Spurgeon obviously was an incredible preacher of the Word of God understanding the real literal significance of Genesis when narrating the fall of man, but I believe that He was wrong imagining such previous gap that contradicts the narrated fact of death and decay allowed only AFTER the fall of man. We must remember that the Bible is the Word of God and no Spurgeon, if we judge the work of some brethren be it based in the Word of God and not in the teaching of a very distinguished brother.
When we read the narration of Genesis, we can easily understand that death and decay were allowed by God only AFTER the fall of man in sin, so a strange gap in which there were creatures suffering death and decay is really UNACCEPTABLE for everyone understanding the real literal significance of Genesis when narrating the fall of man, the key fact that explain the real need of salvation throughout the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.
There is no doubt one must be honest. When we look at scriptures honestly and take it for what it says. The world and the animal kingdom is definetly young and I mean that literally because if one believes in old age and old dinosaurs and they died then comes Adam then Christ death was a lie. Bible says death entered the world when Adam sinned and the sin affected creation. The Earth is young and the dinosaurs lived among men and the evidence is there. Christ is Alive not in vain.
There was no big bang! It was god that got lonely & made the universe out of nothing...wait...there can`t be nothing `cause there`s him. OK, he made the universe out of himself, then he made a couple of friends, who pissed him off by eating his apples(JUST LIKE MY GODDAMN ROOMMATE!). Sorry...anyway he kicked `em out (like I`m gonna do with my roommate) & cursed them forever.
Oh yea, unless they say they love him(`cause he was so lonely), they will be tortured for eternity (like my roommate).
Bigwhammy although I don't hold to your views on creation, i will openly say that it does no true Christian or the Kingdom any good when any part of the Body of Christ is underhanded to push forth its agenda.
Spurgeon wasn't infallible - he was still a fallible man prone to error, like the rest of us! I love Spurgeon's writings - he was a phenominal man, but still only a man!
@saniti64 What was salvation for ? Did he come to preach the gospel and die, for believers or did he come to MAKE people believe ? It is quite correct to state.. the salvation story makes no sense. What you believe always makes sense, otherwise you wouldn`t believe it.
@saniti64 Remember, you felt entitled to insult and to demean,because according to your knowledge of scripture such statement did not exist. But I put your nose in your own mustard Now,.prove that YOUR version is the right one, and all the others are wrong. Thank you.
@saniti64 You are entitled to your interpretation. The "message of the cross" means the salvation story. And the ISV says that.. it is nonsense to non-believers. Period.
@saniti64 Back to bible-school, silly kid. Corinthians 1:18 For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed(NON-BELIEVERS), but it is God's power to us who are being saved.(ISV)
We don't know how remote the time was. it was possible, I suppose, that the world existed for millions of years before God created Adam and Eve, but that would mean that everything was alive for millions of years because death was a result of sin. Even Jesus taught that.
Did you write AiG about this? They might have an explanation and if not, they would gladly correct themselves. I sure hope you did. It is right to call the unrepentant out, but only after speaking with them.
@WirtyDord Yes, you can claim "We don't know how remote the time was." or any claim you can conjur-up ...but only if you entirely ignore/refuse the account which begins "In the beginning" and which then proceeds to describe 6 literal days. I must ask, why even bother to accept any of the Biblical creation account, only to reject it in favor of what you believe? Time is coeval with creation. It PLAINLY states the world was created 5 literal days- before Adam, who was created the 6th day.
@sparky6025 I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't think anyone would agree that all creatures lived for millions of years before Adam came around and sinned allowing for death to begin. Therefore, if you are going to take the Bible as it is written, you must conclude that creation happened in six literal days, and very soon after the fall happened.
As for calling out AiG, I was referring only to them claiming Spurgeon said something he didn't.
@sparky6025: "why even bother to accept any of the Biblical creation account"
Indeed, why would anyone believe some story written by people trying to explain how we came to be?
What about Taiowa creating Sotuknang, who made land, sea and Spider Woman, who made Poqanghoya and Palongawhoya and despatched them to the poles of the earth to keep it rotating. Then she made 4 men and 4 women.
Earth rotating round the poles?! Seems the Hopi people's God was better informed than the one from the bible.
@Belgianmeth "Indeed, why would anyone believe some story written by people trying to explain how we came to be?" I agree. So why then would anyone bother to accept the evolution fairy tale story?
@sparky6025 This fairy tale story, sir, is supported by the overwhelming majority of scienstists. From the 540,000 scientists polled, only a mere 700 stand behind creation. This fairy tale story has so much overwhelming evidence, that in spite of the fact that it contradicts Genesis, the Catholic church saw itself compelled to acknowledge it. Creation is the fairy tale, so much so, that from the 106 Chris. colleges that form the Chris, Coalition of Colleges, only 5 teach litteral creation.
@tallliza Part 1 of 2: The "overwhelming majority of scientists" -nothing more than an argument from authority -a logical fallacy. Furthermore, you are confusing (true) science with evolution; evolution is not true science, nor does it fulfill the requirements of scientific method -especially empirical observation and Falsifiability. “Science” and “evo” are not synonymous terms, nor does evo have “overwhelming evidence,” no matter how many times you chant these mantras.
@sparky6025 evolution is not true science, nor does it fulfill the requirements of scientific method -especially empirical observation and Falsifiability. Evolution was never proven wrong.. And the attempts have been numerous. Your empirical observation is done by observation of the gradual change in fossils over milenia. But you want to see evolution, a process that takes millions of years, in front of your eyes in a lab. NUTS. How much of astronomy has been observed in a lab ?
@tallliza: " evolution is not true science, nor does it fulfill the requirements of scientific method -especially empirical observation and Falsifiability" -I agree entirely! "Evolution was never proven wrong." -exactly my point! ...thus, it is not falsifiable per scientific method! Obviously you don't comprehend the scientific concept of "Falsifiable." Oh, and BTW, it has not and cannot be proven correct either. You 'believe" it takes 'millions of years,' that's faith, not observable science.
Part 2 of 2: What the convoluted pagan Catholic religion claims is entirely irrelevant to the issue (the same mystery Babylon religion that supposedly ‘authenticated’ Jesus’ appearance in a taco shell…lol!). The poll you refer to only shows how many accredited scientists in the fields of earth science fear coming out of the closet at the risk of loosing their positions & livelihood; see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Ben Stein) & Slaughter of the Innocents (Dr. Jerry Bergman).
@sparky6025 Your conspiracy theory is laughable .. Those who do not agree with evolution know the way how to change.... PROVING SCIENCE WRONG. Science is open to peer review. That`s the very foundation of good science. Darwin stood alone and convinced the whole scientific world. Let Ben Stein and Jerry Bergman come forward and defend their theories. "Conspiracy" the last defense of ignorant coward clowns.
@tallliza: When all else fails, resort to ad hominem! How typical. What took you so long? BTW, once again, Evo is not true science. Stein and Bergman DID defend their claims with OVERWHELMING scientific documentation -per the TRUE scientific method! Peer Review is the fox guarding the henhouse; tantamount to expecting a pathological liar to tell the truth. Peer review accepts only 1 paradigm -the evo paradigm. It could not be more bias. Good science seeks the truth no matter where it leads.
@sparky6025 : Well, my friend, keep up your conspiracy theory. Inspite of all the conspiracy(????) in science, science moves on. Those few nitwitts will not stop it. I am sure they make good money from their pseudo-discent with mainstream science.. ....Peer review accepts only 1 paradigm -the evo paradigm... That is your own biased assumption without any evidence. Maybe in some way, your support of the conspiracy theory helps you to some kickbacks too. Who knows ?
@tallliza: conspiracy never happens ...yea, right. "Those few nitwits..."? Your bias is now also showing. There is no such thing as a neutral position. I never claimed there was. It is a fact, no 'assumption' needed. ..especially your assumptions. Yes, science keeps moving on, while evo is a dead end on a one-way street. "kickbacks"? -more of your assumptions. I am not your 'friend.' Your pathological narcissism is easy to see.
@tallliza: Why yes, evo theory IS laughable! I agree! True Science proves itself right or wrong -self correcting. Evo pseudoscience cannot and does not.. Evo is open to peer review ...Evo’s peer reviewing other Evo's, is like liars confirming other liars. Paradigms are the norm. There is no such thing as a neutral unbiased position. What you believe determines how you act.
@sparky6025 You are nuts, man. What better system as to open your findings to review by colleagues ? Maybe. in your view, they should ask religious leaders for their opinion. Who else is there to evaluate somebody`s conclusions then scientists from the same branche of science. Your conspiracy theory is INSANE. 540.000 scientists in conspiracy to cover-up WHAT ??. ... There is no such thing as a neutral unbiased position. What you believe determines how you act.. You are NUTS.>>> CONTINUED
@sparky6025 CONTINUED... There is no such thing as a neutral unbiased position. What you believe determines how you act... You might be right, in religious or theological questions, but how biased can you be in sciences ? Tell me how you can be biased in Mathematics, Astronomy. physics, biology etc. And if you maintain what you said, doesn`t that apply to Ben Stein and Jerry Bergman ? Or are those above suspicion ?
@tallliza: “…but how biased can you be in sciences ?” In true science there should be no bias, but there is. It is unavoidable, intrinsic; only the honest will admit it. Evo theory, which is not true science, is nothing but bias. All branches of even true science are subject to at least a minimum of bias interpretation based on pre-conceived beliefs or worldviews. Everyone has a worldview or set of preconceived ideas upon which the data is interpreted, even Stein & Bergman. No neutral!
@sparky6025 Nothing in this world is perfect. Sporadic favoritism etc. is not excluded anywhere. But to claim a cover up by the scientists in general, in the apropriate fields , is plain nonsense. The best way to avoid bias and phony claims is PEER REVIEW. There is nothing else. If you see a better way, I want to hear it.
@tallliza: " But to claim a cover up by the scientists in general, in the apropriate fields , is plain nonsense" ...and your evidence this is “plain nonsense” is what? "If you see a better way, I want to hear it." ...Ok, then listen ….and hear! How about plain honesty and integrity? ...yep, that'll do it!
