darwin's beliefs

[archaeologist]

I direct your attention to the whole Flat Earth deal. I also direct your attention to the letter to Titus.

and your point? where in the Bible do you find it teaching the earth was flat?

That is because evolution does not assume a guiding force behind it. It just says what happens. It isn't a theology, so it has no place putting a motivation behind anything.

right, it removes God altogether and with Darwin's adnissions of no christian beliefs why are 'believers' attaching themseoves to a theory that is not of God?

3. Evolution exists, and is real, and no amount of denial will help that.
Remember this word: nylonase.

read Gen. 1:31 there is no evolution in any form.

this thread has gotten off track and i wonder why the TE's find the source of their beliefs so irrelevant. one would think it would be of the highest importance to investigate where the theory came from, if they cared to follow the truth.

people have said that two people came up with the idea independently and that proves soemthing but if you research the background of the second person all it shows is the lack of foundation in God, no scriptural basis and no christian influence.

so one must ask, why do 'believers' feel they have the right to adopt and adapt such thinking and add God to the mix?

others bring up the internet or DNA discoveries as their justification for pursuing evolutionary thinking well DNA was created by God whereas evolution was not and that is a big difference. Gen1:31 makes this perfectly clear, after the 6 day creation, everything was complete which means there was no millions of years process, no on going changes.

as for the internet and other such items, well God has always allowed technology to develope, for it is not looking to replace Him but actually demonstrates the glory of God by demonstrating what God gave man in terms of brains, thinking , intellect and so on.

unfortunately, such thinking is also subject to the fall of man and not all technology benefits mankind: mustard gas, pesticides, flame throwers and the list could go on.

it is amazing that those looking for justification for their actions always point to the good things and ignore that which is bad but then a complete picture is rarely painted by those seeking to pursue alternatives.

so instead of derailing this thread, let's discuss darwin's, wallace's, lyell's and others beliefs and see the roots of evolution first hand.

 

[metherion]

where in the Bible do you find it teaching the earth was flat?

You asked for it.

Job 28:24
Psalms 19:4-6
Daniel 4:10-11
Matthew 4:8
Isaiah 40:22
Psalms 136:6
Isaiah 44:24

Furthermore, the earth may not have ends if it is spherical. Therefore, I also include
Deuteronomy 28:64

Deuteronomy 33:17

1 Samuel 2:10

Job 28:24
Psalms 22:27
Psalms 46:9
Psalms 48:10

Psalms 59:13

Psalms 61:2

Psalms 65:5

Isaiah 41:9

Jeremiah 51:16

Daniel 4:10-11

Mark 13:27


I can also provide verses supporting a moving sun and a stationary Earth if need be.

right, it removes God altogether and with Darwin's adnissions of no christian beliefs why are 'believers' attaching themseoves to a theory that is not of God?

No, it does not remove God. It does not say anything one way or the other about Him. There is a difference. A lack does not equal an intentional omission. Atomic theory does not specifically say God made all atoms and moves them and combines or dissolves their bonds when they react. Electrical theory does not say God moves electrons in the ways they go. There are others like that, too. Are they evil? Are they also 'not of God'? If they are not of God, why do you accept and utilize them? If they are of God, why is evolution not?

I also do not see how Genesis 1:31 says anything about evolution not happening. It is a statement that God was done creating, not that the creation He made was unchangeable. It does clearly say anything either way about evolution.

Furthermore, even you admit new things have been invented.

unfortunately, such thinking is also subject to the fall of man and not all technology benefits mankind: mustard gas, pesticides, flame throwers and the list could go on.

These things were not created at the beginning of the world, yet here they are. According to your interpretation of Genesis 1:31, they don't exist either.

And in addition to all THAT, it couldn't have been complete since, according to you, germs weren't around yet!

it is amazing that those looking for justification for their actions always point to the good things and ignore that which is bad but then a complete picture is rarely painted by those seeking to pursue alternatives.

My irony meter just went kaboom.

