Creationist have problems with evolution because evolution makes sense.

[AV1611VET]

Except it's neither complete nor coherent.

Of course not --- [rolls eyes].

Neither is Genesis 1, right?

I expect that the ONLY things you guys understand is the concept: GOD DID IT.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course not --- [rolls eyes].

Neither is Genesis 1, right?

Incomplete and incoherent -- yes, AV, we agree on something.

I expect that the ONLY things you guys understand is the concept: GOD DID IT.

It's your only idea; it's safe to assume we get it by now.

It's when we attempt to get you to examine it in more detail that you regress.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I expect that the ONLY things you guys understand is the concept: GOD DID IT.

Is there significantly more to it than that?

Genesis 1. (Highlights)
1:1 God created
1:2 And the Spirit of God moved
1:3 And God said
1:4And God saw
1:5And God called
1:6And God said,
1:7And God made
1:8And God called
1:9And God said
1:10And God called
1:11And God said,

1:12And the earth brought forth grass

(oops, one slipped through where something else did something!)

1:14And God said
1:15And God made
1:16And God set
1:17And God said
1:21And God created
1:22 And God blessed
1:24 And God said
1:25 And God made
1:26 And God said
1:27 So God created
1:29 And God said

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there significantly more to it than that?

Well, yes there is, but as I said, you wouldn't understand.

(And I'm speaking from experience.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, yes there is, but as I said, you wouldn't understand.

(And I'm speaking from experience.)

Maybe you should just tell me again. If it's something I've heard before from you but disagree with, I hope you'll understand that there is a real difference between people who disagree with you and people who don't understand what you are saying.

So, please, do tell us what else there is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe you should just tell me again. If it's something I've heard before from you but disagree with, I hope you'll understand that there is a real difference between people who disagree with you and people who don't understand what you are saying.

So, please, do tell us what else there is.

Four come to mind:

1. historical-grammatical interpretation
2. creatio ex nihilo
3. embedded age
4. okay --- four CAME to mind

 

[SiderealExalt]

Well, yes there is, but as I said, you wouldn't understand.

(And I'm speaking from experience.)

Christianity reduced to emo teenager commentary? Say it aint so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christianity reduced to emo teenager commentary? Say it aint so.

And you still don't understand it --- as the Bible says you won't.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Four come to mind:

1. historical-grammatical interpretation

How do you verify that your interpretation is correct? What observations are available in the KJV to help narrow your interpretation as being the single correct interpretation?

1. creatio ex nihilo
2. embedded age

These two things that are:

1. Wholly unfalsifiable
2. Things only God could do
(that last one is "God did it", in case you missed it).

So it seems you are telling me:

You use Historical-Grammatical Method in your Bible Hermaneutics which you then use to verify that "God Did It". Is that it?

Perhaps I missed something here?

 

[thaumaturgy]

And you still don't understand it --- as the Bible says you won't.

So, is it pre-destination?

 

[SiderealExalt]

And you still don't understand it --- as the Bible says you won't.

Yeah I'm afraid I don't speak /wrist goth dialect.

All that thou art ignorant about teh universe cuz you don't know the super secret Christian handshack stuff is a cop out.

 

[AV1611VET]

(that last one is "God did it", in case you missed it).

No --- I'm saying GOD DID IT is the only thing you guys do understand --- thus I would not have included it on my list.

Embedded Age, creatio ex nihilo, dispensation theology, fundamentalism, independent fundamentalism, King James Version Only, sola Scriptura, sanctification (initial, progressive, or entire), the definition of "moral", miracles vs. magic, etc. and so on --- forget it.

The only thing you guys understand are the words: GOD DID IT --- period.

Even you, Thaumaturgy, call yourself by a term that you have no concept what it is, or Who is behind it.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, is it pre-destination?

No --- sorry --- I'll probably remember after this thread has been mothballed.

ETA: Got it --- it's the Laws of Thermodynamics --- as exactly when they were instituted.

As when I point out that in the Big Bang scenario, the amount of mass/energy starts out as a constant --- whereas in Genesis 1, the amount of mass/energy starts out at zero, then builds over a period of six days to its current level.

 

[Chalnoth]

Embedded Age, creatio ex nihilo, dispensation theology, fundamentalism, independent fundamentalism, King James Version Only, sola Scriptura, sanctification (initial, progressive, or entire), the definition of "moral", miracles vs. magic, etc. and so on --- forget it.

I don't think we're misunderstanding these things in the least. Rather we disagree with them. And for good reasons as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah I'm afraid I don't speak /wrist goth dialect.

All that thou art ignorant about teh universe cuz you don't know the super secret Christian handshack stuff is a cop out.

Thanks SE, but I don't need you to prove my point for me --- the Bible can do it just fine ---

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think we're misunderstanding these things in the least.

I think you are --- and the Bible backs me --- therefore: case closed.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

---

Rather we disagree with them. And for good reasons as well.

I could make a point here --- but I'll refrain.

Suffice it to say, if you really understood, your icon would be different.

 

[Cabal]

Suffice it to say, if you really understood, your icon would be different.

Neglecting all those with a "different" faith icon who also aren't wild about all the entries on that list.

 

[Chalnoth]

I think you are --- and the Bible backs me --- therefore: case closed.

Completely invalid reasoning. The discussion here is about the reliability of the Bible. Specifically the reliability of the creation account within the Bible. To attempt to use the Bible to claim that the Bible is reliable is equivalent to merely repeating yourself that the Bible is reliable.

Well guess what? I don't believe you that the Bible is reliable. I think you are mistaken on this account. Given that I don't believe you that the Bible is reliable, is there any reason that I should think that it is reliable?

Just to provide a contrast, if offered the same challenge for any of my beliefs, I am perfectly willing to show, using evidence and logic, why others should consider those beliefs to be accurate. If I find that I cannot do that, I accept that those beliefs are unlikely to be accurate.

Suffice it to say, if you really understood, your icon would be different.

That's very condescending of you. I could say the exact same thing of your faith icon.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neglecting all those with a "different" faith icon who also aren't wild about all the entries on that list.

I'm mainly talking about the ones with the

icon.

Notice the verse I quoted though says, "the natural man", which would include many others.

 

[Cabal]

I'm mainly talking about the ones with the

icon.

Notice the verse I quoted though says, "the natural man", which would include many others.

I realise that. However, I was merely making the observation you can still have a Christian faith icon and disagree with some of the entries.