@sparky6025 What the convoluted pagan Catholic religion claims is entirely irrelevant to the issue . That shows how biased bigoted and ignorant you are . The papacy, unlike any other religion, has many scientific advisors in earthly matters. Your silly statement about catholics makes your other comments a priori, suspicious of the same bias.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.....And the evening and the morning were THE first day (Gen. 1:1 & 5b). "The" here is the 'definite article.' If a gap of unspecified time intended, the 'first day' could not have been a normal 24 hour period as were the remaining creation 'days'! It would have to be 'a day' + some unspecified time this 'gap' is supposed to have lasted! -if it was not a literal 24 hour day.period, this creates whole new set of problems for gap theorists!
@tallliza Oh really? Gosh, golly and gee-whiz Wally, I didn't know! In that case ..because you said so, I guess I'll have to toss it out then ....not! You know what is plain ninsense, not to mention irrrational and illogical? ...someone posting on a thread to a subject he/she believes to be "plain nonsense" ...now that's real "plain nonsense"!
@sparky6025 CONTINUED.... Genesis(creation) is so infantile, so dumb, that from the 106 colleges that form the :" Christian Coalition of Colleges " only 5 teach litteral biblical creation. Why, because it is a marvel of rationality or litterature ? LOL ,So, you do believe that your god`s morals do change, according to location and time? The bible has no more relevance for modern living, as the" Lord of the Rings"
@tallliza Point taken. Now you have even less rational and logical reason for posting on this thread. The only thing more irrelavant than your reply is the fact that you would post here to begin with.
@sparky6025 My logical reasons are not YOUR logical reasons. And YOUR logical reasons are not mine. What I do or write on the internet, is none of your business. You want privacy ? There are plenty of ways to achieve that .
@tallliza Oh really? Gosh, golly and gee-whiz Wally, I didn't know! In that case ..because you said so, I guess I'll have to toss it out then ....not! You know what is plain nonsense, not to mention irrrational and illogical? ...someone posting on a thread to a subject he/she believes to be "plain nonsense" ...now that's real "plain nonsense"!
@sparky6025 So, You do believe that donkeys and snakes talk ?. That there is a whole list of people who don`t deserve to live and must be killed ? Witches, Homos,Fortunetellers, Those who don`t listen to priests. Unruly kids, Those who curse their parents, adulterers, fornicators. Those who work on the Sabbath ? etc etc. So it is true that you can clubber your slave to death, provided he survives your beating by a couple days ? Nonsense indeed.
"without form and void" simply means it was 'unfinished and unfurnished' at that point in the creation process ...there were 6 more days of creation to follow! Gap theory, regardless of whether Spurgeons sermoned on the concept before the publication of Darwins 'Origin of Species' -he was not the first by any means anyhow- is but a shallow attempt to force fit evo theory into Bible history. Those who advocate it always end up compromising the authority and authenticity of God's word to do so.
@sparky6025 without form and void How do you know what it means ? Inspiration by the holy spirit ? Creation in Genesis is utter nonsense. That`s why your OWN CHRISTIAN colleges, except a few, do not teach litteral biblical creation.
@sparky6025 Of course. Even your scriptures state that the salvation story is nonsense. But even that you will deny..... Your provocateur post... is an indication that you know zilch about the spirit of the gospels. If I were you I would..( first) study what I believe.... Blessed are the contentious, the litigious and the arrogant, for they will inherit the earth
..."We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be - certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam." -So, on the one hand Spurgeons admits to not knowing how old the earth is, yet -in the same breath, as it were, claims absolutely that it is 'many millions of years before" Adam. Hummm ..sounds like typical Protestant double-speak. Scripture leave absolutely no room for 'gap theory'. Exod. 20:11 -this 1 verse in and of itself eliminates the poss of a gap
Old earth and evolution are two different things, while you might force old earth on the bible, you cant force evolution on a perfect man created by God. Let me ask what is worse, twisting scripture to fit science, or explaining that if science does not comply with the biblical account, then we lack sufficient evidence? Or even twisting science to meet scripture?
I noticed now that aig put the rest of the Spurgeon sermon back into that article to avoid anymore ridicule. But I did see via internet archieve that back a couple of years ago they did not include the millions of years thing. They clearly do have an agenda.
Read the Bible for yourself. Pray. and don't listen to nut-jobs like AiG. They are religious bullies. Ken Ham is a cult leader.
Many God-fearing, Bible believing Christians believe that the Universe is Billions of years old. There is nothing wrong with this idea. In no way does it contradict anything in the Bible.
Question was death around millions of years before Adam and Eve? and if it was what has death got to do with sin. And if we cant believe the earthly things of the bible why should we beleive the rest?
I don't think AIG should mislead regarding Spurgeon and it is wrong if they have.
Just because Charles Spurgeon "had no problem with an Earth that is millions of years old," doesn't mean he was right about it. There were others that promoted an older Earth way before Darwin, so he could have been influenced by them.
Repentance is for turning away from sin. Are you suggesting it is a sin for AIG to point out those who contradict the Bible's account of Creation? Who's word is supreme here? Charles Spurgeon, or God?
I lovingly suggest caution in exalting Man over God.
You cannot pick and choose in science. You cannot accept the evidence that the Erath is 4.5 billion years old and reject evolution. Both the age of the Earth and evolution are products of the exact same scientific method. Your position is untenable.
@b1foschiefs The reason why is because both evolution and geology are products of the exact same scientific method and peer review process. It would be inconsistent to argue for an old Earth but against evolution, when the level of evidence for both is the same. If you were going to argue that scientific evidence supports an old Earth, but not evolution, then you might as well doubt an old Earth as well, again because they are products of the same scientific method and peer review process.
@ClamCrunchy I appreciate your response. Do you have any outside sources that you can point me to. I thought geology and genetics were two completely different fields of study.
Spurgeon was about 30yo when Darwinism came into vogue. Sounds like he fell prey to contemporary thought and figured that the gap theory was a good way to get along with everybody - a common mistake. A brilliant man like Spurgeon probably would have changed his position if he had been able to study the excellent scientific analyses of groups like AIG. I understand when people who hate Christ blast groups like AIG, but not when those who claim to love Christ do the same.
I blast "AIG" because they tell lies about the Bible. They tell people that if they don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth, then they can't believe in the truth of the resurrection of Christ.
I love Christ, believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and believe in an old earth. Not because it's in vogue, but because I don't think an old earth contradicts the bible. AIG keeps saying that it does. I ask AIG to show me the literal Biblical passage that backs this up.
AIG is wrong on just about every count when it comes to the theory of evolution. They misrepresent it (straw man) and then proceed to "disprove" it. The theory itself is simply an excellent explanation of the evidence and speaks in no way to the veracity or falsity of any particular religious worldview, (unless said view is in some way testable).
i am no christian by any means (my lifestyle does not permit me to be) yet i know god is real and that his word is infallible truth. at one point in my life i devoted much time to the study of scripture and apologetics. before i came to christ at that point, i was totally convinced that the universe was billions of years in age and that evolution accounted for our existence. i quickly found out that scripture supports neither of these notions, in the slightest. which is why i rejected them,
@ThaDinoWS i chose to reject these notions on the basis that the word of God cannot er. genesis is CLEARLY written as historical narrative, and should be taken as such. why dabble with notions that are diametrically opposed to scripture? (billions of years, evolution, pre-adamic races etc.) adhering to such dubious notions is akin to playing russian roulette. compromise opens the door to more compromise, and that in turn can lead to the total undermining of scripture.
I clicked on the link you gave for AIG, and they clearly post the following on the sermon: These sermons from Charles Spurgeon are a series that is for reference and not necessarily a position of Answers in Genesis. Spurgeon did not entirely agree with six days of creation and dives into subjects that are beyond the AiG focus (e.g., Calvinism vs. Arminianism, modes of baptism, etc.)- Not sure why your video and attack?
Alright I went from trying to figure out Calvin&Arminim to King James only ppl only to find some think the earth is Bazillon years old...does it matter the age of the earth? For that matter, we do not have a time frame as to how long did Adam and woman live in the Garden before they sinned? They could of been there MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of years We will never know... the point that does matter IS rather we are OBEDIENT to What God says PERIOD.
bigwhammyRocks: Have you read the Bible? You said you own all of Spurgeon's stuff, but what about reading the Bible? Answers in Genesis is both historically and Biblically accurate. That they disagree with Spurgeon may say that Spurgeon was wrong. After all, neither Spurgeon nor Answers in Genesis is the final authority; God's word is the final authority.
Spurgeon is a man just like any other. He is not perfect, nor was he divinely inspired like the apostles were when they wrote the books of the NT, and not everything he believes is truth. Just look at Calvinism : ) Don't get me wrong, he was an awesome preacher, along with Edwards, Wesley, Henry, etc. But they are men like everyone else, and I believe that they were in fact very wrong on several things. Don't put man on a pedestal, put God and His truth on it.
Uh. I checked out the two versions, and apparently you saw something that wasn't there. AiG has the exact same version you do. Are you objecting to the brackets?
Radiometric dating is very inaccurate and dates even today's fresh magma to be up to billions of years old in some instances. And why would radio active decay have always been the same (uniformitarianism)? There is no empirical evidence to support the claim. The whole talking point of this propagated "science" (evolution, naturalistic big bang, etc), is designed to suite the ancient Greek and eastern mystical religions. It's A-Theismus = Against God, not Nontheismus or unbias science.
When Lyell propagated that the earth was 76,000 years old instead o 6, people were shocked. Ever since the numbers have inflated now several billions. Creationists understand uniformitarianism quite well, they just don't share the assumption. Observable local floods and waterfalls show patterns that erosion happens very quickly, and the science can be applied. Light has been slowed to almost zero. It's not a constant. And The Word is his, Uni Verse, one single spoken sentence.
It was mainly Charles Lyell in the Principles Of Geology in 1830-1833 who came up with the idea of Uniformitarianism. This states that each layer of rock is an age, which could account for millions or billions of years depending how you count.
