How to answer the question "well life would have begun eventually"

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Concerning life I never said it was ex-nihilo.

Barbarian, earlier:
The origin of life is not in his theory of evolution. And of course, it's true that God created the first living things. He just did it, using nature to make them.

There was ex-nihilo as well as using what was already made, for example a rib. But the bible is quite clear evolutionism wasn't the method.

Which of these two do you believe? It's contradictory to say it was ex-nihilo, and then argue that you didn't say it.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Barbarian, earlier:
The origin of life is not in his theory of evolution. And of course, it's true that God created the first living things. He just did it, using nature to make them.
We can tell by the wording and description that God didn't use evolutionism



Which of these two do you believe? It's contradictory to say it was ex-nihilo, and then argue that you didn't say it.

I never said life was created ex-nihilo.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barbarian, earlier:
The origin of life is not in his theory of evolution. And of course, it's true that God created the first living things. He just did it, using nature to make them.

We can tell by the wording and description that God didn't use evolutionism

ev·o·lu·tion-ism
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/izm

noun
noun: evolutionism;


  1. 1.
    the stories creationists tell about evolutionary theory, to avoid discussing the real theory.
    "evolutionism is calling God a liar"
  2. 2.
    the numerous misconceptions creationists have about evolution
    "evolutionism is about the origin of life"
    synonyms: straw man, diversion, misconception

He certainly didn't. As you learned, life was brought forth by the Earth, not ex nihilo, as YE creationists imagined.

I never said life was created ex-nihilo.[/QUOTE]

Barbarian, earlier:
The origin of life is not in his theory of evolution. And of course, it's true that God created the first living things. He just did it, using nature to make them.

-57 said:
There was ex-nihilo as well as using what was already made, for example a rib. But the bible is quite clear evolutionism wasn't the method.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Barbarian, earlier:
The origin of life is not in his theory of evolution. And of course, it's true that God created the first living things. He just did it, using nature to make them.



ev·o·lu·tion-ism
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/izm

noun
noun: evolutionism;


  1. 1.
    the stories creationists tell about evolutionary theory, to avoid discussing the real theory.
    "evolutionism is calling God a liar"
  2. 2.
    the numerous misconceptions creationists have about evolution
    "evolutionism is about the origin of life"
    synonyms: straw man, diversion, misconception
He certainly didn't. As you learned, life was brought forth by the Earth, not ex nihilo, as YE creationists imagined.

I never said life was created ex-nihilo.

Barbarian, earlier:
The origin of life is not in his theory of evolution. And of course, it's true that God created the first living things. He just did it, using nature to make them.[/QUOTE]

Forming Adam from the dust then Eve from his rib isn't evolutionism.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barbarian, earlier:
The origin of life is not in his theory of evolution. And of course, it's true that God created the first living things. He just did it, using nature to make them.

Forming Adam from the dust then Eve from his rib isn't evolutionism.

No, it's not. It's a parable for the creation of humans.

This is evolutionism:

ev·o·lu·tion-ism
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/izm

noun
noun: evolutionism;


  1. 1.
    the stories creationists tell about evolutionary theory, to avoid discussing the real theory.
    "evolutionism is calling God a liar"
  2. 2.
    the numerous misconceptions creationists have about evolution
    "evolutionism is about the origin of life"
    synonyms: straw man, diversion, misconception
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, it's not. It's a parable for the creation of humans.
You've lost the parable argument when Paul wrote a letter to Timothy expressing how women should act in church and provided a base for the rule when he presented the fall and creation of mankind as the reason based upon a literal and historical account presented in Genesis.

This doesn't fit in with the concept of evolutionism.
1 Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;


Neither does the following...

1 Tim 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You've lost the parable argument when Paul wrote a letter to Timothy expressing how women should act in church and provided a base for the rule when he presented the fall and creation of mankind as the reason based upon a literal and historical account presented in Genesis.

You added "literal and historical account." Paul never wrote that. You added it, because without it, there's no point. So you just lost your argument. Try again?

This doesn't fit in with the concept of evolutionism.

ev·o·lu·tion-ism
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/izm

noun
noun: evolutionism;


  1. 1.
    the stories creationists tell about evolutionary theory, to avoid discussing the real theory.
    "evolutionism is calling God a liar"
  2. 2.
    the numerous misconceptions creationists have about evolution
    "evolutionism is about the origin of life"
    synonyms: straw man, diversion, misconception
It's your invention. So that's your problem.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barbarian observes:
You added "literal and historical account." Paul never wrote that. You added it, because without it, there's no point. So you just lost your argument. Try again?

nope......Why would Paul base a rule on a parable?

Why did Jesus base rules on parables?

As we all know, Jesus told parables. The apostles were always getting confused by His parables and were relieved when He finally spoke plainly to them (John 16:29). The fact that the apostles were first century Mediterranean Jews who lived and listened to Jesus for three straight years, but who were still confused by Jesus’ parables should give us hope that if they were confused, it is okay for us to be confused as well.

Yet confusion was the goal and purpose of the parables. At one point in Jesus’ ministry, the apostles come to Jesus and say, “Why do you speak in parables?” (Matthew 13:10). They were confused by what Jesus said in his parables, and the multitudes who listened to Jesus’ parables were often confused as well by what Jesus was teaching, and so the apostles were kindly telling Jesus that He might do better if He spoke plainly to the people.