I wonder why you attack evolution and not other things like germ theory (which you still have not backed up your claim about, scripturally or otherwise), round earth (which I just gave much biblical evidence against for you), atomic theory (which is not mentioned at all AFAIK in the Bible and originated with pagans. You also never answered my questions about it, either)., and whatnot. Do you delve into the roots of every principle you ever use? Buoyancy when you go swimming, diffusion when you make your tea, electricity or atomic theory when you do anything electrical, etc? Or do you just pick and choose?

I also wonder why you put so much importance on Christian influence. Non-Christians may have ideas just like Christians can, and it does not make their ideas any less true just for their personal convictions not matching yours.

this thread has gotten off track and i wonder why the TE's find the source of their beliefs so irrelevant. one would think it would be of the highest importance to investigate where the theory came from, if they cared to follow the truth.

Well, we (or at least I) exam the evidence to see what it says, determine the truth it tells us, figure all truth comes from God, and accept it. A several thousand year old book is not comprehensive about the entire workings of the universe. We know this from things like my earlier thread about the lack of mention of undersea plants.

And also, what do the roots of the people who thought it up have to do with evolutionary theory? What bearing does it have on the observations they made to think up the theory? Because those observations are the 'roots of evolution' as you put it.

Furthermore, why do you seem to question our belief in God? Why do you put quotation marks around the word believers when you refer to us? While I could care less, others here might and it probably looks bad to the mods, so you might want to stop before someone gets truly offended and you get in trouble.

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

Job 28:24
Psalms 19:4-6
Daniel 4:10-11
Matthew 4:8
Isaiah 40:22
Psalms 136:6
Isaiah 44:24

not one of those verses teaches the earth is flat.

No, it does not remove God. It does not say anything one way or the other about Him

it removes God and replaces Him with a process.

It is a statement that God was done creating, not that the creation He made was unchangeable. It does clearly say anything either way about evolution

now you are looking for loopholes to continue in your pursuit of that which is not of God.

the word 'complete' actually signifies there is no more to do, add, change, etc.

I wonder why you attack evolution and not other things like germ theory

this is anorigin forum not a medical one.

I also wonder why you put so much importance on Christian influence. Non-Christians may have ideas just like Christians can, and it does not make their ideas any less true just for their personal convictions not matching yours

it is what God says we are to do, which means your acceptance of the world's thinking or their convictions, puts you in the act of disobedience.

And also, what do the roots of the people who thought it up have to do with evolutionary theory? What bearing does it have on the observations they made to think up the theory? Because those observations are the 'roots of evolution' as you put it.

what does it matter? it matters a lot, see above plus I JOhn 3:1-10.

Well, we (or at least I) exam the evidence to see what it says, determine the truth it tells us, figure all truth comes from God, and accept it.

that ignores so many passages of scripture in which Jesus taught us to be discerning, test the spirits,also warned us of the evil one disguising hmself as an angelof light and so on.

you have let your desire for secular science make you vulnerable and easy to deceive.

Furthermore, why do you seem to question our belief in God?

your own words cause the questions as you seem to push the Bible aside in favor of secular science. i am in doubt of yours and other TE's salvation based upon what is spoken in all your posts.

Why do you put quotation marks around the word believers when you refer to us? While I could care less, others here might and it probably looks bad to the mods, so you might want to stop before someone gets truly offended and you get in trouble.

when one has doubts and TE's do not do anything to remove that doubt, one cannot in good conscience describe TE's as true believers, in fact their own words makes one think they are non-believers.

to be of God you walk with Him and not find loopholes, exuses, justification to continue to pursue that which is not of Him. God said, 'the just shall live by faith' it doesn't say to live by secular science's 'evidence'.

think about it.

 

[shernren]

Archie's dodging. Look what he didn't answer ...

There is a difference. A lack does not equal an intentional omission. Atomic theory does not specifically say God made all atoms and moves them and combines or dissolves their bonds when they react. Electrical theory does not say God moves electrons in the ways they go. There are others like that, too. Are they evil? Are they also 'not of God'? If they are not of God, why do you accept and utilize them? If they are of God, why is evolution not?