So, this old-age saga does not stem from Darwin, although he was in favor of Lyellism.
In your video description you refer to something you call "NeoAtheism." What is that? That term makes no sense. There is no "neoatheism" and there is no "new atheism", as some Christian writers and speakers claim. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Such a view is thousands of years old. It is nothing new at all.
I know for a fact that Spurgeon did not believe that the earth was millions of years old. The Holy Bible states quite clearly that God created Heaven and Earth in 6 days. Why would God need time to wait to create what he could do in an instant?
Evolution cannot even be proven scientifically let alone logically...
Good video, it confirms my suspicions that the whole Young Earth creationist movement is some kind of plant to discredit Christianity. When you go so far as to intentionally misquote classical preachers that can easily be double checked-it shows a willful lack of honesty.
1. Have you e-mailed them directly about this? They might not come across this video.
2. Is it not presumptuous to call upon the supposed authority of Spurgeon? Spurgeon does not have the authority of Scripture. And I wonder if the bits that seem somewhat gap theory-like have any real basis in Scripture, which is where all arguments must finally rest. I respect Spurgeon as among the great preachers of the last few centuries, but he is a man and men do make mistakes.
There is no Darwinist faith. Darwinism(you don't see this term in science), or more correctly evolutionary biology which is a branch of biology tries to explain (very sucessfully) how life evolved but not how life started.
Again you mistakingly call atheism a religion, this is incorrect.. Atheisim is effectively a lack of religion.
Evolution's Big Bang portrays something being created from something that is already in existence-though they never explain the source of this original matter/energy. God demonstrates in Genesis 1:1-3 shows that God created time, space and matter from nothing with the first manifestation in time, space and matter being light which was created ex nihilo-out of nothing.
When God created time and began to measure the day, he didn't change the language from the 1st 3 days to another idea in the remaining 4 days after the sun was created. The morning and the evening were the same day in every day of creation. It has been the same morning and evening, by measure ever since. God who can do all things: can take a trillion years, a split second, or 6 days.
God in his sovereign will and by the wisdom of his own purpose made his work of creation to take 6 days. God didn't tell us 6 days so that we would be asking ourselves, Did he really mean 6 days? Many will try to manipulate 2 Peter 3 into some algebraic expression that allows them to manipulate Genesis 1. But they do so by not reading the context of 2 Peter correctly.
The 2 Peter passage of a day being as a thousand years, etc. This is talking about God's relationship with time. It is not intended for us to make some algebraic symbolism out of it and then go through the Bible and apply it where we will because it doesn't fit some quasi-scientific theory that man has been trying to elevate above the wisdom of God's word.
True science has never been at odds with the Bible. Pseudo-science however is another matter. Evolution which is not true science has no point of harmony with the Bible. Those who try to make evolution & Genesis 1 to coincide do so at the distortion of the Bible. The order of cosmogony in the Bible is entirely different than evolution's contrivance. There is no harmony between creation in Genesis and origins in evolution.
The "missing text" now appears on the AIG site. It is in brackets and footnoted to say that even Spurgeon wasn't right about everything. When was the text "put back," does anyone know? It is distressing to me that a Christian organization with so much influence uses this kind of tactic.
It looks like we are not supposed to try to reconcile science and the Bible but you honestly don't have to because it comes from the same source, God. Preconceptions lead people to believe that they have to reconcile science and the Bible.Spurgeon says the earth is millions of years old and was a molten mass. The Bible gives no timescale at all so that is speculation and the Bible also says that God hovered over the waters which means the earth was not hot before God started to create.
Because Spurgeon says that the earth is millions of years old means it's true? C'mon now. And geological theories regarding millions of years before Darwin published his book. Now I agree with you that they should not have edited his sermon to support "young earth" when he didn't believe in the same.
However, Spurgeon was just a great teacher - not a prophet or god. Sorry, he could have been wrong about the "science" - as were Bishop Ryle, Charles Hodge, and many evangelical theologians of the Victorian period. What matters is what the Bible says, not what AIG or bigwhammy say.
The Bible is clear that death disease and suffering come from Adam's sin. There were no long ages of different creatures extincting and new ones being created.
Evolution is a fact, I'm afraid to say. If you study the bible for many years you can learn nothing. The right method for learning stuff is NOT makiing shit up or referring to some scribblings where illiterate people made shit up a long long time ago.
Even Augustine of Hippo stated that the length of the Creation is not known neither is the age of the earth. But that as science develops we will know more. I oppose evolution of course. But I can't accept the world being 6000 years old. it's too young.
@911TruthSeeker91 why can't you accept evolution. the same science that brought you medicine and clean water brought you evolution, how can it be right on some things but dead wrong on others?
The comment that I wrote was 3 months ago, so I have had a change of heart since then. I don't oppose evolution, but I don't accept it fully neither. When you talk about evolution your talking about a very broad term. It's practically split into two categories: Macro and Micro evolution. Micro evolution is basically variation within a specific complex or species. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is variation that occurs beyond certain complexities. such as monkey evolving to a man
Micro evolution, variation within a species, is documented and still being documented, so anyone who does not accept it is just ignorant. Macro evolution, however, is not as simple to accept. I'm not a scientist by the way, I'm just trying to find evidence for macro evolution. Instead of just going along with the status quo I advise you to research into it yourself. Read writings and journals from scientists who specialize in the field of biology.
@911TruthSeeker91 the entire fossil record is a testament to macroevolution showing both gradual change and punctuated equilibrium, extinctions and explosions of diversity. anyone who has told you otherwise is ignorant of the facts or lying.
@ajgrovery That is false. There is not one fossil record, let alone the entire record of it, that verifies any instance of macroevolution. Even within laboratories, among geneticiists, biologists, and microbiologists, they have not found any evidence that supports the ability of any living organism to change outside of its kind. Rather the contrary, especially among geneticists who are recognizing a very controlled and narrow ability among DNA of any species to mutate beyond their own kind.
@ajgrovery That is a logical fallacy of equivocation. You equate what is called science in evolution with what is science in the empirical science of medicine. What is called science in evolution does not qualify as science, but at the most philosophy. A philosophy, that despite the overwhelming evidence, both logically and scientifically that disproves it, has only shown the ability of the dishonest to manipulate and try to redefine what is science.
@HermitintheRain no it is the same scientific method. testing claims against evidence is all science is and evolution has been tested against massive denial for over 100 years and has passed every test. even ID proponents simulations show that it "could" happen
@ajgrovery Evolution has been tested, that much is true: of that which could be tested by science, none has been verified as a valid. The rest of what is called evolution: namely the subject of origins cannot be tested by science. The scientific method doesn't allow for the testing of such a theory, as such a theory belongs solely in the realm of philosophy at best-by which the rules of logic and epistemology must be applied.
@HermitintheRain kind definition ? yes? no? or the real answer (ie there isnt one its just a wording used which obviously means species but since i know that is wrong i made something up)
@ajgrovery Kind is that which is within its group. Oak trees are a kind that is not of the same kind as palm trees. Though there be many kinds of oak trees, or many kinds of palm trees, neither will ever be able to mutate into one another or into some hybrid between them. When science manipulates the genes of such they make a tree that is unable to reproduce itself-as it is an anomaly of nature. This is but one of the millions of examples in the world.
@HermitintheRain Incidentally evolution does not say that an oak tree will become a palm tree. If the environment changes such that an oak tree would be better off as a palm tree the oaks will die off. Also would you agree that single celled organisms are a different kind then humans?
@ajgrovery But that is exactly what evolution teaches when it teaches that man has evolved, as well as other mammals, from birds and aquatic animals. It teaches that all species, kingdoms, families, etc originate out of some proto-kingdom by which we have all the various kingdoms, families, species and genus. Though this theory has been ruled out by the likes of genetics, biology, chemistry and physics, the theory still persists in textbooks and classrooms around the world.
Science as a tool is as useful as a tool as logic and mathematics. But that is all it is-a tool. When those who wish to push a world view-be they religous or irreligious-they go beyond the bounds of science. Science is not a tool for interpreting or explain origins. Science, as with logic and mathematics, can only help to gauge truth in the limited arena of its ability. But recognizing the limitations will allow the proper use of these then valuable tools.
@HermitintheRain no. i said evolution does not teach that an oak tree can become a palm tree. in the last 10000 years dogs have all evolved from wolves. picture the differences between a shi tzu and a wolf. imagine what could be done in a million years. now we have fossil evidence which shows evolution happened and in great detail and genetic evidence alon shows we share a common anscestry. so where does that leave your bronze age myth?
@ajgrovery wolves and dogs are still K9s thats micro evolution wolves evolving to birds or horses would be macro evolution wich the fossil record itself cannot support[macro] you misrepresent the truth with your clams of fossil proof
@TheJdtulsa No I am not it is you who is misrepresenting whether through ignorance or wilful deception. the fossil record is a good representation of the history of this planet and proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution is true, humans have been here millions of years and the flood didn't happen among other things.
@ajgrovery The claims hat life arose sponteneously, and that simple life-forms evolved into the sort of complexity we see today (not just the small clumps of cells demnstrated in the lab, but complex arrangements of highly specialised cells) can only be demonstrated indirectly from the geological and fossil record, not directly observed. So in that sense they are different.
@thelyniezian i said evolution not abiogenesis. evolution is a fact of life, when you see species changing into other species before your eyes and have a record showing that animals have been doing this for millions of years all tracing back to common ancestors what is the justifiable conclusion?
@ajgrovery Regardless, the point is that whilst smal-scale evolutionary changes, even up to the species level, may be directly observed, larger-scale changes can only be inferred, as can the time-frames by which they are supposed to have occurred (relying on the underlying assumptions of various radiometric dating methods, etc.) Although (arguably?) unrelated, so can be said for the mechanism of abiogenesis.
Look at JOB chapter 40 vs 15 and so on. He talkes about 2 dinosaurs one of which breathed fire like the legends of old! The bible spoke of dinosaurs called Dragons many times and not reffering to Satan either.
