How many dozens of Christians did creationism drive away this past hour?

TheBarrd · May 23, 2015

rider99 said:
Personally, I don't think your faith is rubbish, but I always challenge those who as Christians, take stands contrary to the Scriptures to validate and support what they claim. If anything it should be a reassurance to find and post supporting Scriptures, though most are unable to do so. That leads me to question, do you believe what God told you or what man told you? The difference is that people are inherently flawed and God is eternally good. As for the historical events of the Bible, since I was not witness to them I must decide upon whose word to place my trust. Personally, the word of the Lord trumps the theories of man every time.

One question that puzzles me is this. There are 333 miracles listed in the Scriptures. You obviously do not believe all of them, but you believe some of them; for example the resurrection of Christ. By what barometer to you choose what to accept and what to reject? Scientifically, ALL miracles are impossible. Impossible equals itself, so no impossible thing is more impossible than another. It is no more possible to feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes (and end up with more than when you started) than for a global flood to happen. By what standard is one holy doctrine and the other not? How do you know this with confidence?

That is what confuses me about evolution-believing flood-denying Christians. We have the same God and the same Scripture and yet hold diametrically opposing views on foundational doctrine. I can validate what I believe based on the Scriptures. Can you do the same? Keep in mind, though I cite your post, this is not directed to you personally. Any evolution believing Christian is welcome to answer and show me in the Scriptures where there are right and I am wrong.

I'm not sure if I am an "evolution believing Christian" or not.
When I look at the description of Creation in Genesis, I do not see a technical manual describing for us exactly how God went about His Creation. Science has managed to track back the movements of the stars to a point which they think is the beginning of the universe...if I recall correctly, and I could be wrong, here...it was some 14 or 15 billion years ago. And it isn't over yet, either. New stars and planets are still being created.
Man, according to science, appeared around 200,000 years ago.
Whether I like it or not, the scientific community seems to agree that "evolution is a fact". I'm inclined to believe that God created each specific "kind", and left them to adapt to the environment. I don't think that's quite the same as "evolution" as science sees it, but it isn't exactly "creationism" either.
As for the flood, yes, I definitely believe that there was a world wide flood. I just think that our traditional dating is off. I suspect that this old rock has been spinning for even longer than science would have it, and that mankind has also been around for quite a bit longer, and I suspect that the reason for the confusion is actually that flood.
I very strongly suspect that we have barely scratched the surface...

Edial · May 23, 2015

rider99 said:
Yep, and they still haven't restored my account.
KWCrazy.
I was Nutrider99 for a long time before someone decided that it had a sexual connotation. The name actually dates back to the late 80's when the internet was all pay-per-hour. There was a chatroom called "Hecklers Online" that was all about making fun of the world around us. I ride a motorcycle, people called me a nut and "Knightrider" was popular, so... Nutrider was born. I moved to KY in 1997 and changed it to Nutrider99. When the mods here changed it to "Rider99" I went away and came back as KWCrazy.

Hi KWCrazy.
Are you working with someone on this or just waiting?
Please context Members Services and they would take care of it.
Thanks,
Ed

AV1611VET · May 23, 2015

SkyWriting said:
Let's not fantasize. I've read lot's of science fiction. The reality is that life can't be created from non-life.

SteveB28 said:
And yet, that's EXACTLY what you believe, isn't it? Adam from a handful of soil, etc?

No.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Life from Life.

Abiogenesis is a joke.

AV1611VET · May 23, 2015

SteveB28 said:
There exists no evidence of a world-wide flood. It is a claim without support.

Which is it? "no evidence" or "a claim without support"?

TheBarrd · May 23, 2015

SteveB28 said:
There exists no evidence of a world-wide flood. It is a claim without support.

What evidence do you have to suggest that the dating methods we employ are "off"?

How can you believe in the concept of separate "kinds" (whatever they may be) and yet hold that "evolution is a fact"?

It's just an idea I have...nothing I can really put into words.

Blue Wren · May 23, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I like to use Gandhi as an example.

Gandhi is known for saying, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians."

Those who don't like us anymore -- well, who isn't liking them?

In other words, while Joe is laughing at George, who is laughing at Joe?

I'm confused, by what your trying to say here?

Blue Wren · May 23, 2015

The Cadet said:
How do you determine how to "interpret" the scriptures?

Why the quotes, around the world interpret? Is that not the correct word, for understanding the meaning & significance, of something?

