How many dozens of Christians did creationism drive away this past hour?

[Ada Lovelace]

Since that statement includes man then it' not a scientific statement. It's a religious world view. It's an idol; An idol is something created by man claiming to be his creator. Science is still a product of the human mind.

When devotion to creationism takes precedence before Christ it becomes a form of idolatry. I see more of an allegiance from you to your interpretation of Genesis and beliefs regarding creationism than I do to Christ Himself in the posts you've written.

Since that statement includes man then it' not a scientific statement. It's a religious world view. It's an idol; An idol is something created by man claiming to be his creator. Science is still a product of the human mind. Then turn around claiming the mind was the result of product of the mind.
This is like a dog chasing his own tail.

And when something is a foundation of our science then it then outside of science. If the foundation of science is that God created the universe then you can't use that science to prove that God created the universe. That is the thing that science is resting upon.

Your reasoning in your posts in this thread reminds me of a game of Twister.

 

[Smidlee]

Religion is something that it "wired" into man.

When devotion to creationism takes precedence before Christ it becomes a form of idolatry. I see more of an allegiance from you to your interpretation of Genesis and beliefs regarding creationism than I do to Christ Himself in the posts you've written.

I haven't mention Genesis

No wonder to the luke-warm church it is written " There things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God"
That verse make it tough to separate Christ from the creation of God. This is in Revelations and not Genesis by the way.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I haven't mention Genesis

You didn't need to since the theory of creationism is rooted in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Edited to Add -

Smidlee, you edited your post after I commented on it, so I'm editing now to comment on what you've added.

Revelations 3:14 doesn't support young earth creationism. It supports what all Christians are in unity in agreeing on - that God is the creator of the the universe and all life within it. What we disagree on is not that He created, but how.

 

[AV1611VET]

You didn't need to since the theory of creationism is rooted in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Theory?

A theory presupposes evidence.

 

[Smidlee]

You didn't need to since the theory of creationism is rooted in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

And don't forget Revelations. Creation is in the first book of the Bible to the very last book.

It's like Jesus read our minds 2000 years ago and knew the luke-warm church would try to separate creation from Christ.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Theory?

A theory presupposes evidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/national/04morris.html?_r=0

Creationism isn't a scientific theory bound by the same standards, but it's been described as a theory.

 

[Wryetui]

Such a shame that people believe in order to be a christian you have to be a creationist, such a shame people think creationism and belief in God's creation are the same.

 

[Smidlee]

You are right creation can't be a scientific theory but creation can be a foundation of science like it was in the past. There is a limit to what man can know with these ape-like brains.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism isn't a scientific theory bound by the same standards, but it's been described as a theory.

It would have to use another standard, if it wants to claim a theory.

But I, personally, wouldn't degrade it by calling it that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Such a shame that people believe in order to be a christian you have to be a creationist, such a shame people think creationism and belief in God's creation are the same.

Can one be a sinner apart from the sin nature?

 

[dad]

Such a shame that people believe in order to be a christian you have to be a creationist, such a shame people think creationism and belief in God's creation are the same.

Cry me a river.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

And don't forget Revelations. Creation is in the first book of the Bible to the very last book.

It's like Jesus read our minds 2000 years ago and knew the luke-warm church would try to separate creation from Christ.

If feels like you are the one trying to separate Christians who are as fervently faithful to Christ as you are but simply have a different hermeneutical approach of scriptures than you do from Him. Evolution-denying creationists do not have the right to misappropriate Christ and claim exclusivity, or act as if their faith is more earnest. Again, Christians believe that God is the Creator, whether they're YECs, Old Earth Creationists, or accept evolution.

Your attitude kinda reminds me of the debates girls had in middle school about Team Peeta or Team Gale, Team Harry or Team Ron, Team Jacob or Team Edward, because you make it into Team YEC, Team OEC, or Team Evolution. All Christians should be playing for the same side - Team Christ.