Yes lets trust this pastor when GOD SAID 6 LITERAL DAYS DERF! CLEARLY SPERGON KNEW MORE OF GOD THAN GOD DID! LOL ILL REMIND YOU OF JOB WHEN GOD SAID "WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I LAID THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH?" The devil comes as a wolf in sheeps clothing.
You fools... Sin begot death. Thats why Jesus had to come and die for the remission of sin. If there was sin and death before adam than Christ duying on the cross has no signifigance at all. Get your head out of Satans sphyncter.. LOL You children of darkness you will see the light one day and it shal be the last ray of truth you shal even know and it will be the death of you on the day of judgment. You leed people straight to hell and to hell you shal go LOL.
No, it's not Christian behavior. It's typical AIG behavior, and it's not just old sermons that get taken out of context. They do it countless times with evolutionary biologists and other scientists as well.
To make matters worse, when they can't find any holes in a theory that help them in any way, they make stuff up completely. Like Evolution leading to racism and genocide, or atheism leading to school violence which is utterly baseless.
Thank you for posting this. I am not an Old Earther or a Calvinist, but you have brought some light to AIG. You make an excellent point to the alleged claims that old earthers are some how compromising the Creation account of Genesis.
I would be curious about AIG's response because it seems they are the compromisers!
I love how he handles Spurgeons sermon's though they were themselves inerrant scripture...What then happens when I pull out my list of equally presigious preachers who disagree?
Yes, we go where we should have all along...to the Bible.
Its ironic that though you validly call AIG on their dishonesty, you yourselves believe in and possibly make a plethora of totally dishonest claims about the theory of evolution and findings in its associated scientific fields.
Besides, Spurgeon was wrong on a few points. One obviously being your point that the earth is millions of years old, and the other I know of is the doctrines of grace. Spurgeon is what we could call today a Calvinist. He believed in limited atonement of sin. He did not believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Thanks for opening my eyes to another Spurgeon error.
God bless AIG and all the scientist who are not afraid to stand against the evolution crowd.
The gap theory is something that few Christians bother with. If the gap theory is true there wouldn't be a period of time that you could define it with since time did not exist until the first day and the first night. There would also definitley be no evidence of creatures existing prior to creation. A more interesting thought I've had is how long did Adam and Eve live in the garden prior to their fall? Could it have been a couple of years or thousands? We just don't know.
And your quote from Spurgeons book sounds to me like a lamentation of his earlier claims to knowing the obvious age of the world being millions of years, Spurgeon was not a scientist but he was a Christian, we can learn a lot from him but not science. Ken Ham however is a scientist and a Christian, editing out a faulty portion of a good sermon is neither a crime nor a sin as trying to change the truth of scripture would be and is.
I used to believe in millions of years but then I was saved.
It is true that C.H. Spurgeon is known as the Prince of Preachers but the word of God in Psalm 118:8-9 says It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin. If you believe in death before Adam then you do not believe the bible, just as Satan intended. Evolution is the lie that beguiled Eve some 6000 years ago
It is sad that people sometimes hold the words of men above that of God.
your statement that Spurgeons sermon of 1855 is not a compromise with evolutionary theory is redundant- many people before Darwin proposed that the earth was very old, an example is James Hutton. Spurgeon was also a Calvinist but I doubt he would have approved of the deadly inquisitional approach that John Calvin used to promote his view of theology.
The earth isn't millions of years old anyway.Was it all that existed before God made the universe? If the could make the universe in a day surely He made the earth quickly in the beginning too. Dating methods can't prove old earth theory to be true, its an untrustworthy science.
You are misquoting what Genesis says. The first day God made the heaven and the earth and light and darkeness . The earth was rotating but the light may have been His Glory. I am not debating this - I believe creation as Genesis describes- we wern't there and we must take the whole word of God into context- it is credable and trustworthy.
@bigwhammyRocks Those who try to make compromise with unproven theories by suggesting that a day in Genesis 1 wasn't actually a day have only demonstrated either dishonesty in the Hebrew or ignorance of it. There is no mistaking the Hebrew of Genesis 1 indicating that the morning and the evening were one day-a 24 hour period no different than the morning and evening of a day in Isaiah's and Jeremiah's time.
@bigwhammyRocks >>A day is defined by the earth rotating around it axis as it orbits the sun <<
No, orbiting the sun has to do with years. It doesn't have to orbit the sun to revolve around its own axis. A spinning die doesn't have to orbit you to spin around its own axis.
@bigwhammyRocks This is truly disappointing to see AiG do, however, who there did it? Are we to throw all their material away due ot the misleading of Spurgeon statements?I believe the rock known as earth when formless and void could very well be millions of years old to which does not contradict the miniscule amount of material you display regarding spurgeon. I believe God did it in 6 days (24hrs) not based what AiG says but what God's word states. I give ya an A for effort but F for attitude
@bigwhammyRocks But when Moses wrote down "In 6 days God created the heavens and the earth", and when Moses wrote down the 6 days of Genesis account, a day was already established as a known time period much less than "millions of years" per day :-). LOL...good try, but not very good scholarship unless you believe in the infallibility of the "pope" spurgeon?
@jiminiflix Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood 200 years ago, they didn't find any. They found out the earth was millions of years old.
UM, last time i checked you do not repent for mistakes, just lies. Theres was a mistake, which they fixed i might add. And don't even get me started on hugh ross.
The original text was right in front of them and they edited out parts that they disagreed with - intentionally misrepresenting the authors intent - how do you call that a mistake?
Did you ask them if that was on purpose? That is what you are supposed to do. Did you ask for an explanation? They have a pretty good track record. And they corrected it.
Hey I'm stretching ... but consider that you only see it as a process because you are confined "in time" - to God the past present and future just "are" simultaneously - no time - the process is only from our perspective. God is the great "I AM"
They admitted it - but are not repentant. As a "correction" they put a tiny little blue foot note in that leads to the real content of the sermon below. It's pretty sad they cant just print the sermon as it was written. Even with the footnote its manipulative and misleading.
This has been flagged as spam show
By the way, the sermons of Spurgeon are GREAT! =D
ARYZerubbabel 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Spurgeon obviously was an incredible preacher of the Word of God understanding the real literal significance of Genesis when narrating the fall of man, but I believe that He was wrong imagining such previous gap that contradicts the narrated fact of death and decay allowed only AFTER the fall of man. We must remember that the Bible is the Word of God and no Spurgeon, if we judge the work of some brethren be it based in the Word of God and not in the teaching of a very distinguished brother.
ARYZerubbabel 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
When we read the narration of Genesis, we can easily understand that death and decay were allowed by God only AFTER the fall of man in sin, so a strange gap in which there were creatures suffering death and decay is really UNACCEPTABLE for everyone understanding the real literal significance of Genesis when narrating the fall of man, the key fact that explain the real need of salvation throughout the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.
ARYZerubbabel 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
There is no doubt one must be honest. When we look at scriptures honestly and take it for what it says. The world and the animal kingdom is definetly young and I mean that literally because if one believes in old age and old dinosaurs and they died then comes Adam then Christ death was a lie. Bible says death entered the world when Adam sinned and the sin affected creation. The Earth is young and the dinosaurs lived among men and the evidence is there. Christ is Alive not in vain.
Stan6468 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There was no big bang! It was god that got lonely & made the universe out of nothing...wait...there can`t be nothing `cause there`s him. OK, he made the universe out of himself, then he made a couple of friends, who pissed him off by eating his apples(JUST LIKE MY GODDAMN ROOMMATE!). Sorry...anyway he kicked `em out (like I`m gonna do with my roommate) & cursed them forever.
Oh yea, unless they say they love him(`cause he was so lonely), they will be tortured for eternity (like my roommate).
waycooltoo 3 months ago
as a christian i think is it great that you show up lies used by other christians. God bless you.
MrChristainchris 6 months ago
Bigwhammy although I don't hold to your views on creation, i will openly say that it does no true Christian or the Kingdom any good when any part of the Body of Christ is underhanded to push forth its agenda.
God bless you brother.
HolySpiritVessel1 6 months ago
Spurgeon wasn't infallible - he was still a fallible man prone to error, like the rest of us! I love Spurgeon's writings - he was a phenominal man, but still only a man!
rhyfelwrDuw 6 months ago
@saniti64 What was salvation for ? Did he come to preach the gospel and die, for believers or did he come to MAKE people believe ? It is quite correct to state.. the salvation story makes no sense. What you believe always makes sense, otherwise you wouldn`t believe it.
tallliza 7 months ago
@tallliza "What you believe always makes sense, otherwise you wouldn`t believe it." I agree. The salvation story makes sense to me. I believe it.
sparky6025 6 months ago
@sparky6025 Great. Enjoy your fantasy. One day you will start reasoning. Even Mother Theresa did.
tallliza 6 months ago
@saniti64 Remember, you felt entitled to insult and to demean,because according to your knowledge of scripture such statement did not exist. But I put your nose in your own mustard Now,.prove that YOUR version is the right one, and all the others are wrong. Thank you.
tallliza 7 months ago
@saniti64 You are entitled to your interpretation. The "message of the cross" means the salvation story. And the ISV says that.. it is nonsense to non-believers. Period.
tallliza 7 months ago
@saniti64 Back to bible-school, silly kid. Corinthians 1:18 For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed(NON-BELIEVERS), but it is God's power to us who are being saved.(ISV)
tallliza 7 months ago
We don't know how remote the time was. it was possible, I suppose, that the world existed for millions of years before God created Adam and Eve, but that would mean that everything was alive for millions of years because death was a result of sin. Even Jesus taught that.
Did you write AiG about this? They might have an explanation and if not, they would gladly correct themselves. I sure hope you did. It is right to call the unrepentant out, but only after speaking with them.