...

Furthermore, even you admit new things have been invented.


These things were not created at the beginning of the world, yet here they are. According to your interpretation of Genesis 1:31, they don't exist either.

And in addition to all THAT, it couldn't have been complete since, according to you, germs weren't around yet!

... round earth (which I just gave much biblical evidence against for you), atomic theory (which is not mentioned at all AFAIK in the Bible and originated with pagans. You also never answered my questions about it, either)., and whatnot. Do you delve into the roots of every principle you ever use? Buoyancy when you go swimming, diffusion when you make your tea, electricity or atomic theory when you do anything electrical, etc? Or do you just pick and choose?

Does archie have answers for any of these? Probably not.

 

[Smidlee]

You asked for it.

Job 28:24
Psalms 19:4-6
Daniel 4:10-11
Matthew 4:8
Isaiah 40:22
Psalms 136:6
Isaiah 44:24

you do realizes the word "earth" and "world(s)" in scriptures have different meanings right? It's even true today.

Furthermore, the earth may not have ends if it is spherical. Therefore, I also include
Deuteronomy 28:64

Deuteronomy 33:17

1 Samuel 2:10

Job 28:24
Psalms 22:27
Psalms 46:9
Psalms 48:10

Psalms 59:13

Psalms 61:2

Psalms 65:5

Isaiah 41:9

Jeremiah 51:16

Daniel 4:10-11

Mark 13:27


I can also provide verses supporting a moving sun and a stationary Earth if need be.

There was many times when driving my car I told my child to be still. I would have disciple him if he made a smart remark like "I can't because the car is moving." Thus even modern statement are relative terms as we still say "sun rise" and "sun set." So relativity to us the Earth is stationary (can even launch and orbit satellites as if the earth is stationary) and the sun is moving so only someone who trying to nickpick the scripture would have a problem with these.

 

[Smidlee]

You asked for it.

Job 28:24
Psalms 19:4-6
Daniel 4:10-11
Matthew 4:8
Isaiah 40:22
Psalms 136:6
Isaiah 44:24

you do realizes the word "earth" and "world(s)" have different meanings right? Thus for example in one verse it say God loves to world while in another says you can't love both the world and God. Sometimes is scriptures earth simply means land (or continent )as noted in a concordance. So if someone came from South Africa to Israel then I have no problem in them saying 'I came from the end of the world/earth/continent.'

Furthermore, the earth may not have ends if it is spherical. Therefore, I also include
Deuteronomy 28:64

Deuteronomy 33:17

1 Samuel 2:10

Job 28:24
Psalms 22:27
Psalms 46:9
Psalms 48:10

Psalms 59:13

Psalms 61:2

Psalms 65:5

Isaiah 41:9

Jeremiah 51:16

Daniel 4:10-11

Mark 13:27


I can also provide verses supporting a moving sun and a stationary Earth if need be.

There was many times when driving my car I told my child to be still. I would have discipline him if he made a smart remark like "I can't because the car is moving." Thus even modern statement are often relative terms as we still say "sun rise" and "sun set." (When I say "I've got to run" I really meant "I've got go" but I'll be driving not running. This is where common sense goes a long way.) So relative to us the Earth is stationary (can even launch and orbit satellites as if the earth is stationary) and the sun is moving so only someone who trying to nickpick the scripture would have a problem with this.

So "Earth is flat" nor "Pi=3" nor "America" nor "helicopters" can be find in scriptures even through some people are good at pick out scriptures to give the impression they are.

 

[busterdog]

Medical diagnosis is. We do not dispute the mechanics of creation; but however God did it it certainly wasn't over six days and it certainly wasn't about six thousand years ago, unless we have been royally lied to by 150 years of contact with physical reality.

Here is an interesting story. A woman told me about how she was completely broke and starving while trying to get through school. This was like 20 years ago. All she had was a small quantity of spaghetti, which she put into a pot to cook and put a lid on it and prayed for God to save her. Each time she took the lid off, there was more spaghetti than there should have been.

