Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Hans Blaster]

Waiting for Bradskii to find someone to disagree, maybe?

As he said:



In short, every single Christian who ever lived, alive today, or will be alive tomorrow believed "God is."

Including you at one time.

He wrote "Pick any moral position you hold -" (or rather that's the part quoted only to respond with just "God is." He was asking about whether you think "god is" he noted that all controversial moral positions have Christians on all sides.

 

[Diamond72]

You cannot be unaware of this.

Science is based on objective reality yet people are subjective. That is the nature of the beast. I see it as pieces of a puzzle. You get the picture when you put all the pieces together. That is not always easy to do, it can take time and patience.

 

[Diamond72]

God is what?

God is the Creator of physics and the laws of physics.

 

[Mountainmike]

You would need to stretch it into a moral position. The argument made was about regular moral topics and its true that Christians disagree about almost anything.
And you can find many liberal Christians who do not believe in God, they just claim to be Christians due to traditional reasons and moral principles. This is common for example in Scandinavia.

Pick any moral position you hold - let's say regarding ssm, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia...and I'll be able to find another Christian who disagrees with you. God will have guided them in a completely different direction to the way He has guided you.

You cannot be unaware of this.

Take one of your issues abortion.
It’s not difficult. “ thou shalt not kill”

From the earliest writings - take the didache - Christian’s opposed it.
The church,that is the only church prior to the Millenium combining Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, which is also the biggest by far, has always opposed abortion and still does . No change.

Then along came the reformation, when people decided “ they knew better than the church”
Some like king Henry had reasons to prefer his own morality or lack of it, in his case.
So they made their church in their image not Gods.
What has typified post reformationist churches is they schism and schism again. If you don’t like the doctrine find a church you do like, and if you can’t find one in your own image , start your own!

Even Luther despaired of the monster he personally created : “ there are now as many doctrines as milkmaids” he lamented Even in his time. But that’s the trouble. In removing authority for all to interpret scripture how pthey wish, they make their own designer version. He let Pandora out of the box.

So as the leaders impose their own views on the church , rather than allowing the church to impose its views on them.
That house divided cannot stand, indeed on every matter of doctrine post reformation churches disagree.
They all became their own pope. So who do they speak for but themselves?

But on Abortion since the beginning THE church, the one traceable back to the apostles has unchanged views. So who speaks for Christianity? They do! The church given the power to “ bind and loose” so dictate dogma with authority. The “ pillar and foundation of truth”

it’s true, you can now find a designer church if you look that claims to be Christian , that has any permutation of doctrine you like. a church your image , not Christs, But it does not make their views Christian belief, nor does true Christianity speak with two voices. There is but one truth. Abortion is wrong.

 

[trophy33]

Take one of your issues abortion.
It’s not difficult. “ thou shalt not kill”

From the earliest writings - take the didache - Christian’s opposed it.
The church,that is the only church prior to the Millenium combining Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, which is also the biggest by far, has always opposed abortion and still does . No change.

Then along came the reformation, when people decided “ they knew better than the church”
Some like king Henry had reasons to prefer his own morality or lack of it, in his case.
So they made their church in their image not Gods.
What has typified post reformationist churches is they schism and schism again. If you don’t like the doctrine find a church you do like, and if you can’t find one in your own image , start your own!

Even Luther despaired of the monster he personally created : “ there are now as many doctrines as milkmaids” he lamented Even in his time. But that’s the trouble. In removing authority for all to interpret scripture how pthey wish, they make their own designer version. He let Pandora out of the box.

So as the leaders impose their own views on the church , rather than allowing the church to impose its views on them.
That house divided cannot stand, indeed on every matter of doctrine post reformation churches disagree.
They all became their own pope. So who do they speak for but themselves?

But on Abortion since the beginning THE church, the one traceable back to the apostles has unchanged views. So who speaks for Christianity? They do! The church given the power to “ bind and loose” so dictate dogma with authority. The “ pillar and foundation of truth”

it’s true, you can now find a designer church if you look that claims to be Christian , that has any permutation of doctrine you like. a church your image , not Christs, But it does not make their views Christian belief, nor does true Christianity speak with two voices. There is but one truth. Abortion is wrong.

Inside the Catholic church there are many opinions about topics and inside the orthodox church, too. Those churches seem more united from the outside, because they have few official public sources. The insider debate is hidden from the public eyes, compared to protestantism.

Not to mention differences between catholics and orhodox Christians in general.

Differences can hardly be blamed on protestantism, only.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you can find many liberal Christians who do not believe in God, they just claim to be Christians due to traditional reasons and moral principles. This is common for example in Scandinavia.

Hans is Scandinavian?

 

[Frank Robert]

Scientists should be aware of their biases and strive for objectivity in their research.

That goes doubly for creationist/ID publications.

 

[Diamond72]

That goes doubly for creationist/ID publications.

So are you saying we have a Bible that no one can make any sense out of?

 

[Diamond72]

It’s not difficult. “ thou shalt not kill”

Oh, it is difficult. Have you not raised a child? What is going to be difficult is for them to get into heaven.

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh, it is difficult. Have you not raised a child? What is going to be difficult is for them to get into heaven.

Kids are difficult and yes I have! - but the question was whether abortion was wrong which as a question is not difficult!

 

[dlamberth]

Oh, it is difficult. Have you not raised a child? What is going to be difficult is for them to get into heaven.