WirtyDord 7 months ago
@WirtyDord Yes, you can claim "We don't know how remote the time was." or any claim you can conjur-up ...but only if you entirely ignore/refuse the account which begins "In the beginning" and which then proceeds to describe 6 literal days. I must ask, why even bother to accept any of the Biblical creation account, only to reject it in favor of what you believe? Time is coeval with creation. It PLAINLY states the world was created 5 literal days- before Adam, who was created the 6th day.
sparky6025 7 months ago
@sparky6025 I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't think anyone would agree that all creatures lived for millions of years before Adam came around and sinned allowing for death to begin. Therefore, if you are going to take the Bible as it is written, you must conclude that creation happened in six literal days, and very soon after the fall happened.
As for calling out AiG, I was referring only to them claiming Spurgeon said something he didn't.
WirtyDord 7 months ago
@sparky6025: "why even bother to accept any of the Biblical creation account"
Indeed, why would anyone believe some story written by people trying to explain how we came to be?
What about Taiowa creating Sotuknang, who made land, sea and Spider Woman, who made Poqanghoya and Palongawhoya and despatched them to the poles of the earth to keep it rotating. Then she made 4 men and 4 women.
Earth rotating round the poles?! Seems the Hopi people's God was better informed than the one from the bible.
Belgianmeth 6 months ago
@Belgianmeth "Indeed, why would anyone believe some story written by people trying to explain how we came to be?" I agree. So why then would anyone bother to accept the evolution fairy tale story?
sparky6025 6 months ago
@sparky6025 This fairy tale story, sir, is supported by the overwhelming majority of scienstists. From the 540,000 scientists polled, only a mere 700 stand behind creation. This fairy tale story has so much overwhelming evidence, that in spite of the fact that it contradicts Genesis, the Catholic church saw itself compelled to acknowledge it. Creation is the fairy tale, so much so, that from the 106 Chris. colleges that form the Chris, Coalition of Colleges, only 5 teach litteral creation.
tallliza 6 months ago
@tallliza Part 1 of 2: The "overwhelming majority of scientists" -nothing more than an argument from authority -a logical fallacy. Furthermore, you are confusing (true) science with evolution; evolution is not true science, nor does it fulfill the requirements of scientific method -especially empirical observation and Falsifiability. “Science” and “evo” are not synonymous terms, nor does evo have “overwhelming evidence,” no matter how many times you chant these mantras.
sparky6025 6 months ago
@sparky6025 evolution is not true science, nor does it fulfill the requirements of scientific method -especially empirical observation and Falsifiability. Evolution was never proven wrong.. And the attempts have been numerous. Your empirical observation is done by observation of the gradual change in fossils over milenia. But you want to see evolution, a process that takes millions of years, in front of your eyes in a lab. NUTS. How much of astronomy has been observed in a lab ?
tallliza 6 months ago
@tallliza: " evolution is not true science, nor does it fulfill the requirements of scientific method -especially empirical observation and Falsifiability" -I agree entirely! "Evolution was never proven wrong." -exactly my point! ...thus, it is not falsifiable per scientific method! Obviously you don't comprehend the scientific concept of "Falsifiable." Oh, and BTW, it has not and cannot be proven correct either. You 'believe" it takes 'millions of years,' that's faith, not observable science.
sparky6025 6 months ago
Part 2 of 2: What the convoluted pagan Catholic religion claims is entirely irrelevant to the issue (the same mystery Babylon religion that supposedly ‘authenticated’ Jesus’ appearance in a taco shell…lol!). The poll you refer to only shows how many accredited scientists in the fields of earth science fear coming out of the closet at the risk of loosing their positions & livelihood; see Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Ben Stein) & Slaughter of the Innocents (Dr. Jerry Bergman).
sparky6025 6 months ago
@sparky6025 Your conspiracy theory is laughable .. Those who do not agree with evolution know the way how to change.... PROVING SCIENCE WRONG. Science is open to peer review. That`s the very foundation of good science. Darwin stood alone and convinced the whole scientific world. Let Ben Stein and Jerry Bergman come forward and defend their theories. "Conspiracy" the last defense of ignorant coward clowns.
tallliza 6 months ago
@tallliza: When all else fails, resort to ad hominem! How typical. What took you so long? BTW, once again, Evo is not true science. Stein and Bergman DID defend their claims with OVERWHELMING scientific documentation -per the TRUE scientific method! Peer Review is the fox guarding the henhouse; tantamount to expecting a pathological liar to tell the truth. Peer review accepts only 1 paradigm -the evo paradigm. It could not be more bias. Good science seeks the truth no matter where it leads.
sparky6025 6 months ago
@sparky6025 : Well, my friend, keep up your conspiracy theory. Inspite of all the conspiracy(????) in science, science moves on. Those few nitwitts will not stop it. I am sure they make good money from their pseudo-discent with mainstream science.. ....Peer review accepts only 1 paradigm -the evo paradigm... That is your own biased assumption without any evidence. Maybe in some way, your support of the conspiracy theory helps you to some kickbacks too. Who knows ?
tallliza 6 months ago
@tallliza: conspiracy never happens ...yea, right. "Those few nitwits..."? Your bias is now also showing. There is no such thing as a neutral position. I never claimed there was. It is a fact, no 'assumption' needed. ..especially your assumptions. Yes, science keeps moving on, while evo is a dead end on a one-way street. "kickbacks"? -more of your assumptions. I am not your 'friend.' Your pathological narcissism is easy to see.
sparky6025 6 months ago
@tallliza: Why yes, evo theory IS laughable! I agree! True Science proves itself right or wrong -self correcting. Evo pseudoscience cannot and does not.. Evo is open to peer review ...Evo’s peer reviewing other Evo's, is like liars confirming other liars. Paradigms are the norm. There is no such thing as a neutral unbiased position. What you believe determines how you act.
sparky6025 6 months ago
@sparky6025 You are nuts, man. What better system as to open your findings to review by colleagues ? Maybe. in your view, they should ask religious leaders for their opinion. Who else is there to evaluate somebody`s conclusions then scientists from the same branche of science. Your conspiracy theory is INSANE. 540.000 scientists in conspiracy to cover-up WHAT ??. ... There is no such thing as a neutral unbiased position. What you believe determines how you act.. You are NUTS.>>> CONTINUED
tallliza 6 months ago
@sparky6025 CONTINUED... There is no such thing as a neutral unbiased position. What you believe determines how you act... You might be right, in religious or theological questions, but how biased can you be in sciences ? Tell me how you can be biased in Mathematics, Astronomy. physics, biology etc. And if you maintain what you said, doesn`t that apply to Ben Stein and Jerry Bergman ? Or are those above suspicion ?
tallliza 6 months ago
@tallliza: “…but how biased can you be in sciences ?” In true science there should be no bias, but there is. It is unavoidable, intrinsic; only the honest will admit it. Evo theory, which is not true science, is nothing but bias. All branches of even true science are subject to at least a minimum of bias interpretation based on pre-conceived beliefs or worldviews. Everyone has a worldview or set of preconceived ideas upon which the data is interpreted, even Stein & Bergman. No neutral!
sparky6025 6 months ago
@sparky6025 Nothing in this world is perfect. Sporadic favoritism etc. is not excluded anywhere. But to claim a cover up by the scientists in general, in the apropriate fields , is plain nonsense. The best way to avoid bias and phony claims is PEER REVIEW. There is nothing else. If you see a better way, I want to hear it.
tallliza 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tallliza: " But to claim a cover up by the scientists in general, in the apropriate fields , is plain nonsense" ...and your evidence this is “plain nonsense” is what? "If you see a better way, I want to hear it." ...Ok, then listen ….and hear! How about plain honesty and integrity? ...yep, that'll do it!
sparky6025 6 months ago
@sparky6025 What the convoluted pagan Catholic religion claims is entirely irrelevant to the issue . That shows how biased bigoted and ignorant you are . The papacy, unlike any other religion, has many scientific advisors in earthly matters. Your silly statement about catholics makes your other comments a priori, suspicious of the same bias.
tallliza 6 months ago
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.....And the evening and the morning were THE first day (Gen. 1:1 & 5b). "The" here is the 'definite article.' If a gap of unspecified time intended, the 'first day' could not have been a normal 24 hour period as were the remaining creation 'days'! It would have to be 'a day' + some unspecified time this 'gap' is supposed to have lasted! -if it was not a literal 24 hour day.period, this creates whole new set of problems for gap theorists!
sparky6025 8 months ago
@sparky6025 Genesis, like the rest of the O.T. is plain nonsense.
tallliza 7 months ago
@tallliza Oh really? Gosh, golly and gee-whiz Wally, I didn't know! In that case ..because you said so, I guess I'll have to toss it out then ....not! You know what is plain ninsense, not to mention irrrational and illogical? ...someone posting on a thread to a subject he/she believes to be "plain nonsense" ...now that's real "plain nonsense"!
sparky6025 7 months ago
@sparky6025 CONTINUED.... Genesis(creation) is so infantile, so dumb, that from the 106 colleges that form the :" Christian Coalition of Colleges " only 5 teach litteral biblical creation. Why, because it is a marvel of rationality or litterature ? LOL ,So, you do believe that your god`s morals do change, according to location and time? The bible has no more relevance for modern living, as the" Lord of the Rings"
tallliza 7 months ago
@tallliza Point taken. Now you have even less rational and logical reason for posting on this thread. The only thing more irrelavant than your reply is the fact that you would post here to begin with.
sparky6025 7 months ago
@sparky6025 My logical reasons are not YOUR logical reasons. And YOUR logical reasons are not mine. What I do or write on the internet, is none of your business. You want privacy ? There are plenty of ways to achieve that .
tallliza 7 months ago
@tallliza Oh really? Gosh, golly and gee-whiz Wally, I didn't know! In that case ..because you said so, I guess I'll have to toss it out then ....not! You know what is plain nonsense, not to mention irrrational and illogical? ...someone posting on a thread to a subject he/she believes to be "plain nonsense" ...now that's real "plain nonsense"!
sparky6025 7 months ago
@sparky6025 So, You do believe that donkeys and snakes talk ?. That there is a whole list of people who don`t deserve to live and must be killed ? Witches, Homos,Fortunetellers, Those who don`t listen to priests. Unruly kids, Those who curse their parents, adulterers, fornicators. Those who work on the Sabbath ? etc etc. So it is true that you can clubber your slave to death, provided he survives your beating by a couple days ? Nonsense indeed.
