Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
1) See? Even in discussing the incompatibility of our operating systems, we are unable to reach a plane of agreement. You believe scripture is affecting nonbelievers in a way that we do not. It's like we're not even having the same conversation.
I disagree.
Scripture indeed affects you guys --- if not adversely.
I wish you could see yourselves from my perspective.
In addition, you guys don't go after the Taoists, the Deists, the Pagans, etc.
Instead, you seem to have some kind of attraction for Christians in general, and creationists specifically.
Originally Posted by gaara4158
2) Many of us are well-versed in "basic theology," having been theists ourselves at one time.
I find that hard to believe.
Here are some examples, w/o using names:
One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible for 30 years, but was unaware that Pharaoh had been performing genocide against the Hebrews.
One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible, but was totally taken by surprise (and angered) when I pointed out that the antichrist comes from a 10-nation confederacy, and that the Sin Nature is hereditary.
One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible, but had no idea what Dispensation Theology is; and even though DT is not expressly taught in the Bible, it is basic theology.
These are just some examples out of several.
Originally Posted by gaara4158
However, most of the verses you post can be reduced to "God did it."
Yup.
Originally Posted by gaara4158
The message you send when you post a Bible verse to trump whatever scientific discovery is threatening your beliefs is that God did it, and that settles it. But consequently, you're also saying that this scientific discovery didn't do it, and that these scientists are wrong.
It doesn't matter.
I get the same reactions when I post a Bible verse that supports science, as when I post a verse that trumps science.
I post the verses that support the universe expanding, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.
I post the verse that supports the Internet, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.
I post verses that show the Crusades were against Jesus' very words, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.
Scripture indeed affects you guys --- if not adversely.
I wish you could see yourselves from my perspective.
In addition, you guys don't go after the Taoists, the Deists, the Pagans, etc.
Because there are so many of them on this board, and so many of them are creationists.
One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible, but was totally taken by surprise (and angered) when I pointed out that the antichrist comes from a 10-nation confederacy, and that the Sin Nature is hereditary.
I assume this is directed at me - and if so, that is a completely false description of the situation. You got the extreme reaction you did because your arguments were UTTERLY TERRIBLE.
Also, if you call the land someone lives in the source of the antichrist and say people who accept taxonomy for decent reasons (as opposed to BS "genetic" reasons) are claiming they lack sin, expect people's reactions to be vehement.
It doesn't matter.
I get the same reactions when I post a Bible verse that supports science, as when I post a verse that trumps science.
I post the verses that support the universe expanding, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.
No, you get "and you accuse us of retrofitting." Basically, it's hypocrisy.
I post the verse that supports the Internet, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.
No, you get "you HAVE to be kidding me." Basically, it's completely unfounded and out of context.
I post verses that show the Crusades were against Jesus' very words, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.
No, you get "According to their interpretation, they believed they were doing the right thing." Basically, it's not as simple as you make out.
__________________ ____________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Cabal; 17th October 2009 at 08:20 PM.
Scripture indeed affects you guys --- if not adversely.
I wish you could see yourselves from my perspective.
In addition, you guys don't go after the Taoists, the Deists, the Pagans, etc.
Instead, you seem to have some kind of attraction for Christians in general, and creationists specifically.
It's been explained to you why you don't see us going after Taoists, Deists, Pagans, etc. For one, there's far fewer of them in these parts. For another, it's not the TDorP's that are trying to horn their creation beliefs into science classes. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
I find that hard to believe.
Here are some examples, w/o using names:
One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible for 30 years, but was unaware that Pharaoh had been performing genocide against the Hebrews.
One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible, but was totally taken by surprise (and angered) when I pointed out that the antichrist comes from a 10-nation confederacy, and that the Sin Nature is hereditary.
One poster claimed to be a student of the Bible, but had no idea what Dispensation Theology is; and even though DT is not expressly taught in the Bible, it is basic theology.
You seem to have discovered that there's more than one way to interpret the Bible. Congratulations.
t doesn't matter.
I get the same reactions when I post a Bible verse that supports science, as when I post a verse that trumps science.
I post the verses that support the universe expanding, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.
I post the verse that supports the Internet, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.
I post verses that show the Crusades were against Jesus' very words, and I basically get: Leave the Bible out of this.