Question: why did she need the lid?

Note the feeding of the 5,000. Why is it that it is only upon collecting the fragments that the Jesus' power is revealed? I think a magician would suggest that this would really be the best opportunity to create the illusion of multiplication. Since we deny that this multiplication was an "illusion", is there something about the appearances that makes the miracle work better when people can't see it happening?

http://www.christianforums.com/t5723898-darwins-beliefs.html&page=5#post36921447

 

[USincognito]

Here is an interesting story. A woman told me about how she was completely broke and starving while trying to get through school. This was like 20 years ago. All she had was a small quantity of spaghetti, which she put into a pot to cook and put a lid on it and prayed for God to save her. Each time she took the lid off, there was more spaghetti than there should have been.

Question: why did she need the lid?

Personal anecdotes are different from the geological record. One would have to be in this "womans" presence, assuming she exists at all, presence during that period to ascertain the veracity of her claim. One does not have to be in the presence of a mountain, formed by known geological processes to determine whether it was 4000 or 75,000,000 years old.

And archie, do you think we landed on the Moon or not? You didn't answer the question.

 

[archaeologist]

One does not have to be in the presence of a mountain, formed by known geological processes to determine whether it was 4000 or 75,000,000 years old.

if one wants to be accurate, yes the do have to be present. knowing that secular science's dating systems are built on assumptions & idealism, and is subject to the fallibility, corruptibility of mankind one cannot trust these systems with the ability to accurately produce or record any age.

by leaving out data and assuming the world evolved these systems are already corrupted and incapable of providing anything valid.

when carbon 14 started to give too young of an age, secular scientists immediately went into a frnzy to alter the facts and get the system toprovide dates they wanted.

objectivity and credibility were thrown out the window at that time. scientists only wanted a system(s) that provided the information they wanted and they refused to accept such information:

When scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided "too-young" estimates of artifact age

Carbon dates reported in the 1950s and 1960s should be questioned, because those studies were conducted before carbon dating was calibrated by comparision with other dating methods.

http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/Pages/CarbonDatingBack.html

a lot of circular reasoning is found in the dating systems.

Archie's dodging. Look what he didn't answer

Does archie have answers for any of these? Probably not

not dodging, just know what the results will be before i say anything. yes i do but i won't be saying anything any time soon as you are looking for justification or excuses to pursue a theory that is not of God nor the way God did things.

 

[archaeologist]

isn't amazing how fast they will derail a thread when they do not want to face the truth.

why are TE's so scared to rationally discuss darwin's and other original evolutionist thinker's beliefs?

what are they afraid of finding out?

such obvious attempts to derail a relevant topic certainly makes TE's look dishonest or hypocritical. i wonder if they could actually honestly, rationally, constructively discuss such a subject?

 

[Dannager]

isn't amazing how fast they will derail a thread when they do not want to face the truth.

why are TE's so scared to rationally discuss darwin's and other original evolutionist thinker's beliefs?

what are they afraid of finding out?

such obvious attempts to derail a relevant topic certainly makes TE's look dishonest or hypocritical. i wonder if they could actually honestly, rationally, constructively discuss such a subject?

I thought we'd already pointed out that Darwin's beliefs have no impact on the theory of evolution's validity, and thus this thread is off-topic to begin with. It doesn't belong in a forum for discussing evolution and creationism.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

if one wants to be accurate, yes the do have to be present. ...

So by that logic can one assume that you were present at the creation?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

.... ...
when carbon 14 started to give too young of an age, secular scientists immediately went into a frnzy to alter the facts and get the system toprovide dates they wanted.

...

They did not alter the facts Archie, they corrected the error.

I know you are spending much time working on a rebuttal of C-14 dating: how is that coming along?

 

[archaeologist]

thought we'd already pointed out that Darwin's beliefs have no impact on the theory of evolution's validity

actually it does. one always has to consider the source.