tallliza 7 months ago
"without form and void" simply means it was 'unfinished and unfurnished' at that point in the creation process ...there were 6 more days of creation to follow! Gap theory, regardless of whether Spurgeons sermoned on the concept before the publication of Darwins 'Origin of Species' -he was not the first by any means anyhow- is but a shallow attempt to force fit evo theory into Bible history. Those who advocate it always end up compromising the authority and authenticity of God's word to do so.
sparky6025 8 months ago
@sparky6025 without form and void How do you know what it means ? Inspiration by the holy spirit ? Creation in Genesis is utter nonsense. That`s why your OWN CHRISTIAN colleges, except a few, do not teach litteral biblical creation.
tallliza 7 months ago
@tallliza BTW, what ‘colleges’ who masquerade as "Christian" claim, accept, or deny, is as entirely irrelevant to me as your provocateur posts.
sparky6025 7 months ago
@sparky6025 Of course. Even your scriptures state that the salvation story is nonsense. But even that you will deny..... Your provocateur post... is an indication that you know zilch about the spirit of the gospels. If I were you I would..( first) study what I believe.... Blessed are the contentious, the litigious and the arrogant, for they will inherit the earth
tallliza 7 months ago
..."We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be - certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam." -So, on the one hand Spurgeons admits to not knowing how old the earth is, yet -in the same breath, as it were, claims absolutely that it is 'many millions of years before" Adam. Hummm ..sounds like typical Protestant double-speak. Scripture leave absolutely no room for 'gap theory'. Exod. 20:11 -this 1 verse in and of itself eliminates the poss of a gap
sparky6025 8 months ago
Science is about how the world really is, and not what makes us feel good.
ClamCrunchy 9 months ago
Old earth and evolution are two different things, while you might force old earth on the bible, you cant force evolution on a perfect man created by God. Let me ask what is worse, twisting scripture to fit science, or explaining that if science does not comply with the biblical account, then we lack sufficient evidence? Or even twisting science to meet scripture?
b1foschiefs 9 months ago
I noticed now that aig put the rest of the Spurgeon sermon back into that article to avoid anymore ridicule. But I did see via internet archieve that back a couple of years ago they did not include the millions of years thing. They clearly do have an agenda.
2011derricks 10 months ago
I lost my faith because I was tied up in AiG's theology. I have only slowly worked my way back. Time will only tell if I get it back...
pianodemon88 10 months ago
@pianodemon88
Read the Bible for yourself. Pray. and don't listen to nut-jobs like AiG. They are religious bullies. Ken Ham is a cult leader.
Many God-fearing, Bible believing Christians believe that the Universe is Billions of years old. There is nothing wrong with this idea. In no way does it contradict anything in the Bible.
VforVideo 9 months ago
Question was death around millions of years before Adam and Eve? and if it was what has death got to do with sin. And if we cant believe the earthly things of the bible why should we beleive the rest?
I don't think AIG should mislead regarding Spurgeon and it is wrong if they have.
ameiko76 10 months ago
Just because Charles Spurgeon "had no problem with an Earth that is millions of years old," doesn't mean he was right about it. There were others that promoted an older Earth way before Darwin, so he could have been influenced by them.
Repentance is for turning away from sin. Are you suggesting it is a sin for AIG to point out those who contradict the Bible's account of Creation? Who's word is supreme here? Charles Spurgeon, or God?
I lovingly suggest caution in exalting Man over God.
JewlTonz 11 months ago
@JewlTonz Amen and Amen
b1foschiefs 9 months ago
You cannot pick and choose in science. You cannot accept the evidence that the Erath is 4.5 billion years old and reject evolution. Both the age of the Earth and evolution are products of the exact same scientific method. Your position is untenable.
ClamCrunchy 11 months ago
@ClamCrunchy How so? Will you explain
b1foschiefs 9 months ago
@b1foschiefs The reason why is because both evolution and geology are products of the exact same scientific method and peer review process. It would be inconsistent to argue for an old Earth but against evolution, when the level of evidence for both is the same. If you were going to argue that scientific evidence supports an old Earth, but not evolution, then you might as well doubt an old Earth as well, again because they are products of the same scientific method and peer review process.
ClamCrunchy 9 months ago
@ClamCrunchy I appreciate your response. Do you have any outside sources that you can point me to. I thought geology and genetics were two completely different fields of study.
b1foschiefs 9 months ago
Comment removed
paigeyf0502 11 months ago
Comment removed
paigeyf0502 11 months ago
Spurgeon was about 30yo when Darwinism came into vogue. Sounds like he fell prey to contemporary thought and figured that the gap theory was a good way to get along with everybody - a common mistake. A brilliant man like Spurgeon probably would have changed his position if he had been able to study the excellent scientific analyses of groups like AIG. I understand when people who hate Christ blast groups like AIG, but not when those who claim to love Christ do the same.
barbnjon84 1 year ago
@barbnjon84
I blast "AIG" because they tell lies about the Bible. They tell people that if they don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth, then they can't believe in the truth of the resurrection of Christ.
I love Christ, believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and believe in an old earth. Not because it's in vogue, but because I don't think an old earth contradicts the bible. AIG keeps saying that it does. I ask AIG to show me the literal Biblical passage that backs this up.
VforVideo 10 months ago
AIG is wrong on just about every count when it comes to the theory of evolution. They misrepresent it (straw man) and then proceed to "disprove" it. The theory itself is simply an excellent explanation of the evidence and speaks in no way to the veracity or falsity of any particular religious worldview, (unless said view is in some way testable).
Pacisdiligo 1 year ago
Doesn't God mean what He says, and says what He means in His Word?
MolterFamily 1 year ago
i am no christian by any means (my lifestyle does not permit me to be) yet i know god is real and that his word is infallible truth. at one point in my life i devoted much time to the study of scripture and apologetics. before i came to christ at that point, i was totally convinced that the universe was billions of years in age and that evolution accounted for our existence. i quickly found out that scripture supports neither of these notions, in the slightest. which is why i rejected them,
ThaDinoWS 1 year ago
@ThaDinoWS i chose to reject these notions on the basis that the word of God cannot er. genesis is CLEARLY written as historical narrative, and should be taken as such. why dabble with notions that are diametrically opposed to scripture? (billions of years, evolution, pre-adamic races etc.) adhering to such dubious notions is akin to playing russian roulette. compromise opens the door to more compromise, and that in turn can lead to the total undermining of scripture.
ThaDinoWS 1 year ago
I clicked on the link you gave for AIG, and they clearly post the following on the sermon: These sermons from Charles Spurgeon are a series that is for reference and not necessarily a position of Answers in Genesis. Spurgeon did not entirely agree with six days of creation and dives into subjects that are beyond the AiG focus (e.g., Calvinism vs. Arminianism, modes of baptism, etc.)- Not sure why your video and attack?
1integrity 1 year ago
Alright I went from trying to figure out Calvin&Arminim to King James only ppl only to find some think the earth is Bazillon years old...does it matter the age of the earth? For that matter, we do not have a time frame as to how long did Adam and woman live in the Garden before they sinned? They could of been there MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of years We will never know... the point that does matter IS rather we are OBEDIENT to What God says PERIOD.
Ogram1000 1 year ago
bigwhammyRocks: Have you read the Bible? You said you own all of Spurgeon's stuff, but what about reading the Bible? Answers in Genesis is both historically and Biblically accurate. That they disagree with Spurgeon may say that Spurgeon was wrong. After all, neither Spurgeon nor Answers in Genesis is the final authority; God's word is the final authority.
friendofIam 1 year ago
Spurgeon is a man just like any other. He is not perfect, nor was he divinely inspired like the apostles were when they wrote the books of the NT, and not everything he believes is truth. Just look at Calvinism : ) Don't get me wrong, he was an awesome preacher, along with Edwards, Wesley, Henry, etc. But they are men like everyone else, and I believe that they were in fact very wrong on several things. Don't put man on a pedestal, put God and His truth on it.
Johnnytm21 1 year ago
Uh. I checked out the two versions, and apparently you saw something that wasn't there. AiG has the exact same version you do. Are you objecting to the brackets?
dougmoerhoffman 1 year ago
Is Spurgeon infallible?
o1travel 1 year ago
Radiometric dating is very inaccurate and dates even today's fresh magma to be up to billions of years old in some instances. And why would radio active decay have always been the same (uniformitarianism)? There is no empirical evidence to support the claim. The whole talking point of this propagated "science" (evolution, naturalistic big bang, etc), is designed to suite the ancient Greek and eastern mystical religions. It's A-Theismus = Against God, not Nontheismus or unbias science.
Markusbenthin 1 year ago
When Lyell propagated that the earth was 76,000 years old instead o 6, people were shocked. Ever since the numbers have inflated now several billions. Creationists understand uniformitarianism quite well, they just don't share the assumption. Observable local floods and waterfalls show patterns that erosion happens very quickly, and the science can be applied. Light has been slowed to almost zero. It's not a constant. And The Word is his, Uni Verse, one single spoken sentence.
Markusbenthin 1 year ago
It was mainly Charles Lyell in the Principles Of Geology in 1830-1833 who came up with the idea of Uniformitarianism. This states that each layer of rock is an age, which could account for millions or billions of years depending how you count.
So, this old-age saga does not stem from Darwin, although he was in favor of Lyellism.
Markusbenthin 1 year ago
@Markusbenthin Creationists don't understand Uniformitarianism.
They think it means ''slow' and 'gradual' and 'uniform''.
.
Uniformitarianism means the PROCESSES of the past are the same today.
The speed of light is the same, radioactive decay is the same, etc.
You are right, geologists proved the earth was millions of years old,
before Dawin, before radiometric dating was invented.
