and truths; science and logic? Do you understand why divine intervention is thoroughly incompatible with materialism?

    No, I can see that you don’t. The fact that you equate evolution to biology tells me you don’t even understand your own beliefs very well! Biology has absolutely nothing to do with your materialist mythology, as generations of biologists who were able to conduct their scientific research just fine without believing in evolution can attest. Indeed, were you fanatical materialists not oppressing all scientists so harshly these days, biologists would be making great strides in both research and application, free from wasting so much effort trying to make their data fit your absurd myths about events that never occurred and will never occur.

    Clearly, the reason you see no conflict between evolution and Christianity is because you refuse to see it, and there are none so blind as those who will not see. I don’t think you really know the first thing about Christianity *or* evolution. You say you want to be left alone to believe what you want to believe; must I remind you that you’re the one who came on here to attack us for our beliefs in the first place? (What, you couldn’t find a few atheists to set straight for believing that evolution justifies their worldview? You had to come attacking Christians instead?) You’re just more proof that theistic evolution ultimately robs its believers of both faith and reason.

  77. Humble Believer says:

    “It’s a shame that some have insufficient faith to accept that, and an even bigger shame that some feel the need to force their lack of faith on others.”

    Wow. Can I lend you a pair of pliers for that plank in your eye?

  78. Humble Believer says:

    Everything you say convinces me that you’re a Christian-in-name-only desperately trying to convince yourself you’re not a fraud by projecting your faults onto the rest of us. “You’re incoherent, intolerant and filled with hate for those who see the world differently than you do, yet imagine yourself to be superior to those whose thoughts you can’t understand.” What part of that sentence *doesn’t* describe you?

  79. Humble Believer says:

    …you’ll try to force God into it. Seriously, SH? You’ll only believe in the all-powerful transcendent supernatural God who created the very scientific laws that govern this universe if you can fit him into your little “scientific” box? While you’re busy trying to stuff infinite God into your puny little finite idol, why not try eating your own head neck-first? I guarantee you’ll get just as far with that project as you will with seeking a natural explanation for the supernatural.

  80. SapientHetero says:

    No thanks, I think you need them much more than I.

  81. SapientHetero says:

    And there were no doubt flat-earthers in the Bronze Age too, just as there are today. If the Old Testament said the earth is flat I'm sure you'd believe that too.

    Tell me, do you avoid touching your wife (if male) or do you take measures to ensure no family members touch you (if female), per Leviticus 15:19? Do you stone your neighbors for adultery? Practice "eye-for-an-eye" justice? If not, what's your justification for latching onto the literal interpretations of SOME parts of the Bible, but not others?

  82. SapientHetero says:

    What a load of crap. You can't prove anything you believe, yet you demand that those who believe the theory of evolution is a logical explanation for the physical evidence. You're a hypocrite and delusional. Thank God we have Constitutional protections from self-important idiots.

  83. SapientHetero says:

    Actually, I won't believe in YOUR god under any circumstances. Your god is a petulant child. Mine is patient, loving and reasonable. You really should consider an upgrade.

  84. SapientHetero says:

    None of it describes me. Have you noticed how much you sound like a liberal? You should go to Huff Post or The Daily Beast and compare your drivel to theirs. The resemblance is striking.

  85. What a load of crap. You can't prove anything you believe, yet you demand that those who believe the theory of evolution is a logical explanation for the physical evidence. You're a hypocrite and delusional. Thank God we have Constitutional protections from self-important idiots.

  86. Its no use talking with this joker because he refuses to engage in debate. He has yet to answer any of my questions so its time to just ignore the little man who wants to believe in fantasies.

    All he can do is say "what a load of crap". Such an intelligent response from a so called scientist! He must be some high school teenager wasting our time.

  87. Its no use conversing with this joker cause he is unable or refuses to engage in serious debate. He has answered no questions of mine so I am done wasting time on this troll who is posing as a scientist.

    If he was a scientist he would at least display a little bit of intelligence.

  88. Aren't you the cute one with your drive by hate filled speech. Nowhere did he refer to any violence whatsover but you simply want to tar and feather him with the sins of the past. Pathetic.

  89. Notice this joker uses the "magic dust/fairy tales" when referring to the Bible but the true magic dust lies in the Big Bang theory. Truth be told he is ashamed of the Bible in the presence of his peers instead of standing firmly on the truth.

    Science is entirely built on faith in the uniformity of nature that is provided by Providence but scientists get too embarrassed ever to let this remain in their minds for one minute. They suppress the truth as Romans 1:19 reveals.

  90. "what a load of crap" passes for intelligent debate with this so called scientist . I am left to conclude you are simply ignorant and no scientist who is intelligently hold a debate. Good riddance.

  91. Your god is not from the Bible that's for sure since you reject revelation. You get embarrassed and cannot defend or argue what you purport to believe. You want autonomy so you are guilty of idolatry. Repent while there is still time.

  92. SapientHetero says:

    You just don't understand that I don't have to defend what I believe to you or any other man (or woman); it's between me and God. What I apparently DO have to do is defend my right to decide what I believe without your interference, and that's what I'm doing. If you need someone else to tell you what to think, go for it. But don't try to drag the rest of us with you.

  93. SapientHetero says:

    Hey, you didn't answer any of mine. Where did your God come from? How do you know the Bible is accurate? Because it says so? If that's the only reason, you're a liberal; that's exactly how they think.

  94. SapientHetero says:

    I never engage in an intellectual duel with an armed man. Have a nice life, and I hope you're better at applying Jesus' teachings than you are at understanding them.