Creation, where's the Proof.

lucaspa · #71 5th April 2003, 03:19 PM

4th April 2003 at 10:19 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #11

Brett: Not only would it be a strange role, it would be a highly deceptive one as well.  Add to the list angular unconformities, biogeography, shared endogenous retroviruses and a host of other things we've discussed lately and the level of God's deception, if the Earth is in fact young, is mindblowing.

I keep trying to point out this very thing.
IT would NOT be unlike God to use something just like this.

To any of you out there thinking God is some helpless old grandfather type who doesnt get overly involved (including Christians), I ask that you start spending more time in books like Exodus and such.

Wait a minute, FoC. It is not unlike God to lie to us?  Please justify that.

It was this theological problem of God lying that caused Charles Kingsley to reject the Oomphalos argument back in 1848.

Saying that the universe only looks old, like Gosse and you do, does indeed make God into a liar.  This is the reason why Christians were so quick to abandon YEC in the first place.

lucaspa · #72 5th April 2003, 03:21 PM

4th April 2003 at 10:26 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #14

But they love you scoffers enough to spend thier days trying to reach you at a level you can understand.

Telling untruths about the universe isn't going to reach anyone.  All it will do is drive people away from Christianity. 

(Which may be what AiG wants to do all along.)

lucaspa · #73 5th April 2003, 03:30 PM

4th April 2003 at 04:09 AM Freedom777 said this in Post #1

Get the answer here, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

Freedom, I never saw any "proof" at that site, only trying to confuse you.

For instance:
"However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events."

The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was.  IOW, cause and effect.  No one saw a meteor hit the earth to form Meteor Crator, yet no creationist has problems knowing that this happened. Also, creastionists maintain that they can figure out what the Flood did even tho no one saw the Flood do the particular events:  sort the animals into the sequence seen in the fossil record, for instance.

So creationists aren't consistent in this.

"Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present."

Ah, the old "evolution is atheism" fallacy.  The author isn't arguing about evolution, but about atheism.  It's too bad the author says theism can only exist if you take a literalistic reading of Genesis 1-8.  Because that literalism is wrong.

Darwin certainly never presupposed "no God".  His Fontispiece makes that clear, but creationists never seem to look at things that refute their own presuppositions.  Does this sound like "no God"?

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws"  Whewell:  Bridgewater Treatise. 

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both."  Bacon: Advancement of Learning

Freedom, you are being conned and don't even realize the con.

It's up to us to point it out to you.

 

Follower of Christ · #74 5th April 2003, 03:35 PM

[b]5th April 2003 at 03:19 PM lucaspa said this in Post #71

Wait a minute, FoC. It is not unlike God to lie to us?  Please justify that.

Classic case of twisting/distorting words agian.

I did NOT say God lies.

I have shown ACTUALL SCRIPTURAL PROOF that God will indeed send decieving spirits and influences to those already choosing to believe what they want over HIS truth.

Again. LOOK at 2 Thess. chap. 2 and 2 Chronicles chap. 18 if you want to see what our God will do to those refusing His wonderful truth.

Nathan Poe · #75 5th April 2003, 03:52 PM

5th April 2003 at 03:35 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #74

Classic case of twisting/distorting words agian.

I did NOT say God lies.

I have shown ACTUALL SCRIPTURAL PROOF that God will indeed send decieving spirits and influences to those already choosing to believe what they want over HIS truth.

Again. LOOK at 2 Thess. chap. 2 and 2 Chronicles chap. 18 if you want to see what our God will do to those refusing His wonderful truth.

So God does lie, but only to non-believers. Okay.....

Follower of Christ · #76 5th April 2003, 03:59 PM

Holy Cow, are you dense?

God does NOT lie.

He either can send a decieving influence to those who refuse the truth, or He may harden or blind them further.
Romans 9 with Pharoah is another example.

Nathan Poe · #77 5th April 2003, 04:07 PM

5th April 2003 at 03:59 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #76

Holy Cow, are you dense?

God does NOT lie.

He either can send a decieving influence to those who refuse the truth, or He may harden or blind them further.
Romans 9 with Pharoah is another example.

Well, golly gee whiz, I think I'm finally starting to get it. It took me a while to get through all the semantics...

God does not lie, however, he does send lying spirits to Earth.

But that's okay because:

1. The people don't believe in God anyway, and therefore don't count.

2. God's doesn't do any of the deceiving Himself, so technically, He's not to blame.

Does this sum it up?

Arikay · #78 5th April 2003, 04:07 PM

LOL

He either can send a decieving influence to those who refuse the truth

FoC you do realize to decieve someone is equivilant to lieing, right?

Follower of Christ · #79 5th April 2003, 08:59 PM

As I said before, christians are not obliged to explain to you about the salaries/funds provided for our ministries.

If you feel that Ken Hamm makes too much money I have only one thing to say...Tough.

Follower of Christ · #80 5th April 2003, 09:04 PM

5th April 2003 at 04:07 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #77

Well, golly gee whiz, I think I'm finally starting to get it. It took me a while to get through all the semantics...

God does not lie, however, he does send lying spirits to Earth.

But that's okay because:

1. The people don't believe in God anyway, and therefore don't count.

2. God's doesn't do any of the deceiving Himself, so technically, He's not to blame.

Does this sum it up?

You know, if you would actually break out that dusty old book under your coffe table, you might learn who God is and how He does things.

If you refuse to, then dont expect to even have the slightest idea of what you're talking about concerning scripture or God.