Spread the TRUTH !
gregrutz 1 year ago
In your video description you refer to something you call "NeoAtheism." What is that? That term makes no sense. There is no "neoatheism" and there is no "new atheism", as some Christian writers and speakers claim. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Such a view is thousands of years old. It is nothing new at all.
tekbarrier 1 year ago
I know for a fact that Spurgeon did not believe that the earth was millions of years old. The Holy Bible states quite clearly that God created Heaven and Earth in 6 days. Why would God need time to wait to create what he could do in an instant?
Evolution cannot even be proven scientifically let alone logically...
Surfxeo 1 year ago
Good video, it confirms my suspicions that the whole Young Earth creationist movement is some kind of plant to discredit Christianity. When you go so far as to intentionally misquote classical preachers that can easily be double checked-it shows a willful lack of honesty.
OmegaisNearV2 1 year ago
1. Have you e-mailed them directly about this? They might not come across this video.
2. Is it not presumptuous to call upon the supposed authority of Spurgeon? Spurgeon does not have the authority of Scripture. And I wonder if the bits that seem somewhat gap theory-like have any real basis in Scripture, which is where all arguments must finally rest. I respect Spurgeon as among the great preachers of the last few centuries, but he is a man and men do make mistakes.
thelyniezian 1 year ago
There is no Darwinist faith. Darwinism(you don't see this term in science), or more correctly evolutionary biology which is a branch of biology tries to explain (very sucessfully) how life evolved but not how life started.
Again you mistakingly call atheism a religion, this is incorrect.. Atheisim is effectively a lack of religion.
Mat
huntmatuk 1 year ago
Evolution's Big Bang portrays something being created from something that is already in existence-though they never explain the source of this original matter/energy. God demonstrates in Genesis 1:1-3 shows that God created time, space and matter from nothing with the first manifestation in time, space and matter being light which was created ex nihilo-out of nothing.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
When God created time and began to measure the day, he didn't change the language from the 1st 3 days to another idea in the remaining 4 days after the sun was created. The morning and the evening were the same day in every day of creation. It has been the same morning and evening, by measure ever since. God who can do all things: can take a trillion years, a split second, or 6 days.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
God in his sovereign will and by the wisdom of his own purpose made his work of creation to take 6 days. God didn't tell us 6 days so that we would be asking ourselves, Did he really mean 6 days? Many will try to manipulate 2 Peter 3 into some algebraic expression that allows them to manipulate Genesis 1. But they do so by not reading the context of 2 Peter correctly.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
The 2 Peter passage of a day being as a thousand years, etc. This is talking about God's relationship with time. It is not intended for us to make some algebraic symbolism out of it and then go through the Bible and apply it where we will because it doesn't fit some quasi-scientific theory that man has been trying to elevate above the wisdom of God's word.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
True science has never been at odds with the Bible. Pseudo-science however is another matter. Evolution which is not true science has no point of harmony with the Bible. Those who try to make evolution & Genesis 1 to coincide do so at the distortion of the Bible. The order of cosmogony in the Bible is entirely different than evolution's contrivance. There is no harmony between creation in Genesis and origins in evolution.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
The "missing text" now appears on the AIG site. It is in brackets and footnoted to say that even Spurgeon wasn't right about everything. When was the text "put back," does anyone know? It is distressing to me that a Christian organization with so much influence uses this kind of tactic.
eplock 1 year ago
Comment removed
eplock 1 year ago
Comment removed
eplock 1 year ago
It looks like we are not supposed to try to reconcile science and the Bible but you honestly don't have to because it comes from the same source, God. Preconceptions lead people to believe that they have to reconcile science and the Bible.Spurgeon says the earth is millions of years old and was a molten mass. The Bible gives no timescale at all so that is speculation and the Bible also says that God hovered over the waters which means the earth was not hot before God started to create.
brewercap 1 year ago
Because Spurgeon says that the earth is millions of years old means it's true? C'mon now. And geological theories regarding millions of years before Darwin published his book. Now I agree with you that they should not have edited his sermon to support "young earth" when he didn't believe in the same.
brewercap 1 year ago
However, Spurgeon was just a great teacher - not a prophet or god. Sorry, he could have been wrong about the "science" - as were Bishop Ryle, Charles Hodge, and many evangelical theologians of the Victorian period. What matters is what the Bible says, not what AIG or bigwhammy say.
The Bible is clear that death disease and suffering come from Adam's sin. There were no long ages of different creatures extincting and new ones being created.
armedconventicle 1 year ago
If AIG have changed Spurgeon's sermons, they should repent. If Spurgeon was a long-ager, then AIG should not post his sermons at all.
armedconventicle 1 year ago
what is a libronix library?
roaringwaterbay 1 year ago
Evolution is a fact, I'm afraid to say. If you study the bible for many years you can learn nothing. The right method for learning stuff is NOT makiing shit up or referring to some scribblings where illiterate people made shit up a long long time ago.
superberenjeno 1 year ago
Even Augustine of Hippo stated that the length of the Creation is not known neither is the age of the earth. But that as science develops we will know more. I oppose evolution of course. But I can't accept the world being 6000 years old. it's too young.
911TruthSeeker91 2 years ago
@911TruthSeeker91 why can't you accept evolution. the same science that brought you medicine and clean water brought you evolution, how can it be right on some things but dead wrong on others?
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@ajgrovery
The comment that I wrote was 3 months ago, so I have had a change of heart since then. I don't oppose evolution, but I don't accept it fully neither. When you talk about evolution your talking about a very broad term. It's practically split into two categories: Macro and Micro evolution. Micro evolution is basically variation within a specific complex or species. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is variation that occurs beyond certain complexities. such as monkey evolving to a man
911TruthSeeker91 1 year ago
@ajgrovery
Micro evolution, variation within a species, is documented and still being documented, so anyone who does not accept it is just ignorant. Macro evolution, however, is not as simple to accept. I'm not a scientist by the way, I'm just trying to find evidence for macro evolution. Instead of just going along with the status quo I advise you to research into it yourself. Read writings and journals from scientists who specialize in the field of biology.
911TruthSeeker91 1 year ago
@911TruthSeeker91 the entire fossil record is a testament to macroevolution showing both gradual change and punctuated equilibrium, extinctions and explosions of diversity. anyone who has told you otherwise is ignorant of the facts or lying.
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@ajgrovery That is false. There is not one fossil record, let alone the entire record of it, that verifies any instance of macroevolution. Even within laboratories, among geneticiists, biologists, and microbiologists, they have not found any evidence that supports the ability of any living organism to change outside of its kind. Rather the contrary, especially among geneticists who are recognizing a very controlled and narrow ability among DNA of any species to mutate beyond their own kind.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
@HermitintheRain what i said is true
If you would provide a definition of the word kind then i will show you an observed example of one kind coming from another.
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@ajgrovery That is a logical fallacy of equivocation. You equate what is called science in evolution with what is science in the empirical science of medicine. What is called science in evolution does not qualify as science, but at the most philosophy. A philosophy, that despite the overwhelming evidence, both logically and scientifically that disproves it, has only shown the ability of the dishonest to manipulate and try to redefine what is science.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
@HermitintheRain no it is the same scientific method. testing claims against evidence is all science is and evolution has been tested against massive denial for over 100 years and has passed every test. even ID proponents simulations show that it "could" happen
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@ajgrovery Evolution has been tested, that much is true: of that which could be tested by science, none has been verified as a valid. The rest of what is called evolution: namely the subject of origins cannot be tested by science. The scientific method doesn't allow for the testing of such a theory, as such a theory belongs solely in the realm of philosophy at best-by which the rules of logic and epistemology must be applied.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
@HermitintheRain ok preaching over now please define kind so i can show you a "kind" coming from another "kind"
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@HermitintheRain kind definition ? yes? no? or the real answer (ie there isnt one its just a wording used which obviously means species but since i know that is wrong i made something up)
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@ajgrovery Kind is that which is within its group. Oak trees are a kind that is not of the same kind as palm trees. Though there be many kinds of oak trees, or many kinds of palm trees, neither will ever be able to mutate into one another or into some hybrid between them. When science manipulates the genes of such they make a tree that is unable to reproduce itself-as it is an anomaly of nature. This is but one of the millions of examples in the world.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
@HermitintheRain am i to understand that your definintion is roughly equivalent to genus?
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@HermitintheRain Incidentally evolution does not say that an oak tree will become a palm tree. If the environment changes such that an oak tree would be better off as a palm tree the oaks will die off. Also would you agree that single celled organisms are a different kind then humans?
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@ajgrovery But that is exactly what evolution teaches when it teaches that man has evolved, as well as other mammals, from birds and aquatic animals. It teaches that all species, kingdoms, families, etc originate out of some proto-kingdom by which we have all the various kingdoms, families, species and genus. Though this theory has been ruled out by the likes of genetics, biology, chemistry and physics, the theory still persists in textbooks and classrooms around the world.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
Science as a tool is as useful as a tool as logic and mathematics. But that is all it is-a tool. When those who wish to push a world view-be they religous or irreligious-they go beyond the bounds of science. Science is not a tool for interpreting or explain origins. Science, as with logic and mathematics, can only help to gauge truth in the limited arena of its ability. But recognizing the limitations will allow the proper use of these then valuable tools.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
@HermitintheRain no. i said evolution does not teach that an oak tree can become a palm tree. in the last 10000 years dogs have all evolved from wolves. picture the differences between a shi tzu and a wolf. imagine what could be done in a million years. now we have fossil evidence which shows evolution happened and in great detail and genetic evidence alon shows we share a common anscestry. so where does that leave your bronze age myth?
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@ajgrovery wolves and dogs are still K9s thats micro evolution wolves evolving to birds or horses would be macro evolution wich the fossil record itself cannot support[macro] you misrepresent the truth with your clams of fossil proof
TheJdtulsa 1 year ago
@TheJdtulsa No I am not it is you who is misrepresenting whether through ignorance or wilful deception. the fossil record is a good representation of the history of this planet and proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution is true, humans have been here millions of years and the flood didn't happen among other things.
