Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[Belk]

Perhaps you could learn from him as well?

Are you claiming that you are learning from him?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you claiming that you are learning from him?

I've always made a distinction between micro & macro-evolution.

Split Rock does the same -- (I think).

Mr. Poe here is the one who has learned something -- (I think).

Only not from Split Rock, he got it from me.

I spend more time correcting him, than he does me.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I've always made a distinction between micro & macro-evolution.

Split Rock does the same -- (I think).

You're in error -- Split Rock humors you (I think).

Mr. Poe here is the one who has learned something -- (I think).

Only not from Split Rock, he got it from me.

I spend more time correcting him, than he does me.

You seem to have wandered into delusion, AV -- but if it makes you feel important, I'll humor you as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to have wandered into delusion, AV -- but if it makes you feel important, I'll humor you as well.

Thank you!

 

[mzungu]

I've always made a distinction between micro & macro-evolution.

Long division, short division; It's still division!

 

[AV1611VET]

Long division, short division; It's still division!

That's actually a good analogy -- I like it!

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's actually a good analogy -- I like it!

So basically what you're saying is that you don't believe in long division?

 

[TheReasoner]

Nobody cares what you say, AV -- there is no "macro" or "micro" evolution. There is only evolution.

Technically there is something called both, but they aren't distinguished like AV believes. The only difference is time. So you're right in that there is no macro or microevolution. The distinction is arbitrary, and can be compared with trees vs. forest. AV seems to think we can have TREES, but FORESTS are something God would not allow. A decent comparison as showing AV hard evidence does not change his mind, much like showing a person who believes forests are abominations God never would let happen would dismiss pictures of the russian forests. Like AV but in this context he could easily reply "That's no forest! It's just a bunch of trees! God says forests do not exist!"

So basically what you're saying is that you don't believe in long division?

(shhhh! No-one mention calculus!)

 

[1611AV]

It's really quite simple -- Jesus was a Jew. His disciples were all Jews. The writers of the Gospels were all Jews.

Christianity wasn't even recognized as a separate religion for decades after Jesus' death. Nothing was written down about Jesus until about 30-40 years after the end of his (earthly) life. Until then, his stories were passed down orally -- and liturgically, in the Jewish center of society and faith -- the Synagogue.

And yet, there are still Christians arrogant enough to believe that the Old Testament -- the sum total of the Jewish faith -- means nothing more than a prelude for their own.

I find it a very distastful thing to hijack another culture's beliefs and claim them as secondary to one's own -- worse still to impose one's own ideology over it, stripping it of its original meaning in order to better suit one's agenda.

I say this because Genesis, we must remember, is a Hebrew document, and yet, in my experience, I've never met a Jew who took it literally -- YEC has always been an evangelical Christian belief.

I'm curious why you think that is.



The Jews say otherwise. Just sayin'.



And even he misquoted the Scriptures when he defended that.



And even then, Christianity was seen, both by its adherents and outsiders, as a subsect of Judaism, not a separate religion, until, IIRC, sometime around AD 70-80.

What you're referring to is the more "modern" constructions of Christianity which didn't fall into place until sometime around the medieval period.



And yet you have no difficulty using their "blind" documents to suit your own purposes -- and then have the gall to tell them they don't even know their own religion.

Talk about distasteful -- you* insult them even as you exploit them.

*I use "you" here in the collective sense -- plenty of Christians do this.



I don't "know" it because I do not believe it -- nor do the Jews, and nor does anyone who reads the OT or the NT with knowledge of Jewish culture, history, or context.

Are you sure you want a discussion on this, or do you fear it to the point that you will go out of your way to avoid it all together because of the answers you may get?

Here ya go...

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Galatians 2:8
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Galatians 2:12
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Galatians 2:14
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Galatians 3:14
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Ephesians 2:11
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Ephesians 3:1
For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

Ephesians 3:6
That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:


Ephesians 3:8
Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

Colossians 1:27
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

1 Timothy 2:7
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[Hespera]

Technically there is something called both, but they aren't distinguished like AV believes. The only difference is time. So you're right in that there is no macro or microevolution. The distinction is arbitrary, and can be compared with trees vs. forest. AV seems to think we can have TREES, but FORESTS are something God would not allow. A decent comparison as showing AV hard evidence does not change his mind, much like showing a person who believes forests are abominations God never would let happen would dismiss pictures of the russian forests. Like AV but in this context he could easily reply "That's no forest! It's just a bunch of trees! God says forests do not exist!"