Even the young earth creationists, do not take every word, of the Bible, literally, no? They try to understand, the purpose, of the verse, yes? I took several courses, on the Bible, over a three year period, that helped me. This gives more of a general overview, of factors that should be considered, whilst reading the Bible:
http://biologos.org/questions/interpreting-scripture

"Applying a method of interpretation to scripture passages can be a daunting task. C.S. Lewis advises us to, “Look. Listen. Receive." Reading and understanding the Bible is a process of discovery that goes beyond a hasty read-through. One must carefully study and seek to interpret the author’s intended meaning without projecting meaning onto the text. In order to read scripture in a meaningful and accurate way, it is logical to use what the Rev. Ernest Lucas calls the “standard methods of biblical interpretation that have been well established since the time of Augustine and the early church fathers.” Lucas, who has doctorates in both biochemistry and theology, explains that these standard methods involve asking the following five questions: What kind of language is being used? What kind of literature is it? What is the expected audience? What is the purpose of the text? What relevant extra-textual knowledge is there?"

David4223 · May 23, 2015

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a cleanup. If your post is missing, please review the CF Rules BEFORE posting again, including:

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.

MOD HAT OFF

SteveB28 · May 23, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Which is it? "no evidence" or "a claim without support"?

Yes.

SteveB28 · May 23, 2015

Blue Wren said:
Why the quotes, around the world interpret? Is that not the correct word, for understanding the meaning & significance, of something?

Even the young earth creationists, do not take every word, of the Bible, literally, no? They try to understand, the purpose, of the verse, yes? I took several courses, on the Bible, over a three year period, that helped me. This gives more of a general overview, of factors that should be considered, whilst reading the Bible:
http://biologos.org/questions/interpreting-scripture

Here are the words of Henery Morris, one of the creationist 'gurus' -

"It seems to us that we should take Scripture as the literal Word of God"

http://www.icr.org/article/838/

So take the argument up with him. Those of us that criticise, take creationists at their word when they tell us what they believe.

Blue Wren · May 23, 2015

SteveB28 said:
Here are the words of Henery Morris, one of the creationist 'gurus' -

"It seems to us that we should take Scripture as the literal Word of God"

So take the argument up with him. Those of us that criticise, take creationists at their word when they tell us what they believe.

Artamis posted the obituary, for Henry Morris. He died years ago. How can I take it up with him? The double-standard, that is the point.

I removed the link, from your quote. That article, it is filled with errors. I don't want to repost the link to it.

Davian · May 23, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
Not too woozy, just pain. I wasn't speaking about hell or eternity in that sentence. Davian said that God was a Character in a book and it was in that context I was telling him he has a rude awakening.

And I responded; you have yet to provide a reason to be concerned.

Davian · May 23, 2015

rider99 said:
...
If a scientist says that there is no proof of the supernatural the logical response is "Really, Sherlock? What gave you the first clue?"

The continuing inability of religionists to provide a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for what they mean by "supernatural".

Davian · May 23, 2015

AV1611VET said:
No.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Life from Life.

Abiogenesis is a joke.

Define "Life" in a manner that includes gods such as yours. Does your god breathe, eat, excrete?

Oncedeceived · May 23, 2015

Davian said:
And I responded; you have yet to provide a reason to be concerned.

I know that you don't like when I ask a question prior to answering yours but in this case hope you will allow me to.

Why is it do you think that it must be the imagination for people to experience God and why would it be in the millions of those who do experience it?

AV1611VET · May 23, 2015

Davian said:
Define "Life" in a manner that includes gods such as yours. Does your god breathe, eat, excrete?

How will that change the validity of the answer?

Pick any definition you want -- it still makes abiogenesis a joke.

Oncedeceived · May 23, 2015

Davian said:
The continuing inability of religionists to provide a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for what they mean by "supernatural".

Do you believe that everything that exists can be tested or is falsifiable?

KWCrazy · May 23, 2015

The continuing inability of religionists to provide a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for what they mean by "supernatural".

Testable how, exactly.
You see an angel tonight. How do you prove it?
If you say you saw an angel, others will say you were deluded.
If you took a picture they would call it a lab error.
If you had an audio recording, they would call it dubious.

How exactly do you prove something supernatural by natural means?

KWCrazy · May 23, 2015

Duplicate

KWCrazy · May 23, 2015

SteveB28 said:
Here are the words of Henery Morris, one of the creationist 'gurus' -

"It seems to us that we should take Scripture as the literal Word of God"

If not the word of God, then what is it?

How many dozens of Christians did creationism drive away this past hour?

How many Christians did creationism drive away in the past hour?

Hundreds (over ~60% of cause)

~180 (~50% of cause)

~100 (~25% of cause)*

40 or less (<10% of cause)

Other

Teller of tales, writer of poems, singer of songs

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Teller of tales, writer of poems, singer of songs

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Matthew 11:28

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

fallible

fallible

fallible

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads