what?..i thought evolution was a HUMANISTIC PHILOSOPHY?!..i thought it was humanistic indoctrination of our children?..what happened?..all of the sudden, we learn that there are actually christians who accept evolution!..it isnt just humanists, atheists, agnostics and freethinkers!

These geological ages themselves have been accommodated in Genesis either by placing them in an assumed "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or by changing the "days" of creation into the "ages" of evolution.
Theories of this kind raise more problems than they solve, however. It is more productive to take the Bible literally and then to interpret the actual facts of science within its revelatory framework. If the Bible cannot be understood, it is useless as revelation. If it contains scientific fallacies, it could not have been given by inspiration.

like the 16 references to the sun revolving around the earth?..and the numerous references to a flat earth?..oh, wait, those parts of the bible arent to be taken literally!

The specific purpose of this study is to show that all such theories which seek to accommodate the Bible to evolutionary geology are invalid and, therefore, should be abandoned.

what about equal time for these?..i mean, we have these people complaining “give us equal time!”, but don’t want to let views that even include their god included in the discussion?

Evolution is believed by its leading advocates to be a basic principle of continual development, of increasing order and complexity, throughout the universe.

what increasing order?..what increasing complexity?..isnt one of the creationists complaint that “even the most primitive fossils are extremely complex”?

The complex elements are said to have developed from simpler elements, living organisms to have evolved from non-living chemicals, complex forms of life from simpler organisms, and even man himself to have gradually evolved from some kind of ape-like ancestor.

as opposed to being servants to a supposed loving--but really hate-filled--god?..i hate these arguments of “well, would you rather be related to monkeys or be created special, separate from animals, by a loving, caring, just god?”..those are pathetic..number one, theyre irrelevant..number two, would you like it if your father had killed millions of humans and billions of other animals?

Thus, evolution is a complete world-view, an explanation of origins and meanings without the necessity of a personal God who created and upholds all things.

what about the beginning of these report?..evolution doesnt mention god because its outside the realm of science..science deals with nature..evolution is a part of science, so evolution deals with nature..add anything about a god in, and it isnt science any more, its a philosophy

Since this philosophy is so widely and persuasively taught in our schools, Christians are often tempted to accept the compromise position of "theistic evolution", according to which evolution is viewed as God's method of creation.

40% of americans take the view of some sort of “theistic evolution”..bill larson does..i know there is another person on OPEN who said “this might be weird, but i believe in god and evolution”..and there is a few others who take that view..if any of them are reading this far, itd be nice if they mentioned that..(although they never post to this conference)

However, this is basically an inconsistent and contradictory position.

so is the fossil record to any sort of special creation except one where the god made a bunch of different creations and made them to look like there is a god

(1) It contradicts the Bible record of creation. Ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, it is said that God created plants and animals to reproduce "after their kinds". The Biblical "kind" may be broader than our modern "species" concept, but at least it implies definite limits to variation.

then why cant he define what a biblical “kind” is?..please, show me where henry morris or duane gish or any of the other ICR people have defined biblical “kind”

The New Testament writers accepted the full historicity of the Genesis account of creation. Even Christ Himself quoted from it as historically accurate and authoritative (Matthew 19:4-6).

then he was wrong, because it wasnt..otherwise, god wants to play a trick on everybody..(oh, wait..hes testing your faith, isnt he?)

(2) It is inconsistent with God's methods. The standard concept of evolution involves the development of innumerable misfits and extinctions, useless and even harmful organisms. If this is God's "method of creation", it is strange that He would use such cruel, haphazard, inefficient, wasteful processes.

well, he would have created those species anyway, so what the heck is the point?..and what about the flood?..(i believe the flood is going to be in the next impact)..that wasnt cruel to animals?..im sorry, but i dont care what humans did, its no reason to kill off all but a couple million animals

Furthermore, the idea of the "survival of the fittest", whereby the stronger animals eliminate the weaker in the "struggle for existence" is the essence of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection,

and the fittest are more likely to survive..the faster animal is more likely to either outrun a predator or catch up to prey..how else do you figure it is?..many animals die every second..does it really matter how?..its like hate crime..so what if you do it because of hate, you still killed somebody..so what if its not “survival of the fittest,” theyre still dead anyway

and this whole scheme is flatly contradicted by the Biblical doctrine of love, of unselfish sacrifice, and of Christian charity.

and a global flood killing all but eight humans and all but a few of each animal “kind”(whatever that means) isnt?

