Something I need to get off my chest about the whole creation/evolution thing.

[Melethiel]

I can assure you that GCC does not rely on google for anything, and that his idea of the "reliability" of Scripture is a far different one than what any of those website claim.

 

[Targaryen]

I can assure you that GCC does not rely on google for anything, and that his idea of the "reliability" of Scripture is a far different one than what any of those website claim.

GCC's good for that though, some of us less so. But then Google you can find all sorts of heterodox positions to justify anything, so kudos to him for having a far better grasp on subjects raised.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can you support your contention with scripture?

Show me the discrepancies in Gods word that you believe exist.

In Mark 14 Jesus mentions Judas' betrayal before the Supper.

In Matthew 26 Jesus mentions Judas' betrayal before the Supper.

In Luke 22 Jesus mentions Judas' betrayal after the Supper.

Now me? This is the sort of thing that simply isn't going to bother me. But then I don't subscribe to modernistic views of total inerrancy. I subscribe to the teaching that Scripture is holy, inspired, and infallible on all matters of faith and practice. Whether Jesus mentions the betrayal before after the institution of the Supper is entirely moot.

But if one insists that the Bible is totally and absolutely inerrant on even the most minute details, then this would be a problem. Though the usual inerrantist tactic is to pretend there's no discrepancy at all, that it's not there at all. Quite often by adding additional information into the text not at all present--such as by arguing that Jesus actually mentioned the betrayal twice, once before the Supper and once after. But to do this requires that one add to the Scriptures what is clearly not present. Which doesn't seem to be a problem if one is more interested in inerrancy than biblical fidelity.

I believe being faithful to the Scriptures is far more important than opinions about the Scriptures. Which is why I personally can't be an inerrantist.

Also, for what it's worth. I didn't google for these. I looked up the relevant passages.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mk.+14:12-26&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt.+26:17-30&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk.+22:7-39&version=ESV

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Targaryen]

In Mark 14 Jesus mentions Judas' betrayal before the Supper.

In Matthew 26 Jesus mentions Judas' betrayal before the Supper.

In Luke 22 Jesus mentions Judas' betrayal after the Supper.

Now me? This is the sort of thing that simply isn't going to bother me. But then I don't subscribe to modernistic views of total inerrancy. I subscribe to the teaching that Scripture is holy, inspired, and infallible on all matters of faith and practice. Whether Jesus mentions the betrayal before after the institution of the Supper is entirely moot.

But if one insists that the Bible is totally and absolutely inerrant on even the most minute details, then this would be a problem. Though the usual inerrantist tactic is to pretend there's no discrepancy at all, that it's not there at all. Quite often by adding additional information into the text not at all present--such as by arguing that Jesus actually mentioned the betrayal twice, once before the Supper and once after. But to do this requires that one add to the Scriptures what is clearly not present. Which doesn't seem to be a problem if one is more interested in inerrancy than biblical fidelity.

I believe being faithful to the Scriptures is far more important than opinions about the Scriptures. Which is why I personally can't be an inerrantist.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Time4Truth]

And thus you prove to use the same tired argument and lack of proof of any literalist. You are challenged to seek out certain passages already pointed out, but can't be bother to open the bible and read and relate if you found contrary evidence or if you have to back up the point made.

And you are now going to the tired cliche of placing everything back on the poster that raised the point you can't refute with a reasonable approach and using rather tired excuses and reasoning to attempt to extricate yourself from the hole of your own making.

Sorry, but he already provided proof
That's debate 101

Proof of what exactly?

Did Jesus heal Brtimaeus? Yes

Did Jesus point Judas out? Yes

There are various theories on where exactly Paul went and when, nothing that affects doctrine or Pauls ministry.


There are so many of these throughout scripture (thief on the cross, when Christ was born, what the soldiers saw with Paul) but none that affect the subject of what is being proclaimed. This has a purpose as the Bible is penned, transcribed, translated, and put together by fallible men..

Nothing he is demonstrating affects the account in Genesis, or the events he is questioning himself.

