Evolution: What The Fossils Say

[Speedwell]

Was the resurrection magic? Or maybe the virgin birth or, new birth for that matter! Is final judgment a myth? What about this promise, is this just religious rhetoric representing nothing tangible?

The only "magic" here is the magical property you have gratuitously attributed to the inspired word of God.

May I remind you to deny Christ before men is to have Christ deny you before the Father.

That you feel you must condescend to "remind" me of such a thing is a slanderous personal insult and, I believe, a reportable offence under the rules of this forum.

 

[mark kennedy]

The only "magic" here is the magical property you have gratuitously attributed to the inspired word of God.

Notice, you didn't answer a single question, conspicuously silent on that point I'd say.

That you feel you must condescend to "remind" me of such a thing is a slanderous personal insult and, I believe, a reportable offense under the rules of this forum.

Unless accompanied by evidence and I was paraphrasing Scripture. That and you're not supposed to respond. James 4:4 come to mind. I'm not saying you're not a Christian, I'm reminding you of it. Why doesn't he respond, what's he need you for?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

Notice, you didn't answer a single question, conspicuously silent on that point I'd say.

Given that you and I have discussed my beliefs at some length and that I belong to an established Christian denomination with a well-known body of doctrine, I would say that the questions were grotesque non sequiturs and did not merit a response. But since you want one, here it is:
I believe that you have confused the real historical events of our faith--the virgin birth of Christ, His death and resurrection and the promise of eternal life in Him--with stories in a book about them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Given that you and I have discussed my beliefs at some length and that I belong to an established Christian denomination with a well-known body of doctrine, I would say that the questions were grotesque non sequiturs and did not merit a response. But since you want one, here it is:
I believe that you have confused the real historical events of our faith--the virgin birth of Christ, His death and resurrection and the promise of eternal life in Him--with stories in a book about them.

So the resurrection, incarnation and miracles of the New Testament are historical but the early chapters of Genesis are just made up stories? Read Romans 5 much? Why does Luke call Adam son of God?

 

[Speedwell]

So the resurrection, incarnation and miracles of the New Testament are historical...

The resurrection, incarnation and miracles are historical. The New Testament contains stories about them. They are not historical because they are described in the New Testament. They are described in the New Testament because they are real historical events.
You're still confusing real historical events with stories in a book about them.

but the early chapters of Genesis are just made up stories? Read Romans 5 much? Why does Luke call Adam son of God?

And you still seem to think that the only alternative to 100% accurate historical narrative is "made-up stories" with no basis in fact.

 

[mark kennedy]

The resurrection, incarnation and miracles are historical. The New Testament contains stories about them. They are not historical because they are described in the New Testament. They are described in the New Testament because they are real historical events.
You're still confusing real historical events with stories in a book about them.



And you still seem to think that the only alternative to 100% accurate historical narrative is "made-up stories" with no basis in fact.

What is the alternative, an adapted pagan myth as opposed to the oracles of God? Did God tell Moses this or did someone just make it up? The New Testament affirms the lireral truth of Genesis, why don't you? Its in Isaiah, the Psalms, Job soy it's not an isolated text. You didn't answer my question, why does Luke call Adam son of God.

 

[Speedwell]

The New Testament affirms the literal truth of Genesis...

That argument is bankrupt.

P1: I believe the Garden story to be an etiological folk myth.
P2: Jesus uses the Garden story in His preaching exactly as any literate person uses such a story for such purposes.
C: Therefore, Jesus agrees with me that the Garden story is an etiology.

See how that works? And don't forget, It's a divinely inspired etiology. It doesn't matter whether it's a reworked pagan myth or not. If God told me the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, I would pay attention to what He was trying to tell me with it, and I wouldn't be bothered by the fact that bears don't live in houses or eat porridge for breakfast.

 

[mark kennedy]

That argument is bankrupt.

P1: I believe the Garden story to be an etiological folk myth.
P2: Jesus uses the Garden story in His preaching exactly as any literate person uses such a story for such purposes.
C: Therefore, Jesus agrees with me that the Garden story is an etiology.

See how that works? And don't forget, It's a divinely inspired etiology. It doesn't matter whether it's a reworked pagan myth or not. If God told me the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, I would pay attention to what He was trying to tell me with it, and I wouldn't be bothered by the fact that bears don't live in houses or eat porridge for breakfast.

Assigning esoteric language doesn't answer the question, why does Luke call Adam son of God?

 

[Speedwell]

Assigning esoteric language doesn't answer the question, why does Luke call Adam son of God?

because it made the point he was aiming at.

 

[mark kennedy]

because it made the point he was aiming at.

No you have unsuccessfully dodged the question. Why was Adam son of God unless he was created? By now this has to be sinking in and oh btw, Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve the beginning.

 

[Speedwell]

No you have unsuccessfully dodged the question. Why was Adam son of God unless he was created? By knew this has to be sinking in and oh btw, Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve the beginning.