Jesus tells the apostles in Matthew 13:11-17 (cf. Matthew 13:34-35; Luke 8:10) that the reason He speaks in parables is so that the people will “see but not see, hear but not hear.”
Jesus' Parables are Confusing? Good!

You're confused by many parables, which is true of almost all Christians. Jesus intended them to be confusing and difficult. That's the first steps to understanding. It's worth your time to go back to parables like the creation "week"; even if you think you have it, every time you visit, you'll gain understanding.


That's why. Indeed, Jesus wasn't rule-based at all. He decried the legalism of the "good people" of his day, and spent his time with publicans and sinners, because they were receptive to what He had to say, while the "rule people" had a very difficult time with his message.

So he broke the Sabbath to heal people, and when the Pharisees objected, He told them that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Listen to what He has to say. Do it often, even if you think you have it. Trust Him, you don't have it all.

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Barbarian observes:
You added "literal and historical account." Paul never wrote that. You added it, because without it, there's no point. So you just lost your argument. Try again?



Why did Jesus base rules on parables?

As we all know, Jesus told parables. The apostles were always getting confused by His parables and were relieved when He finally spoke plainly to them (John 16:29). The fact that the apostles were first century Mediterranean Jews who lived and listened to Jesus for three straight years, but who were still confused by Jesus’ parables should give us hope that if they were confused, it is okay for us to be confused as well.

Yet confusion was the goal and purpose of the parables. At one point in Jesus’ ministry, the apostles come to Jesus and say, “Why do you speak in parables?” (Matthew 13:10). They were confused by what Jesus said in his parables, and the multitudes who listened to Jesus’ parables were often confused as well by what Jesus was teaching, and so the apostles were kindly telling Jesus that He might do better if He spoke plainly to the people.

Jesus tells the apostles in Matthew 13:11-17 (cf. Matthew 13:34-35; Luke 8:10) that the reason He speaks in parables is so that the people will “see but not see, hear but not hear.”
Jesus' Parables are Confusing? Good!

You're confused by many parables, which is true of almost all Christians. Jesus intended them to be confusing and difficult. That's the first steps to understanding. It's worth your time to go back to parables like the creation "week"; even if you think you have it, every time you visit, you'll gain understanding.


That's why. Indeed, Jesus wasn't rule-based at all. He decried the legalism of the "good people" of his day, and spent his time with publicans and sinners, because they were receptive to what He had to say, while the "rule people" had a very difficult time with his message.

So he broke the Sabbath to heal people, and when the Pharisees objected, He told them that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Listen to what He has to say. Do it often, even if you think you have it. Trust Him, you don't have it all.
Nice try, but you still din't explain why Paul's rule was based on an event that didn't happen.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barbarian observes:
You added "literal and historical account." Paul never wrote that. You added it, because without it, there's no point. So you just lost your argument. Try again?


Nice try, but you still din't explain why Paul's rule was based on an event that didn't happen.

So your misconception is that it's impossible to have a parable about something that really happened?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
For the most part Borels law states...Any odds beyond 1 in 10to the 50th have a zero probability of ever happening.

Let's test that belief. Take a deck of cards, and shuffle it thoroughly. Then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order.

The odds of that order are 1/52!, or 1.2397999308571485923950341988946e-68, and yet it happens every time. That should give you some idea why the probability argument is such a loser.

And yet because that guy calculated something, people not familiar with probability are highly impressed. The odds are fairly good that he himself never really realized why he had made the error.

The probability of the Earth bringing forth life is 1.0. Do you understand why?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Barbarian observes:
You added "literal and historical account." Paul never wrote that. You added it, because without it, there's no point. So you just lost your argument. Try again?




So your misconception is that it's impossible to have a parable about something that really happened?

Why do you refuse to say why Paul would present a parable that didn't happen as a basis for a rule?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Let's test that belief. Take a deck of cards, and shuffle it thoroughly. Then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order.

The odds of that order are 1/52!, or 1.2397999308571485923950341988946e-68, and yet it happens every time. That should give you some idea why the probability argument is such a loser.

And yet because that guy calculated something, people not familiar with probability are highly impressed. The odds are fairly good that he himself never really realized why he had made the error.

The probability of the Earth bringing forth life is 1.0. Do you understand why?
Then do it again. Same cards, same order.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Barbarian said:
Let's test that belief. Take a deck of cards, and shuffle it thoroughly. Then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order.

The odds of that order are 1/52!, or 1.2397999308571485923950341988946e-68, and yet it happens every time. That should give you some idea why the probability argument is such a loser.

And yet because that guy calculated something, people not familiar with probability are highly impressed. The odds are fairly good that he himself never really realized why he had made the error.

The probability of the Earth bringing forth life is 1.0. Do you understand why?

Then do it again. Same cards, same order.

Did God do it over again, with the same result? No? It appears you've figured out why this guy's argument fails. Well done.

You now realize that he found an arrow stuck in a tree, painted a bulls-eye around it, and marveled at the accuracy. :ebil:
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barbarian observes:
So your misconception is that it's impossible to have a parable about something that really happened?

Why do you refuse to say why Paul would present a parable that didn't happen as a basis for a rule?

I already told you that the Fall was a real event involving real people. The parable of the Fall is about that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Did God do it over again, with the same result? No? It appears you've figured out why this guy's argument fails. Well done.

You now realize that he found an arrow stuck in a tree, painted a bulls-eye around it, and marveled at the accuracy. :ebil:

It is you who painted the target. The cards will always be in an order.

Now, shuffle the deck....do it as many times you like....and you will never see that order again.
 
Upvote 0