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@ajgrovery The claims hat life arose sponteneously, and that simple life-forms evolved into the sort of complexity we see today (not just the small clumps of cells demnstrated in the lab, but complex arrangements of highly specialised cells) can only be demonstrated indirectly from the geological and fossil record, not directly observed. So in that sense they are different.
thelyniezian 1 year ago
@thelyniezian i said evolution not abiogenesis. evolution is a fact of life, when you see species changing into other species before your eyes and have a record showing that animals have been doing this for millions of years all tracing back to common ancestors what is the justifiable conclusion?
ajgrovery 1 year ago
@ajgrovery Regardless, the point is that whilst smal-scale evolutionary changes, even up to the species level, may be directly observed, larger-scale changes can only be inferred, as can the time-frames by which they are supposed to have occurred (relying on the underlying assumptions of various radiometric dating methods, etc.) Although (arguably?) unrelated, so can be said for the mechanism of abiogenesis.
thelyniezian 1 year ago
@thelyniezian i'll ask you again given the situation i outlined below what it the justifiable conclusion
and abiogenesis is definitely unrelated.
ajgrovery 1 year ago
FOSSILS HAVE DISCREDITED EVOLUTION (PART 1)(1 of 7) Watch it.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
You're funny.
MusicHypno 1 year ago
Look at JOB chapter 40 vs 15 and so on. He talkes about 2 dinosaurs one of which breathed fire like the legends of old! The bible spoke of dinosaurs called Dragons many times and not reffering to Satan either.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
The best part is that they give the chronoligy from Jesus to Adam LOL Haha ha ha ha. Look up PHD DR SWIFT ICA STONES LOL.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
Yes lets trust this pastor when GOD SAID 6 LITERAL DAYS DERF! CLEARLY SPERGON KNEW MORE OF GOD THAN GOD DID! LOL ILL REMIND YOU OF JOB WHEN GOD SAID "WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I LAID THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH?" The devil comes as a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
Yes the spirit of God moved over the waters and the theory of evolution clearly states the earth was a hot molten blob LOL
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
You fools... Sin begot death. Thats why Jesus had to come and die for the remission of sin. If there was sin and death before adam than Christ duying on the cross has no signifigance at all. Get your head out of Satans sphyncter.. LOL You children of darkness you will see the light one day and it shal be the last ray of truth you shal even know and it will be the death of you on the day of judgment. You leed people straight to hell and to hell you shal go LOL.
Brophan1ty 2 years ago
5:32
No, it's not Christian behavior. It's typical AIG behavior, and it's not just old sermons that get taken out of context. They do it countless times with evolutionary biologists and other scientists as well.
To make matters worse, when they can't find any holes in a theory that help them in any way, they make stuff up completely. Like Evolution leading to racism and genocide, or atheism leading to school violence which is utterly baseless.
cadman2300 2 years ago
Thank you for posting this. I am not an Old Earther or a Calvinist, but you have brought some light to AIG. You make an excellent point to the alleged claims that old earthers are some how compromising the Creation account of Genesis.
I would be curious about AIG's response because it seems they are the compromisers!
Thanks and excellent research.
klipnark 2 years ago
Certainly??? millions of years??? Before Darwin??? How do we KNOW this???
Be honest...Darwin didn't invent evolution...he stood on the shoulders of Hutton, and Lyle before him.
KnightsofTrueNorth 2 years ago
I love how he handles Spurgeons sermon's though they were themselves inerrant scripture...What then happens when I pull out my list of equally presigious preachers who disagree?
Yes, we go where we should have all along...to the Bible.
KnightsofTrueNorth 2 years ago
Its ironic that though you validly call AIG on their dishonesty, you yourselves believe in and possibly make a plethora of totally dishonest claims about the theory of evolution and findings in its associated scientific fields.
gavinplaysbass 2 years ago
Besides, Spurgeon was wrong on a few points. One obviously being your point that the earth is millions of years old, and the other I know of is the doctrines of grace. Spurgeon is what we could call today a Calvinist. He believed in limited atonement of sin. He did not believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Thanks for opening my eyes to another Spurgeon error.
God bless AIG and all the scientist who are not afraid to stand against the evolution crowd.
wildoats332000 2 years ago
Ditto.
KnightsofTrueNorth 2 years ago
Yawn.........
The gap theory is something that few Christians bother with. If the gap theory is true there wouldn't be a period of time that you could define it with since time did not exist until the first day and the first night. There would also definitley be no evidence of creatures existing prior to creation. A more interesting thought I've had is how long did Adam and Eve live in the garden prior to their fall? Could it have been a couple of years or thousands? We just don't know.
wildoats332000 2 years ago
Chris, great job exposing their dishonesty. In addition to all your talents, I see that you are also an investigative reprter.
sincitypreacher 2 years ago
And your quote from Spurgeons book sounds to me like a lamentation of his earlier claims to knowing the obvious age of the world being millions of years, Spurgeon was not a scientist but he was a Christian, we can learn a lot from him but not science. Ken Ham however is a scientist and a Christian, editing out a faulty portion of a good sermon is neither a crime nor a sin as trying to change the truth of scripture would be and is.
I used to believe in millions of years but then I was saved.
HodEnoch 2 years ago
It is true that C.H. Spurgeon is known as the Prince of Preachers but the word of God in Psalm 118:8-9 says It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin. If you believe in death before Adam then you do not believe the bible, just as Satan intended. Evolution is the lie that beguiled Eve some 6000 years ago
HodEnoch 2 years ago
It is sad that people sometimes hold the words of men above that of God.
your statement that Spurgeons sermon of 1855 is not a compromise with evolutionary theory is redundant- many people before Darwin proposed that the earth was very old, an example is James Hutton. Spurgeon was also a Calvinist but I doubt he would have approved of the deadly inquisitional approach that John Calvin used to promote his view of theology.
HodEnoch 2 years ago
Excellent facts. Thanks for taking the time to find this reference. I love Spurgeon's works but don't have the time to plow through them.
klipnark 2 years ago
The earth isn't millions of years old anyway.Was it all that existed before God made the universe? If the could make the universe in a day surely He made the earth quickly in the beginning too. Dating methods can't prove old earth theory to be true, its an untrustworthy science.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
A day is defined by the earth rotating around it axis as it orbits the sun - there was no such thing as a "day" when the universe was created.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
You are misquoting what Genesis says. The first day God made the heaven and the earth and light and darkeness . The earth was rotating but the light may have been His Glory. I am not debating this - I believe creation as Genesis describes- we wern't there and we must take the whole word of God into context- it is credable and trustworthy.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
were you there??
maluafever 2 years ago
@bigwhammyRocks wrong, Genesis clearly explains what a day is.
jiminiflix 1 year ago
@bigwhammyRocks Those who try to make compromise with unproven theories by suggesting that a day in Genesis 1 wasn't actually a day have only demonstrated either dishonesty in the Hebrew or ignorance of it. There is no mistaking the Hebrew of Genesis 1 indicating that the morning and the evening were one day-a 24 hour period no different than the morning and evening of a day in Isaiah's and Jeremiah's time.
HermitintheRain 1 year ago
@bigwhammyRocks Is that how the first day ended without a sunset?
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigwhammyRocks >>A day is defined by the earth rotating around it axis as it orbits the sun <<
No, orbiting the sun has to do with years. It doesn't have to orbit the sun to revolve around its own axis. A spinning die doesn't have to orbit you to spin around its own axis.
dougmoerhoffman 1 year ago
@bigwhammyRocks This is truly disappointing to see AiG do, however, who there did it? Are we to throw all their material away due ot the misleading of Spurgeon statements?I believe the rock known as earth when formless and void could very well be millions of years old to which does not contradict the miniscule amount of material you display regarding spurgeon. I believe God did it in 6 days (24hrs) not based what AiG says but what God's word states. I give ya an A for effort but F for attitude
dogfight55 1 year ago
@bigwhammyRocks But when Moses wrote down "In 6 days God created the heavens and the earth", and when Moses wrote down the 6 days of Genesis account, a day was already established as a known time period much less than "millions of years" per day :-). LOL...good try, but not very good scholarship unless you believe in the infallibility of the "pope" spurgeon?
1integrity 1 year ago
@jiminiflix funny that as dating techniques HAVE proven the earth to be billions of years old
ajgrovery 1 year ago
You ought to check out Can we believe Genesis today by Ernest Lucas!
OmegaisNearV2 1 year ago
@jiminiflix who invented the bow and arrow??and atlatl..i believe we were careated..who taught man the bow? and fire?
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@jiminiflix Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood 200 years ago, they didn't find any. They found out the earth was millions of years old.
Try and keep up.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Shows how easily people believe a lie.
jiminiflix 1 year ago
UM, last time i checked you do not repent for mistakes, just lies. Theres was a mistake, which they fixed i might add. And don't even get me started on hugh ross.
CWNelson79 2 years ago
The original text was right in front of them and they edited out parts that they disagreed with - intentionally misrepresenting the authors intent - how do you call that a mistake?
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Did you ask them if that was on purpose? That is what you are supposed to do. Did you ask for an explanation? They have a pretty good track record. And they corrected it.
CWNelson79 2 years ago
UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLE!!!!!!
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
Millions of years aren't an issue if you have a big enough God.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
one question I got though, which I couldn't answer. Was why did God create in the way? Why a process and not just an instant creation? Any ideas?
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
Consider that he is not temporal. Perhaps it only seems like a process to us because we are.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I think the process between the big bang and now is definitely a process.
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
Hey I'm stretching ... but consider that you only see it as a process because you are confined "in time" - to God the past present and future just "are" simultaneously - no time - the process is only from our perspective. God is the great "I AM"
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
I stopped to translate for them and anyway, they wanted me to translate for free.
CombatForTheFaith 2 years ago
Have you contacted AIG to ask if there was an oversight or mistake made,before outrightly accusing them of deception?
theologymattrz 2 years ago
They admitted it - but are not repentant. As a "correction" they put a tiny little blue foot note in that leads to the real content of the sermon below. It's pretty sad they cant just print the sermon as it was written. Even with the footnote its manipulative and misleading.
bigwhammyRocks 2 years ago
Answers in Genesis are nothing but a bunch of lying turds.
argetfalcon 2 years ago