TE's refusal to admit evolution's source is from the unbelieving world shows that they are not interested in the truth but instead are more interested in their desire to practice science the secular way.

 

[metherion]

not one of those verses teaches the earth is flat.

If the earth has ends, it is flat. Spheres (or more accurately, 3-d ovals) do not have ends.
If a tree can be grown at some point on the earth and be seen from all points on it, the earth cannot be round. (That's from Daniel.)
The Devil couldn't show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain unless the world was flat, for the same reason the tree couldn't be seen.
Tents are spread out flat on the ground (Isaiah 40 and 44). If the Earth is spread like a tent, the Earth is flat.
Psalms 136:6 again refers to spreading.

it removes God and replaces Him with a process.

No. It states a process is happening and makes no mention about why it happens, whether that be God doing it or Buddha or even nothing all at.

the word 'complete' actually signifies there is no more to do, add, change, etc.

But even you said germs came after the Fall, as well as technology. The Fall came after the end of Creation. So how did they get there? You contradict yourself. Furthermore, God created manna from Heaven while the Isrealites were in the desert. This was not around at the beginning. There are other accounts or God and people creating things in the Bible. Thus, the Bible itself contradicts your interpretation, which is already a stretch.

it is what God says we are to do, which means your acceptance of the world's thinking or their convictions, puts you in the act of disobedience.

Please cite the Scripture where God states we are to ignore what we can see happening right before our eyes.

I also do not see what 1 John 3:1-10 has to do with this. Is is just an exhortation not to sin, plus an admonition that those who have truly accepted Christ do not sin anymore.

that ignores so many passages of scripture in which Jesus taught us to be discerning, test the spirits,also warned us of the evil one disguising hmself as an angelof light and so on.

I am being discerning when I use science. There are no spirits present in it, neither are there seeminly Heavenly Beings relating maybe-truths to me. So, again, provide me with the Scripture you are referring to, and we'll see what it says.

your own words cause the questions as you seem to push the Bible aside in favor of secular science. i am in doubt of yours and other TE's salvation based upon what is spoken in all your posts.

We do not ignore the Bible. We ignore your specific interpretation of the Bible. You yourself even contradict your own interpretation of the Bible with your comments about the end of creation and so on. Furthermore, science does not replace God. See my note about the difference between an intentional omission and a mere lack some posts back. You also seem to be ignoring the Scripture about not judging othes, including Romans 2:1-4, and Romans 14: 4 (the surrounding verses give specific examples, so taking just the one verse here is justified.)

Furthermore, according to Romans 5, (and others, just making sure I give at least one specific part of it), all we need is faith in Jesus to be saved. Not faith in Jesus AND selective literal interpretation, not faith in Jesus AND something else, just faith. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that faith in Jesus consists of literal interpretation. It says faith requires deeds in James, and acting like Him elsewhere, but nowhere does it say you need a literal Genesis.

We do not live by science's evidence, we use it. Just as you use it for the electricity that powers your computer and the service that connects you to the internet and the technology that drives your operating system. We live by God and by faith in God. Simply because we do not conform to your personal interpretation of a "true believer" doesn't mean we don't, especially if we DO conform to what the Bible says, namely believing in Christ.

so only someone who trying to nickpick the scripture would have a problem with these.

Or someone trying to take it literally.

TE's refusal to admit evolution's source is from the unbelieving world shows that they are not interested in the truth but instead are more interested in their desire to practice science the secular way.

There is no 'secular science'. Science is science, whether or not it comes from a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, an atheist, or whoever!

We acknowledge the very simple fact that Darwin started out his life belonging to the Church of England and later lost his faith due to the death of his daughter. There. It's been said. And it has NOTHING TO DO with the ideas he proposed. Buterflies still gain the ability to resist parasites. Germs still developed the ability to eat nylon. Corn and other grains have still been bred to produce more food. New species of molds and germs and even insects have still popped up. All these are evolution, and none of them cared at all whether or not Darwin believed in Christ, Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

If the earth has ends, it is flat. Spheres (or more accurately, 3-d ovals) do not have ends.

please, we use such phrasing even today and we do not consider the world flat. {sailors sailing to the ends of the earth}

The Devil couldn't show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain unless the world was flat, for the same reason the tree couldn't be seen

you are limited in your understanding of how things are done, aren't you? please back this up with something credible.