The God of the Bible is a God of order and of grace, not a God of confusion and cruelty.

and that is why the bible has caused so much confusion?..and thats why the bible says that god has killed many humans?..(more than hitler or stalin)..that doesnt sound like order, and it doesnt sound like grace

(3) The evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of all anti-theistic systems.

how?..and why does he keep saying “evolutionary philosophy?”

It served Hitler as the rationale for Nazism

hitler was a catholic and said he was “doing the work of the lord”..and any use of evolution to justify killing off other races or religious groups is because of a misunderstanding of evolution..yet these people want it to be taught less or not at all?..they want people to believe in a book that, if taken literally, should include the death penalty for kids that dont honor their parents?

Marx as the supposed, scientific basis for communism.

the pope used the bible to justify the inquistion..that doesnt seem to stop anybody from believing in the bible..if that isnt relevant to christianity, then i dont see how somebody misunderstanding evolution can be relevant to whether evolution happened or not..it doesnt matter if the pope killed a bunch of people because of the bible or marx mis-used evolution to justify communism, that doesnt mean both are false, and it doesnt mean both are true

It is the basis of the various modern methods of psychology and sociology that treat man merely as a higher animal and which have led to the misnamed "new morality" and ethical relativism. It has provided the pseudo- scientific rationale for racism and military aggression.

racism has been around for a long time..slavery in the americas began in the 1600s..the puritans were by far the most strict christians of any early european settlers in america, and they had slaves(and look at what injustices they did..not that witchhunts were anything special to puritans)..people born before the origin of species wanted to grow up and kill indians..the last part of the country to be segregated was the bible belt..essentially the last city with segregated schools, boston, had its desegregation opposed by the irish-catholic community..the south fought the civil war for slavery, and backed it up with the pro-slavery verses from the bible

PRO-SLAVERY BIBLE VERSES: leviticus 25:45-46; genesis 9:25; exodus 21:2,7; joel 3:8; luke 12:47,48; colossians 3:22
ANTI-SLAVERY BIBLE VERSES: isaiah 58:6; matthew 23:10

Its whole effect oil the world and mankind has been harmful and degrading. Jesus said: "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit" (Matthew 7:18).

then what is christianity?..it brought about the inquistions, crusades and many other things..either those werent evil, or the bible isnt perfect..take your choice

The evil fruit of the evolutionary philosophy is evidence enough of its evil roots. evolution is science, it is not a philosophy..for every one person you said was evil because of evolution, i could probably name 1,000 people who were evil because of religion, and probably 100 people who were evil because of christianity

Thus, evolution is Biblically unsound, theologically contradictory. and sociologically harmful.

the story of the flood is biblically unsound, that doesnt matter to christians..the story of easter is contradictory, that doesnt matter to christians..and many have used the bible as reasons to kill and do other evils, that doesnt matter to christians..these arguments are so contradictory, hypocritical and inconsistent, its a disgrace!

Progressive Creation
Some Christians use this term "progressive creation" instead of "theistic evolution", the difference being the suggestion that God interjected occasional acts of creation at critical points throughout the geological ages. Thus, for example, man's soul was created, though his body evolved from an ape-like ancestor.
This concept is less acceptable than theistic evolution, however. It not only charges God with waste and cruelty (through its commitment to the geologic ages)

any concept, be it young-earth creationism, theistic evolution, this or any of the other christian views would have this problem..he doesnt notice it for young-earth creationism though, because he doesnt want people to feel bad

but also with ignorance and incompetence.

and a global flood shows that god wouldnt know everything..he wouldnt know he would regret it..and he didnt know things would go bad

God's postulated intermittent creative efforts show either that He didn't know what He wanted when He started the process or else that He couldn't provide it with enough energy to sustain it until it reached its goal. A god who would have to create man by any such cut-and-try discontinuous, injurious method as this can hardly be the omniscient, omnipotent, loving God of the Bible.