When holding my new born grandchildren and seeing the angels that they are, its hard to believe any of that fallen soul stuff.

 

[Frank Robert]

So are you saying we have a Bible that no one can make any sense out of?

I don't know how you possibly thought I was talking about the bible when I specifically said creationist/ID publications. Here is a sample of what you find on ID-Creationist websites.

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions | NewScientist

Shared misconceptions:​

Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection​

Natural selection is the only means of evolution​

Natural selection leads to ever-greater complexity​

Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment​

Evolution always promotes the survival of species​

It doesn’t matter if people do not understand evolution​

“Survival of the fittest” justifies “everyone for themselves”​

Evolution is limitlessly creative​

Evolution cannot explain traits such as homosexuality​

Creationism provides a coherent alternative to evolution​

Myths:​

Evolution must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant​

Accepting evolution undermines morality​

Evolutionary theory leads to racism and genocide​

Religion and evolution are incompatible​

Half a wing is no use to anyone​

Evolutionary science is not predictive​

Evolution cannot be disproved so is not science​

Evolution is just so unlikely to produce complex life forms​

Evolution is an entirely random process​

Mutations can only destroy information, not create it​

Darwin is the ultimate authority on evolution​

The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex​

Yet more creationist misconceptions​

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics​

 

[AV1611VET]

When holding my new born grandchildren and seeing the angels that they are, its hard to believe any of that fallen soul stuff.

Give'em time.

Do be so impatient to see them manifest their sin nature.

Remember: you (and I) were there at one time, too.

 

[Diamond72]

I don't know how you possibly thought I was talking about the bible when I specifically said creationist/ID publications.

Creationism is an attempt to understand the Bible. Everyone is accountable for themselves so I would not be worried about others so much. I have no problem with theistic evolution, but Frances Shaffer's version has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and he is the leading expert on the subject. But it looks like he has payola written all over him like a lot of leading authorities in the name it and claim it, blab it and grab it group.

 

[Diamond72]

When holding my new born grandchildren and seeing the angels that they are, its hard to believe any of that fallen soul stuff.

I do not think we are born into sin. I think every name is written in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world. God would have to blot our name out of His book.

Overall, while the number of possible unique DNA sequences is incredibly large, the actual number of viable and functional DNA sequences is much smaller. Human DNA is made up of a unique combination of nucleotides arranged in a specific order, and the likelihood of two people having the exact same sequence is extremely low. The probability of two unrelated individuals having the same DNA profile is estimated to be less than one in a billion.

 

[Frank Robert]

Creationism is an attempt to understand the Bible.

Every Christian denomination has bible classes majority of which do not prioritize spreading myths and misinformation about evolution and other sciences. I am reffering to sites like AIG, DiscoveryInstitute, ReasonsToBelieve.

Everyone is accountable for themselves so I would not be worried about others so much. I have no problem with theistic evolution, but Frances Shaffer's version has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and he is the leading expert on the subject. But it looks like he has payola written all over him like a lot of leading authorities in the name it and claim it, blab it and grab it group.

Here is what I found on Shaffer:

Francis August Schaeffer (January 30, 1912 – May 15, 1984)[1] was an American evangelical theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. He co-founded the L'Abri community in Switzerland with his wife Edith Schaeffer, née Seville, a prolific author in her own right.[2] Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted what he claimed was a more historic Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. Schaeffer was the father of the author, film-maker, and painter...​

 

[Frank Robert]

Overall, while the number of possible unique DNA sequences is incredibly large, the actual number of viable and functional DNA sequences is much smaller. Human DNA is made up of a unique combination of nucleotides arranged in a specific order, and the likelihood of two people having the exact same sequence is extremely low. The probability of two unrelated individuals having the same DNA profile is estimated to be less than one in a billion.

On the other hand. If our genome were the work of a designer then that designer was nearly clueless as to what they were doing

Human Errors, by Nathan H. Lents, is a light, quick tour of some of the ways our human bodies are evidence of poor design, from our weak senses to our way-too-fragile ACL to our seemingly constant battle with back pain.

 

[Bradskii]

In science, objective refers to observable and measurable facts that are independent of personal biases and opinions, while subjective refers to personal opinions and biases that cannot be measured objectively. Objectivity is considered more reliable and trustworthy, but there are some subjective aspects of science, such as data interpretation and research questions. Scientists should be aware of their biases and strive for objectivity in their research.

I am talking of morality. As you well know. Moral positions that many Christians have are diametrically opposed. And they will all tell you that they have been guided by God.

 

[Bradskii]

Science is based on objective reality yet people are subjective. That is the nature of the beast. I see it as pieces of a puzzle. You get the picture when you put all the pieces together. That is not always easy to do, it can take time and patience.

And guidance from God. So why does He guide some people one way and others another?

 

[Bradskii]

On the other hand. Human Errors, by Nathan H. Lents[/URL], is a light, quick tour of some of the ways our human bodies are evidence of poor design, from our weak senses to our way-too-fragile ACL to our seemingly constant battle with back pain.

Which blows the argument that life is so complicated that it couldn't have arisen naturally out of the water. Of course it's complex. Monstrously complex. With an almost infinite number of interrelated parts. All hodge plodged together as evolution saw fit. 'This bit works a little better? Gee, let's include it.' It shows all signs of being cobbled together due to random glitches in tbe dna. Exactly why it breaks down all the time.

Whoever designed us should be sacked. Especially if they claimed omnipotence.