No. It states a process is happening and makes no mention about why it happens, whether that be God doing it or Buddha or even nothing all at

twisting your own theory to fit your argument i see.

You contradict yourself

no, you are just looking for an excuse to believe in evolution.

Furthermore, God created manna from Heaven while the Isrealites were in the desert

the word 'create' is wrong and is used to bolster your flimsy point. here is the correct term:

4 Then the LORD said to Moses, "I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. 5 On the sixth day they are to prepare what they bring in, and that is to be twice as much as they gather on the other days."

{bold mine}

There are other accounts or God and people creating things in the Bible. Thus, the Bible itself contradicts your interpretation, which is already a stretch.

please back this up with scripture. {you misuse the word 'creation' to make others think evolution is actually going on. it isn't. creation was finished after the 6th day and completed.}

Please cite the Scripture where God states we are to ignore what we can see happening right before our eyes

"2 Corinthians 4:18
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.'

I am being discerning when I use science. There are no spirits present in it

What little you know:

1 Timothy 4:1
[ Instructions to Timothy ] The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons

2 Timothy 3:13
while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived

We do not ignore the Bible. We ignore your specific interpretation of the Bible. You yourself even contradict your own interpretation of the Bible with your comments about the end of creation and so on.

haven't contrdicted myself yet. and you do ignore the Bible as evidenced by my thread 'when did God say'

You also seem to be ignoring the Scripture about not judging othes,

i am not judging you, i am pointing out your errors. not the same thing.
1 Corinthians 6:2
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

It says faith requires deeds in James, and acting like Him elsewhere, but nowhere does it say you need a literal Genesis.

that whole paragraph is one big excuse to continue to disobey God and find justification to continue to pursue that which is not of Him. read all of 1 John this time.

We do not live by science's evidence, we use it.

yet you cannot discern which is good or which is evil interpretation of said evidence. wasn't it U.S. Cognito that said the flood didn't happen because science says so? i think that is living by scientific evidence and not using it.

We live by God and by faith in God. Simply because we do not conform to your personal interpretation of a "true believer" doesn't mean we don't, especially if we DO conform to what the Bible says, namely believing in Christ.

you use this as another excuse to justify your actions and beliefs. this is just a smoke screen to appear christian when you are really following the world and its thoughts

2 Corinthians 1:12
[ Paul's Change of Plans ] Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God's grace

Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

{bold mine}

also, Matthew 24:5
For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.

matthew 7:22-24:

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock

And it has NOTHING TO DO with the ideas he proposed

you are kidding right???

one's faith or lack there of has everything to do with what they say propose, preach and so on. he didn't have any faith in God so it stands to reason he woul dbe deceived by the devil.

you really love fooling yourself don't you?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

please, we use such phrasing even today and we do not consider the world flat. {sailors sailing to the ends of the earth}



you are limited in your understanding of how things are done, aren't you? please back this up with something credible.



twisting your own theory to fit your argument i see.



no, you are just looking for an excuse to believe in evolution.



the word 'create' is wrong and is used to bolster your flimsy point. here is the correct term:

{bold mine}



please back this up with scripture. {you misuse the word 'creation' to make others think evolution is actually going on. it isn't. creation was finished after the 6th day and completed.}



"2 Corinthians 4:18
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.'