So, don't you think maybe you should leave the Bible out of this? If the issue isn't biblical, why use the Bible to deal with it? If I want to identify a flower by its petals, I'm not going to reference Shakespeare's famous quote "A rose, by any other name, is still a rose." I"m going to reference a book on botany. Leaving Shakespeare out of it.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Live as though you were to die tomorrow.
Learn as though you were to live forever.
-Mahatma Gandhi
So, don't you think maybe you should leave the Bible out of this?
I don't know if you know this or not, but I have started a few threads in which I made it clear I would like the Bible left out of it.
Low and behold (and to my pleasant surprise), I couldn't keep people from bringing the Bible into the discussion; despite the fact that I mentioned several times to please leave the Bible out of the conversation.
I don't know if you know this or not, but I have started a few threads in which I made it clear I would like the Bible left out of it.
Low and behold (and to my pleasant surprise), I couldn't keep people from bringing the Bible into the discussion; despite the fact that I mentioned several times to please leave the Bible out of the conversation.
....And this fits in with your Boolean logic claim that science cannot contradict the Bible, how?
And all of this:
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
:Using the Bible for scientific evidence is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
I use the Bible and Science like Boolean Logic:
If it's supported by the Bible and science, I support it.
If it's supported by the Bible, but not by science, I support it.
If it's not mentioned in the Bible, but supported by science, I support it.
If it's not mentioned in the Bible and not supported by science, I don't support it.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Hi, Mark --- Fossils are a testament to death, and death is a testament to sin.
Evolutionists like to daisy-chain these fossils into one long story of natural selection, fights for survival, mutations, and who-knows-what-all; but the Bible clearly paints a different picture.
There are creatures mentioned in the Bible that only an evolutionist can deny, and they deny them with passion; changing, as the Bible says, the glory of our uncorruptible God into all manner of birds, four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
The Bible said it --- that settles it.
Anything to the contrary is futile resistance.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
No --- my God documented what He did, when He did it, where He did it, why He did it, how He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were; and even preserves that Documentation for everyone to read.
How about yours?
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
That is called Last Thursdayism, and is falsified (pwned) by a literal interpretation of the Scriptures; which this challenge demonstrates.
I don't know when the Scientific Method first was used, it looks like around 1885, but for the record, I'm talking about science.
You can set the Scientific Method up as a barrier between no science and science, but the Bible has science in operation in Daniel's time:Solomon, in my opinion, was a scientist.
And I don't know how many times I've used this link: 74.
In short, the Bible (and others) disagree with you, and the Scientific Method can take a hike.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Nowhere at all --- but I'm amazed at why TEs believe the way they do. The Bible shoots down the E part of TE in It's opening chapter. I don't see TE in the Bible at all --- even if I step back and look at Genesis One allegorically.
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Well then, let's call it "embedded evolution" then, okay?
Animals were created as though they had evolved for billions of years. Have you got a problem with that? if so, what?
Yes, I have a problem with that --- it's called "creation. "
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
I have a thread on this that I can dig up --- but won't.
But I have two good questions for you, laconicstudent:
If you think there's such a thing as abiogenesis, which came first in the universe, life or non-life?
If you think God's method of choice is evolution, what did the angels evolve from?
I'm confused how you can claim that you've in reality wanted the Bible left out of this all along when you so constantly make statements such as the above. You have clearly been using Scripture to base your arguments.
Last edited by laconicstudent; 17th October 2009 at 10:48 PM.
if the flood was just something to be believed then no evidence is required, but if it actually happened why do they never ask to see the evidence? some even say it happened but you must just believe it happened because God must have cleaned up any evidence, and these are supposed to be reasonable and sensible people, is it any wonder creationists are dismissed as being backward and ignorant?
Do you see all the water on the earth? Is that an impressive evidence? What other evidence do you need?
Do you see all the water on the earth? Is that an impressive evidence? What other evidence do you need?
I don't understand. We have water. So does Europa, comets and the Kuiper belt. Mars may have ice deposits under the poles. Most of the moons in the outer system are comprised largely of ice. The fact that we have one of the most common molecules in the universe doesn't really mean anything.
Fossils are a testament to death, and death is a testament to sin.
Linear Mode