(Oh. Btw, you can substitute the teen lit metaphors for sports teams, haha.)

ETA: Evolve and create are two distinctly different but not mutually exclusive words.

 

[Davian]

Davian:



I would say that reason itself points to God.

You could say that bananas point to God, and it would not matter either.

It is cohesive for God who is according to the Bible

From what I have observed in these forums, there is nothing that cannot be made to appear "cohesive" with the god of the Bible.

and the design of the universe and life forms

Alleged design, You have yet to establish actual design.

a reasonable and intelligent Being creating those intelligent beings (us) for reason to exist.

Untestable and and unfalsifiable assertion. Why do you bother?

In the evolutionary model there is no reason for humans to be intelligent and able to understand the universe.

So what?

Me and millions of others you mean.

The argument from popularity is fallacious. Not one of you can show that your experience is not imagined.

Your position is the minority of the population in the world.

So what?

You can conclude anything you wish but that doesn't make it true.

If you are continually unable to substantiate your claims, probability that they are false does increase greatly.

I presuppose His existence due to knowing He exists.

How circular. You use your belief that you know that a god exists to support your presupposition that a god exists.

I have.



I am not sure that is true.

I am sure that I do not accept circular logic as justification. YMMV.

Please explain what you mean by this.

That the political will and money exists to bring into existence a country that resembles that mentioned in your Bible makes the creation of Israel as useful as a prophecy fulfilment as me ordering a steak at a restaurant. Now, if the money and the will did not exist, and it still happened, then you might have something.

Why would that make me Jewish? Christ was Jewish. The end of days is for Israel and the Jews and unbelievers.

So Israel has it wrong, as they are not christians. Should they not be Christian?

The original text does not mean immovable. The translators have made a mistake by saying immovable.

You know better than them, do you?

Of?

Your postings in these forums.

Hm.




This isn't about the appearance as in pattern-recognition. these are true measurements and observations.

That the constants are constant is not in dispute. It is your perception of design that is in question here.

No.




As have you.

It is you asserting your opinions as truth.

Why would we question that?

You cannot show that our "will" is "free".

yes.




I don't wonder at all.

After all these years here, and your opinions about design still do not get traction, you don't wonder why?

You all have a worldview which does not include God.

Sure it does. It is a character in a book.

Yes.

Then shoulder that burden of evidence, or admit you cannot.

 

[Smidlee]

If feels like you are the one trying to separate Christians who are as fervently faithful to Christ as you are but simply have a different hermeneutical interpretation of scriptures than you do from Him. Evolution-denying creationists do not have the right to misappropriate Christ and claim exclusivity, or act as if their faith is more earnest. Again, Christians believe that God is the Creator, whether they're YECs, Old Earth Creationists, or accept evolution.

Your attitude kinda reminds me of the debates girls had in middle school about Team Peeta or Team Gale, Team Harry or Team Ron, Team Jacob or Team Edward, because you make it into Team YEC, Team OEC, or Team Evolution. All Christians should be playing for the same side - Team Christ.

(Oh. Btw, you can substitute the teen lit metaphors for sports teams, haha.)

To me evolve and create doesn't have the same meaning. The idea of man evolving was around even when Jesus was on this earth (the Greeks) yet Jesus mention nothing about it. Remember it's the evolutionist who trying to force their "religious" views down the creationist throat. Sorry I don't believe evolutionist have a monopoly on knowledge (science) especially dealing with origins.
Now biology, which is something we can test right here and now, doesn't require a certain view on origins to understand.

(|No matter how smart man becomes he still has to use his physical brain to understand how his physical brain works. )

 

[Willtor]

To me evolve and create doesn't have the same meaning. The idea of man evolving was around even when Jesus was on this earth (the Greeks) yet Jesus mention nothing about it. Remember it's the evolutionist who trying to force their "religious" views down the creationist throat. Sorry I don't believe evolutionist have a monopoly on knowledge (science) especially dealing with origins.
Now biology, which is something we can test right here and now, doesn't require a certain view on origins to understand.

