Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But itś not against the rules to pose as one i guess...

And you're still doing it. You are directly breaking forum rules in saying that Derek Meyer isn't a Christian.

 

[Jimmy D]

Sorry, google threw up another quote mine, the wording is very similar....

Actually, looking again, the quote mine page I linked to had a different quote by L.T More from a book he wrote called T'he Dogma of Evolution'.

Funnily enough he was a Physicist and Dean of Cincinnatti University and he wrote his book in .....1925. I don't think we need to rip up our text books on his say so.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I guess so..
Yet it is allowed to pose as one...

Is should have put it like: I'm sorry, but i can't believe you're a Christian or even a theist, Derek Meyer.

And you're still doing it! You are not allowed, period, to say that a post is not a Christian, is only posing as a Christian or anything for the sort. Full stop.

 

[Hieronymus]

And you're still doing it! You are not allowed, period, to say that a post is not a Christian, is only posing as a Christian or anything for the sort. Full stop.

I am allowed to say i don't believe it or find it hard or impossible to believe.
And that's what i should have said.
The way he looks at things, makes it impossible to believe in Christ's virgin birth, Him being the Son of God, his Divinity, his resurrection i.m.o.

 

[Hieronymus]

Sorry, google threw up another quote mine, the wording is very similar....

Actually, looking again, the quote mine page I linked to had a different quote by L.T More from a book he wrote called T'he Dogma of Evolution'.

Funnily enough he was a Physicist and Dean of Cincinnatti University and he wrote his book in .....1925. I don't think we need to rip up our text books on his say so.

It's there to illustrate the consensus and the commitment to naturalism.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am allowed to say i don't believe it or find it hard or impossible to believe.
And that's what i should have said.
The way he looks at things, makes it impossible to believe in Christ's virgin birth, his Divinity, his resurrection i.m.o.

And you're still breaking the rules on questioning whether a poster who has labelled themselves as one is Christian or not. You can think it, but keep it to yourself.
Also, you do not speak for what a Christian has to believe for them to be a Christian or not. You do not speak for God.

 

[Hieronymus]

And you're still breaking the rules on questioning whether a poster who has labelled themselves as one is Christian or not. You can think it, but keep it to yourself.
Also, you do not speak for what a Christian has to believe for them to be a Christian or not. You do not speak for God.

No, but when you deny the creeds, how can you still be one?
I think it's not possible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, but when you deny the creeds, how can you still be one?
I think it's not possible.

But evolution does not invalidate the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. Evolution is only on the development of the species of life we see on Earth throughout history. It says nothing about the story of Jesus.
And, as has been stated to you before, 98% of Christians in Europe accept evolution.

 

[Hieronymus]

But evolution does not invalidate the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection.

True, but why deny Godś Creation then?
And Jesus must have lied a lot too, if evolution would be true.
How can you marry these things?

Evolution is only on the development of the species of life we see on Earth throughout history.

Lie...

It says nothing about the story of Jesus.
And, as has been stated to you before, 98% of Christians in Europe accept evolution.

Are you sure it's not 99.999%?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

True, but why deny Godś Creation then?
How can you marry these things?

You've obviously never heard of theistic evolution then. Not that surprising....

Lie...

You've never shown that anything I've said is a lie. You've claimed it, but never given any actual scientific evidence.

Are you sure it's not 99.999%?

You really should try and act your age.

 

[The Cadet]

True, but why deny Godś Creation then?

It's not about denying God's creation. It's about reconciling it with the overwhelming evidence supporting an old earth and evolution.

 

[Hieronymus]

==========

 

[Hieronymus]

You've obviously never heard of theistic evolution then. Not that surprising....

duh..Of course i have.
It's what i used to believe: Guided evolution (that is in fact slow creation).
But it also lacks evidence, but has counter evidence in the so called 'cambrian explosion'.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

duh..Of course i have.
It's what i used to believe: Guided evolution (that is in fact slow creation).
But it also lacks evidence, but has counter evidence in the so called 'cambrian explosion'.

Then your claim that people can only accept the Genesis creation account or accept evolution is completely bunk then.

 

[The Cadet]

But it also lacks evidence, but has counter evidence in the so called 'cambrian explosion'.

All right, this ought to be fun. Please explain why the cambrian explosion refutes theistic evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think there's a lot of theophobia behind it, why they can't allow a divine foot in the door.

The "divine" isn't allowed a foot in the door for the exact same reason as poltergeists and invisible unicorns not being allowed a foot in the door. Because there is no evidence to support their existence, nore any way to test and / or falsify it.

Which makes it utterly useless and meaningless.

An unfalsifiable model is a worthless model, because unfalsifiable models are infinite in number.

Come up with an independently verifiable / falsifiable model, and then we'll talk.
Until that happens, ... what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I rather put my faith in what the Bible.

Why?

 

[Hieronymus]

It's not about denying God's creation. It's about reconciling it with the overwhelming evidence supporting an old earth and evolution.

They overwhelm us with evolutionary thinking, that's true..
The rest is just the famous evo mantra.
The naturalistic models have problems they can't solve.
If assessed it's not naturally possible (when evidence and explanatory power lack), then supernaturally.
The fact is that we're here, either by natural means or supernatural means.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In the mean time "mitochondrial Eve" seems to be identified as factual and historical.

In your own words, who is "mitochondrial Eve", when did she live and what does she represent? And why do you think that it fits the garden and talking snake story with the magical trees?

And the tight bottle-neck of the Flood too.

What bottle-neck?

In Genesis 10 we find the Table of Nations (after Babel), which turns out to be accurate.

How is that accurate?

What is so attractive about God not existing?

Why must it be attractive? "Attractiveness" doesn't matter when you are trying to find out what is true. Well, if you care about being justified in your beliefs, that is...

Would mankind suddenly live in peace?

You think mankind living in peace is dependend on the findings of a natural science like biology?

 

[Hieronymus]

The "divine" isn't allowed a foot in the door for the exact same reason as poltergeists and invisible unicorns not being allowed a foot in the door. Because there is no evidence to support their existence,

Baloney.
You know darn well there are many reasons based on many sorts of evidence to at least consider Biblical accuracy.
And nowadays in our culture the peer pressure pushes towards atheistic naturalism (under the guise of rational thinking).
So why would you suggest people still come to the faith by seeking truth?
Because they're idiots?

nore any way to test and / or falsify it.

Both sides have this problem.