What little you know:

1 Timothy 4:1
[ Instructions to Timothy ] The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons

2 Timothy 3:13
while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived



haven't contrdicted myself yet. and you do ignore the Bible as evidenced by my thread 'when did God say'



i am not judging you, i am pointing out your errors. not the same thing.
1 Corinthians 6:2
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?



that whole paragraph is one big excuse to continue to disobey God and find justification to continue to pursue that which is not of Him. read all of 1 John this time.



yet you cannot discern which is good or which is evil interpretation of said evidence. wasn't it U.S. Cognito that said the flood didn't happen because science says so? i think that is living by scientific evidence and not using it.



you use this as another excuse to justify your actions and beliefs. this is just a smoke screen to appear christian when you are really following the world and its thoughts

2 Corinthians 1:12
[ Paul's Change of Plans ] Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God's grace

Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

{bold mine}

also, Matthew 24:5
For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.

matthew 7:22-24:

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock



you are kidding right???

one's faith or lack there of has everything to do with what they say propose, preach and so on. he didn't have any faith in God so it stands to reason he woul dbe deceived by the devil.

you really love fooling yourself don't you?

If all that you assert is so Archie, why was the church so opposed to the scientific discovery that the earth was round and circled the sun once a year?

 

[archaeologist]

If all that you assert is so Archie, why was the church so opposed to the scientific discovery that the earth was round and circled the sun once a year?

there are many people today and throughout history who latch onto strange ideas and it is not limited to the church. remember those trying to turn iron into gold?

for the church, many aren't truly christian and lack the understanding or the wisdom God wants them to have . there are numerous reasons and it boils down to those people's choices.

also remember that many regard a few authority figures' beliefs as that of the whole church and that just isn't/wasn't so. such thinking was held by some but not all of the church.

just because science gets it right once in awhile does it mean it is right all the time or should be looked to as the final authority over scripture.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

there are many people today and throughout history who latch onto strange ideas and it is not limited to the church. remember those trying to turn iron into gold?

for the church, many aren't truly christian and lack the understanding or the wisdom God wants them to have . there are numerous reasons and it boils down to those people's choices.

also remember that many regard a few authority figures' beliefs as that of the whole church and that just isn't/wasn't so. such thinking was held by some but not all of the church.

just because science gets it right once in awhile does it mean it is right all the time or should be looked to as the final authority over scripture.

All that being so, and the (then) church considering the earth was not a sphere, do you not think you were a little harsh in your response to Metherion?

 

[metherion]

please, we use such phrasing even today and we do not consider the world flat. {sailors sailing to the ends of the earth}

Then it wasn't literal, as you claim it must be.

you are limited in your understanding of how things are done, aren't you? please back this up with something credible.

Let me guess. "Because the Bible doesn't say Satan didn't use his supernatural powers blah blah..." So why did Satan need to take Jesus to a mountaintop to show Him things?

Also, why no mention of Isaiah and Daniel?

twisting your own theory to fit your argument i see.

No. You twist my theory to fit YOURS. My theory makes no reference to God's existence or lack thereof. Just like the Bible makes no reference to the internet's existence or lack thereof. If you say that the TOE says God doesn't exist, then the Bible also says a whole lot of things don't exist.

Naturalistic Atheism says God doesn't exist. Maybe you're getting the two confused.

no, you are just looking for an excuse to believe in evolution.

I do not believe in evolution. I accept it. It is not a belief. It does not provide a moral code, talk about the origin of life, affirm or deny a Supreme being or set of the same. You seem to be confusing it with naturalistic atheim.

you misuse the word 'creation' to make others think evolution is actually going on. it isn't. creation was finished after the 6th day and completed.

Then where did techonolgy come from? Where did germs come from (since according to you they weren't around in creation)? Does breeding (like of dogs and horses and corn) exist? Where did nylonase and the separate species of bacteria that have it come from? You really need to answer these questions.

So we fix our eyes noton what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.'

This would refer to the body's death and the salvation of the spirit if you read the whole thing.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons

After this he SPECIFICALLY states that the teachings will be food abstinence and a forbiddance of marriage. Evolution does neither. Verses 3 and 4.

while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived

This is talking about those who lose faith during persecution.

Furthermore, 2 Timothy 3:14-17 talks about how all Scripture is INSPIRED by God (not given word-for-word by). (Various other translations use God-breathed and other such words. Not "God- dictated or Gid-given word for word. Even given the language barrier, such things are significant. Unless you can find the original Greek and show me that they are the same, I claim this point.) Don't you think that the distinction is important at all?

haven't contrdicted myself yet.