(shhhh! No-one mention calculus!)

There could be erosion but not macro erosion!
There can be a landslide, an alpine stream can carry some silt away but, you know, it will still and always be a mountain! Never just a hill, or erode away totally.

There is no way a mountain can wash to the sea. That would result in a change of kind. Not allowed.

 

[TheReasoner]

There could be erosion but not macro erosion!
There can be a landslide, an alpine stream can carry some silt away but, you know, it will still and always be a mountain! Never just a hill, or erode away totally.

There is no way a mountain can wash to the sea. That would result in a change of kind. Not allowed.

Exactly analogous to creationist argumentation!

 

[AV1611VET]

I knew someone was going to say this; I just didn't think it was going to be you.

So basically what you're saying is that you don't believe in long division?

You need to take everything I say on any given subject -- not just parts of it.

Yes, I believe in long division; but applying long division to what I say, we see that one can divide just so much, then his pencil hits a barrier that it cannot cross.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I knew someone was going to say this; I just didn't think it was going to be you.

You need to take everything I say on any given subject -- not just parts of it.

It's all equally inane -- any one part of what you say is representative of the whole.

Yes, I believe in long division; but applying long division to what I say, we see that one can divide just so much, then his pencil hits a barrier that it cannot cross.

And where is the magic "non-division" barrier?

Ah, of course -- "keep looking." It must be there because you say it's there, right?

 

[sandwiches]

You need to take everything I say on any given subject -- not just parts of it.

 

[sandwiches]

It's all equally inane -- any one part of what you say is representative of the whole.

And where is the magic "non-division" barrier?

Ah, of course -- "keep looking." It must be there because you say it's there, right?

To be fair, he has said the barrier is time. You have to remember that he thinks the world is less than 7,000 years old.

 

[Nathan Poe]

To be fair, he has said the barrier is time. You have to remember that he thinks the world is less than 7,000 years old.

Yes, his "Omphalos-but-I'm-too-proud-to-call-it-Omphalos" canard.

There's really no point in trying to correct his silly theological errors at this point, is there?

 

[Hespera]

Anyone got a picture of a

Omphaloceratops ?

 

[sandwiches]

Yes, his "Omphalos-but-I'm-too-proud-to-call-it-Omphalos" canard.

There's really no point in trying to correct his silly theological errors at this point, is there?

I think there is. If for nothing else than for the edification of anyone else who might be reading this and be open to discourse, persuasion by observable facts, and consistent and logical reasoning.

As much as this may offend AV but I agree with the poster who said that AV and the many others like him serve a purpose here in showing those who visit these forums the fallacy of his kind of thinking. So, those who are seeking answers in search engines might just find them here if we respond to him with clarity, logic, consistence, and evidence.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think there is. If for nothing else than for the edification of anyone else who might be reading this and be open to discourse, persuasion by observable facts, and consistent and logical reasoning.

As much as this may offend AV but I agree with the poster who said that AV and the many others like him serve a purpose here in showing those who visit these forums the fallacy of his kind of thinking. So, those who are seeking answers in search engines might just find them here if we respond to him with clarity, logic, consistence, and evidence.

True that -- I was referring to the futility of trying to educate AV.

He's a lost cause, but unless he's exposed, he'll try to convince newbies that he knows what he's talking about.

John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I knew someone was going to say this; I just didn't think it was going to be you.

You need to take everything I say on any given subject -- not just parts of it.

OK, let me point you to post 46 where you say "That's actually a good analogy -- I like it!"

So if it's a good analogy that means you are happy that short division = microevolution and long division = macroevolution (or vice versa).

Yes, I believe in long division.

You believe in long division? So you believe in macroevolution. We have it in writing.