i have to agree that a sort of progressive creation doesnt work well..especially since the bible says fish and birds were created first..young-earth creationism is more likely than this

although, using this eliminating a “loving god,” you would have to eliminate any version of christianity

The Day-Age Theory
According to the established system of historical geology, the history of the earth is divided into a number of geological ages. The earth is supposed to have evolved into its present form and inhabitants over a vast span of geologic ages, beginning about billion years ago. In contrast. the Biblical revelation tells us that God created the entire universe in six days only a few thousand years ago. Consequently, many Christian scholars have tried to find some way of reinterpreting Genesis to fit the framework of history prescribed by the geologists. The most popular of these devices has been the "day-age" theory, by which the "days" of creation were interpreted figuratively as the "ages" of geology. However, there are many serious difficulties with this theory.

it doesnt fit though, because the fossil record goes fish-amphibians-reptiles-birds & mammals..the bible says fish and birds were created first..either birds didnt fossilize until after amphibians and reptiles were created(and well after) or this theory could not work

But the most serious fallacy in the day-age theory is theological. It charges God with the direct responsibility for five billion years of history of purposeless variation, accidental changes, evolutionary blind alleys, numerous misfits and extinctions,

and there were no misfits and extinctions in a literal, young-earth creationism view?

a cruel struggle for existence,

and this wouldnt be true in a young earth?

with preservation of the strong and extermination of the weak,

that is true

of natural disasters of all kinds,

there are plenty of natural disasters..look at the various craters around the world..massive volcanic eruptions

rampant disease, disorder, and decay, and, above all, with death.

so, there is no disease, no disorder, no decay and no death in young-earth creationism?

The fossil record is the best evidence for evolution (in fact, the only such evidence which indicates evolution on more than a trivial scale).

i thought the fossil record didnt do anything for evolution?..it does when he wants it to?

It leaves unanswered the serious problem as to why God would use the method of slow evolution over long ages in the primeval world, then destroy it, and then use the method of special creation it to re-create the same forms He had just destroyed.

how is destroying it, then allowing it to be re-created not similar to the flood?

Furthermore, there is no geologic evidence of such a worldwide cataclysm in recent geologic history. In fact, the very concept of a worldwide cataclysm precludes the geologic ages. which are based specifically on the assumption that there have been no such worldwide cataclysms.

he has it the other way around..the ICR’s concepts of geology is based on the assumption there has been a worldwide flood

The greatest problem with the theory is that it makes God the direct author of evil.

what about the flood?..that was nice?

It implies that He used the methods of struggle, violence, decay, and death on a worldwide scale for at least three billion years in order to accomplish His unknown purposes in the primeval world.

what about the flood?

there have been numerous extinctions anyway, whether the earth is four billion or four thousand years old..its absurd that he continues to use that argument

The real answer to the meaning of the great terrestrial graveyard-the fossil contents of the great beds of hardened sediments all over the world-will be found neither in the slow operation of uniform natural processes over vast ages of time nor in an imaginary cataclysm that took place before the six days of God's perfect creation. Rather, it will be found in a careful study of the very real world-wide cataclysm described in Genesis 6 through 9 and confirmed in many other parts of the Bible and in the early records of nations and tribes all over the world, namely, the great Flood of the days of Noah.

i thought he has been talking about how you cant accept other theories because they say god killed people, and then says the biggest graveyard of all time was created after god flooded the earth?

Evidences for and results of this worldwide flood are discussed in detail in Impact Series No. 6.

and the problems with the arguments will be discussed in detail in my response

Only a few of the many difficulties with the various accommodationist theories have been discussed, but even these-have shown that it is impossible to devise a legitimate means of harmonizing the Bible with evolution. We must conclude, therefore, that if the Bible is really the Word of God (as its writers allege and as we believe) then evolution and its geological age-system must be completely false. Since the Bible cannot be reinterpreted to correlate with evolution, Christians must diligently proceed to correlate the facts of science so with the Bible.

the bible can be interpreted in many different ways..it is not clearly written, it is very confusing if you try and take it literally, word-for-word..the facts of science fit with evolution, not with a literal interpretation of the bible

complete version of impact #5

email me