Yes, I've hear all that before, and we are seriously off topic for this board.

OK, You have an interpretation of scripture which you like, and an internally self-consistent body of apologetics to support it. Good for you. If it helps you in your faith, then keep to it.
But it is not necessarily "truer" or "better" than that of other Christian sects and it certainly does not give you the right to be inquisitorial about it or require that the rest of us justify our beliefs to you. You don't own Christianity or the Bible. You're just another Christian like the rest of us. And I hope you realize that it is your sect's attitude towards those who don't agree with you about the Bible which is the single biggest reason that so many of us find biblical creationism noxious.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, I've hear all that before, and we are seriously off topic for this board.

OK, You have an interpretation of scripture which you like, and an internally self-consistent body of apologetics to support it. Good for you. If it helps you in your faith, then keep to it.
But it is not necessarily "truer" or "better" than that of other Christian sects and it certainly does not give you the right to be inquisitorial about it or require that the rest of us justify our beliefs to you. You don't own Christianity or the Bible. You're just another Christian like the rest of us. And I hope you realize that it is your sect's attitude towards those who don't agree with you about the Bible which is the single biggest reason that so many of us find biblical creationism noxious.

Why don't you just answer the questio, this is not an interpretive challenge and neither is Genesis. Why would Luke call Adam son of God. I don't take this personally nor do I mean it personally. I'm one of those evangelicals, which make up roughly forty percent of the US population that really believes man was created 6000 years ago. Not because of Genesis, Isaiah, Job and many of the Psalms alone. The most important foundational understanding of creation is the New Testament witness. Don't blame me when that lemon they sold you breaks down and your left with nothing but fallacious ad hominem. Your descending into a downward spirial, why don't you just answer the question? Isn't It because you can't?

 

[AV1611VET]

If God told me the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, I would pay attention to what He was trying to tell me with it, and I wouldn't be bothered by the fact that bears don't live in houses or eat porridge for breakfast.

And those who believe Genesis 2 is a myth don't always bother to get married, do they?

Question: Do you know of anyone who believes in a literal Genesis 2 and shacking up?

 

[Speedwell]

Why don't you just answer the questio, this is not an interpretive challenge and neither is Genesis. Why would Luke call Adam son of God. I don't take this personally nor do I mean it personally. I'm one of those evangelicals, which make up roughly forty percent of the US population that really believes man was created 6000 years ago. Not because of Genesis, Isaiah, Job and many of the Psalms alone. The most important foundational understanding of creation is the New Testament witness. Don't blame me when that lemon they sold you breaks down and your left with nothing but fallacious ad hominem. Your descending into a downward spirial, why don't you just answer the question? Isn't It because you can't?

The "lemon" they sold me has lasted almost 2000 years. I think I'll keep it a little longer.

I could answer the question but I will not because 1. You don't have the right to demand it of me and 2. You would just be snotty about any answer I gave you, as you were when we discussed Luke's genealogy on a previous occasion.

 

[mark kennedy]

The "lemon" they sold me has lasted almost 2000 years. I think I'll keep it a little longer.

You now want to equivocate Darwinism with the gospel. I could save you some time after feigning moral indignation the ad hominem are all you'll want to talk about. I tried to warn you, your Darwinian philosophy is impossible to reconcile to the New Testament.

I could answer the question but I will not because 1. You don't have the right to demand it of me and 2. You would just be snotty about any answer I gave you, as you were when we discussed Luke's genealogy on a previous occasion.

You don't answer because you would have to agree with the obvious, so you dodge it. I'm going to continue to remind you of the New Testament witness and how it is diametrically and deliberately opposed to Christian theism. Just answer the question, sure you don't owe me anything but the meaning of the passage is obvious. How you liking your Darwinian cohorts now that their false epistomolgy has pitted you against the New Testament witness.

 

[HitchSlap]

And those who believe Genesis 2 is a myth don't always bother to get married, do they?

Question: Do you know of anyone who believes in a literal Genesis 2 and shacking up?

Kent Hovind?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do certain people seem to forget that apologetics is against the Physical & Life Science/Creation & Evolution forum rules?

 

[mark kennedy]

Why do certain people seem to forget that apologetics is against the Physical & Life Science/Creation & Evolution forum rules?

Probably because creationism is evidential apologetics. A better question would be why so many posts that have absolutely nothing to do with fossils, or science for that matter. Bait and switch I think.

 

[HitchSlap]

Probably because creationism is evidential apologetics. A better question would be why so many posts that have absolutely nothing to do with fossils, or science for that matter. Bait and switch I think.

The fossil issue was settled on page one, with the video.
The other 11 pages are you claiming creationism FTW, without one shred of support for your claims.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Probably because creationism is evidential apologetics. A better question would be why so many posts that have absolutely nothing to do with fossils, or science for that matter. Bait and switch I think.

No, you can talk about creationism without involving apologetics. It's very hard to do, but it's doable. You arguing with Speedwell for the last two pages has been nothing but apologetics.