Evolution is a fairy tale, and he would need a huge deviation in scripture to go from the creation account to something like abiogenesis or evolution.. Both secular philosophies invented and supported by men who deny Christ.

He that denies the son is antichrist.

Just knowing that men who are antichrist revere something like evolution should tell you something is wrong.



Ive never seen so many Christians quick to look to the world for answers so clearly told to us in scripture.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just knowing that men who are antichrist revere something like evolution should tell you something is wrong.

Poisoning the well.

Atheists by and large believe in gravity, germ theory, and a heliocentric model of the solar system.

Are you a geocentrist? Do you reject gravity? If not how come? After all, just knowing that men who are antichrist revere something like gravity should tell you something is wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Time4Truth]

I believe being faithful to the Scriptures is far more important than opinions about the Scriptures. Which is why I personally can't be an inerrantist.

Inerrancy can be refuted by translation discrepancies..

What I am talking about is what the Bible teaches doctrinally.

For example, the Tanakh (MT) and the Septuagint may differ, but doctrinally they are synchronous.

 

[Time4Truth]

Poisoning the well.

Atheists by and large believe in gravity, germ theory, and a heliocentric model of the solar system.

Are you a geocentrist? Do you reject gravity? If not how come? After all, just knowing that men who are antichrist revere something like gravity should tell you something is wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

Gravity is not in question. (physicists still don't actually know what gravity is)

That germs and bacterium are dangerous to humans can be tested and observed.


Hes trying to move from the subject of evolution because he knows evolution has no real proof.


Once I start finding out what he believes evolution is contrasted with what he thinks he knows, hes done.

Game over..

This is the danger of falling into the world for your beliefs.

 

[Targaryen]

Gravity is not in question. (physicists still don't actually know what gravity is)

That germs and bacterium are dangerous to humans can be tested and observed.


Hes trying to move from the subject of evolution because he knows evolution has no real proof.


Once I start finding out what he believes evolution is contrasted with what he thinks he knows, hes done.

Game over..

This is the danger of falling into the world for your beliefs.

Not even close to game over. you still have yet to do the research on the Scripture passages provided, not out of your opinion but what the text says.

So, better to live in the real world with a real faith and real fact then a dream world where a limited and rather unresearched viewpoint actually holds up well.

 

[Time4Truth]

Not even close to game over. you still have yet to do the research on the Scripture passages provided, not out of your opinion but what the text says.

So, better to live in the real world with a real faith and real fact then a dream world where a limited and rather unresearched viewpoint actually holds up well.

Not so much, the question here is not simply when did the event happen.

He is saying the event never happened, and is taking Darwins broken philosophy over what is written.

This isn't a matter of 7 or 8 days, or animals before plants.


His hypotheses of evolution is a direct contradiction to what is written.



God made gravity.
God made bacteria.
God made the solar system as it sits. (Which refutes accretion btw)


God did not make Darwins theory of evolution.
God did not make the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.
God did not make the multiverse theory which still has no evidence.

The imagination of men is always on evil, that is what is written.


Im about to call a red herring at this point..

 

[Time4Truth]

This is the "Pope of Darwinism" whos hypocrisy is on display for all to see..

"Weve never observed evolution while its happening"
Richard Dawkins-

Richard Dawkins contradicts himself - YouTube

 

[Time4Truth]

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)

"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)

 

[ViaCrucis]

Gravity is not in question. (physicists still don't actually know what gravity is)

That germs and bacterium are dangerous to humans can be tested and observed.


Hes trying to move from the subject of evolution because he knows evolution has no real proof.


Once I start finding out what he believes evolution is contrasted with what he thinks he knows, hes done.

Game over..

This is the danger of falling into the world for your beliefs.

I gave examples of other scientific theories that demonstrate your selective and arbitrary process of singling out evolution as being problematic because non-Christians accept it.

Of course your assessment that evolution has no demonstrable data behind it is easily refuted through any number of observations.

Observed speciation in populations of organisms.

A rather detailed fossil record, including examples of "transitional" organisms, e.g. feathered dinosaurs demonstrating that, indeed, birds are not only descended from dinosaurs but are, in fact, themselves dinosaurs.