Germs, among others. QED.

and you do ignore the Bible as evidenced by my thread 'when did God say'

Link to thread please?

i am not judging you, i am pointing out your errors. not the same thing.

Pointing out my errors is limited to what I say. You have been attacking my very faith. That is indeed judging.

that whole paragraph is one big excuse to continue to disobey God and find justification to continue to pursue that which is not of Him. read all of 1 John this time.

The whole paragraph I wrote, or the whole paragraph in James?

Very Well. I have read it. Unless you are again trying to insinuate that I am not truly a Christian, I do not see anything not believing Genesis literally disappointing God. Furthermore, verses 21-24, chapter 3 tell us that all we need is to believe Jesus is Christ and love each other. Accepting evolution breaks neither. If you are talking about the spirits, evolution does not deny Jesus is the Christ. Nor do the bones, or the DNA double helixes.

yet you cannot discern which is good or which is evil interpretation of said evidence. wasn't it U.S. Cognito that said the flood didn't happen because science says so? i think that is living by scientific evidence and not using it.

There is no good and there is no evil interpretation of the evidence. The evidence does not have moral significance. The evidence does not say "There is no God." The evidence does not say "Jesus is not the Christ." The Bible does not say "Denying the literalness of the Bible is denying Jesus is the Christ or denying God Himself." Furthermore, it is geology and nuclear physics which give the timescale, not evolution. Taking a myth as a myth is not wrong. And it is not living by science. Living by science is not accepting anything beyond science's scope. Which includes such things as God. We live by God, and everything is in his scope except sin. So, science in is His scope. So, we can use it, as long as we don't limit ourselves to it. And accepting God is definitely outside of science..

you use this as another excuse to justify your actions and beliefs. this is just a smoke screen to appear christian when you are really following the world and its thoughts

My actions and beliefs do not need justification. You do not need justification to believe in Christ.

I do not see how doing nothing against the Bible is "following the world". Furthermore, I do not see how viewing the glory of God in the way He set the world to be of a worldy nature.

Accepting evolution does not change my behavior to be against God. I do not stop believing in Him, I do not sin any more than I would normally, I do not stop loving and start judging my brothers in Christ, etc.

For Matthew24, evolution does not claim to be or displace God. Therefore, the verse is irrelevant to the discussion.

For Matthew 7, why do you ignore verses 1-5? And verse 21! "Not everyone who says to Me "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but He who does the will of My Father in Heaven."
And, about 21-24,
Tell me exactly which sayings of Jesus I have not done. Tell me how exactly I have not done His will. And tell me exactly how you are qualified to judge what is what in defiance of Romans 5 and Matthew 7.

you are kidding right???

one's faith or lack there of has everything to do with what they say propose, preach and so on. he didn't have any faith in God so it stands to reason he woul dbe deceived by the devil.

No. I'm not kidding. It doesn't matter what he believed. The natural world is God's domain. Anyone can make a statement about it. And such statements omit God, as science, the specific study of the natural world, puts God outside its own scope. So a statement about something that has no opinion or relevance either way about God is not influenced by the person's belief or lack thereof in God. Would you have the same objection to evolution if Darwin had been a militant Lutheran?
It does not stand that he was decieved by devils in his propositions because:
a) His proposition stated nothing either way about God.
b) Other correct things have been stated by non-believers, such as the original Greek atom theorizers.
c) The bit that would deny a literal Genesis is the timescale. THAT comes from geology and nuclear physics, not evolution. And denying a literal Genesis is not denying God. Devils would seek to deny God.
d) Devils would seek to deny God. Making statements about things that have no bearing on God's existence or lack thereof is not the way to do that.

you really love fooling yourself don't you?

No. I actually enjoy the truth a lot more. Please stop attacking me and my faith. I would rather you not get booted off of CF for doing so. Plus, God said not to.

Metherion