(|No matter how smart man becomes he still has to use his physical brain to understand how his physical brain works. )

Evolution is about the origin of the species (the diversity of life), not about origins in general -- even the origins of life. Modern biology, with genetics at its core, makes sense in light of the theory of evolution. There is no other theory that does this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is about the origin of the species (the diversity of life), not about origins in general -- even the origins of life. Modern biology, with genetics at its core, makes sense in light of the theory of evolution. There is no other theory that does this.

What does modern biology say about the origin of angelic life?

Did the angels get here by evolution?

 

[Willtor]

What does modern biology say about the origin of angelic life?

Did the angels get here by evolution?

Do angels have DNA? Can you align their genomes with ours?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do angels have DNA?

I doubt it.

And if my doubts are correct, then most of the life in this universe exists sans DNA.

Can you align their genomes with ours?

No, but the angels can mess with our DNA.

And the ones that did are now reserved in "chains of darkness."

 

[KWCrazy]

Modern biology cannot account for angelic life, because modern biology cannot and does not study supernatural life forms. Science is limited to the study of the physical world. In that, to conclude that the supernatural exists or does not exist based on the scientific measure is an exercise in futility. The question we should ask ourselves is this; do we believe in the Scriptures, which chronicles 333 miracles impossible according to the laws of science, or do we discard every evidence of the supernatural and insist that our world is purely physical and natural; the dead simply rot; the godly and the ungodly share the same eventual end? If we say that we accept SOME miracles; say the resurrection; by what measure do we decide which miracles to accept and which to reject? If we concede that God exists in some form, by what standard do we define God? If His holy book is false, than how can we say He exists at all? Creation may or may not be foundational doctrine, but by His words apparently Jesus believed it and He believed that the Scriptures were positively true.

If you say that the Great Flood was a local flood you have another miracle to contend with; the suspension of gravity which held water in one part of the world to lift above the mountains while yet unaffecting the remainder of the world. Couple that with the intent to destroy all human life which would not be possible with a local flood and now you have something which IS foundational doctrine. Jesus referred to both as real events.

Because I know the resurrection happened and that the supernatural exists, I know that God, not the laws of science, is ultimately the Lord of all that exists. If He is true than His book is true, and the events described actually happened. If you are unable to accept the veracity of the Word because your science teacher tells you otherwise, then perhaps you need to pay more attention to your Lord and less to your teacher. Nobody leaves the faith because of creationism. They leave the faith because they refused to put their trust in the Lord rather than in the teachings of man.

 

[Loudmouth]

do we believe in the Scriptures, which chronicles 333 miracles impossible according to the laws of science, or do we discard every evidence of the supernatural and insist that our world is purely physical and natural;

There is a difference between having faith in something where evidence is lacking and believing in something in the face of contradictory evidence. Most of us view faith as a belief held in the absence of evidence. Believing in the miracles described in the Bible fit that bill. There is no evidence that those things didn't happen. Creationism, on the other hand, has tons of evidence against it.

If we say that we accept SOME miracles; say the resurrection; by what measure do we decide which miracles to accept and which to reject?

What I hear from christians is that they reject interpretations of the Bible that require us to believe that God faked evidence in the Creation. The correct interpretations show agreement between the Bible and the Creation.

Creation may or may not be foundational doctrine, but by His words apparently Jesus believed it and He believed that the Scriptures were positively true.

I am unaware of any verse where Jesus said that Genesis was to be interpretted literally. Jesus spoke of a Prodigal Son as well, but no one expects that to be a literal person.

If you say that the Great Flood was a local flood you have another miracle to contend with; the suspension of gravity which held water in one part of the world to lift above the mountains while yet unaffecting the remainder of the world. Couple that with the intent to destroy all human life which would not be possible with a local flood and now you have something which IS foundational doctrine. Jesus referred to both as real events.

Where did Jesus refer to both as real events?