Molecular studies, genome sequencing. Etc.

Rejecting the mountainous levels of evidence backing up evolutionary theory is an exercise in intentional ignorance.

Cloaking one's ignorance in pious sounding language doesn't improve the argument.

Need examples of some of the evidence I've mentioned? Okie dokie.

Observed speciation: Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations | Science Sushi, Scientific American Blog Network

Microraptor, a small feathered dinosaur:

Genetic sequencing demonstrating the uncanny similarity between similarly related organisms, in this video humans and chimps are shown side-by-side, as well as the more distantly related gibbon; as well as for contrast the asian and african elephants:

Visualization of chimp and human mitochondrial DNA - YouTube

Consistently all evidence points us in the direction of common descent, that earths biodiversity is the product of millions of years of evolutionary adaptation.

You are right about one thing, however. We know remarkably little about gravitation. But that's actually one of the more remarkable things; because we have more evidence, more data, and more knowledge about evolution than we do about gravity and the mechanisms of gravitation. Evolution is a more solidly evidenced scientific theory than is gravity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Time4Truth]

I gave examples of other scientific theories that demonstrate you're selective and arbitrary process of singling out evolution as being problematic because non-Christians accept it.

Christians and non Christians cannot refute they exist.

Im not talking about things commonly understood or observed, you are talking about God being a liar and claiming humans formed without God via abiogenesis, and our current manifestation is the result of evolving from a single organism.. There is nothing in scripture that even remotely allegorically hints at such nonsense.

Of course your assessment that evolution has no demonstrable data behind it is easily refuted through any number of observations.

Subjective claims do not make something true.

Observed speciation in populations of organisms.

Observed when?

A rather detailed fossil record, including examples of "transitional" organisms, e.g. feathered dinosaurs demonstrating that, indeed, birds are not only descended from dinosaurs but are, in fact, themselves dinosaurs.

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)

Molecular studies, genome sequencing. Etc.

Semantics.. Show me just one hop from genus to genus via biogenesis, which we accept as a law.

Rejecting the mountainous levels of evidence backing up evolutionary theory is an exercise in intentional ignorance.

Or I put my faith in God more than men who reject Christ.

Cloaking one's ignorance in pious sounding language doesn't improve the argument.

If you wanna take cheap shots go ahead, that's what being a Christian is all about.. Satans arrows affect me not..

Genetic sequencing demonstrating the uncanny similarity between similarly related organisms, in this video humans and chimps are shown side-by-side, as well as the more distantly related gibbon; as well as for contrast the asian and african elephants:

Humans share 50% of our genetic material with a banana.

Let me guess.. We came from bananas??

Consistently all evidence points us in the direction of common descent, that earths biodiversity is the product of millions of years of evolutionary adaptation.

Yes, common descent is correct, Adam and Eve are the common descent.

 

[Time4Truth]

A rather detailed fossil record, including examples of "transitional" organisms, e.g. feathered dinosaurs demonstrating that, indeed, birds are not only descended from dinosaurs but are, in fact, themselves dinosaurs.

"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)



I love it when atheists try and claim "the fossil record supports evolution".


That is a flat out bold faced lie.

Paleontologists have known this is a complete fabrication of data for a long time.


Wake up man.. Let God be true and every man a liar, as it is written.

We all will give an account for what we espouse as truth, you will be no different.

 

[Time4Truth]

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing."

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)

 

[Time4Truth]

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."

(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)


"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

 

[Time4Truth]

A rather detailed fossil record, including examples of "transitional" organisms, e.g. feathered dinosaurs demonstrating that, indeed, birds are not only descended from dinosaurs but are, in fact, themselves dinosaurs.

"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin."

(Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology")


By the time Im finished, your belief in evolution will be nill..

The outright hypocrisy within the fields that claim it is a little more than a clerical error, its an outright refutation.

A house divided cannot stand.

 

[Time4Truth]

"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."

(Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)


"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, "It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.")

"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology."

(Dr. Arthur Koestler)

 

[Time4Truth]

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."

(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."

(Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written."

(Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)