Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[Nathan Poe]

So when ignorant, you admit choosing an option that opposes the bible. OK.

And you admit choosing the option that supports yourself -- invoking as many miracles as necessary.

In some areas I know more. Far more!

But of course you do! And you're wearing a bulletproof vest and have a force field you invented yourself.

Nobody ever invokes magical thinking to try to make themselves less than what they really are -- only greater.

No. Jesus was born where God knew He would be born, and told us long long before this. That reason is important.

That speculation is baseless. You wouldn't believe a word of it except you think there's something in it for you.

In fact, that's the only reason you believe any of it.

Well, I wonder what that really means? You know these proud pip squeak tin pot rulers!

I know one when I'm talking to one.

People used to bow down, and say stuff like 'o king live forever..' And when they made some silly little decree, they would maybe say that 'all the world' must cowtow. Maybe the intent was to start showing that he ruled 'all the worl' and so the guy would start by stealing money from the folks in the part of the world he really meant.. Etc etc. Did Auggie tax China? Looks like his bark was worse than his bite.

You really do nothing but blather baselessly, you know that?


There's a serious discussion of the Bible going on here, dad -- run along and play.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Tell us where you think it did come from then? Where did the first imaginary life form come from?

You think life is imaginary? You've reached a whole new level of blather.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In the interest of keeping the intelligence-to-blather ratio acceptable, I urge 1611AV to return quickly -- you, at least, indicated a willingness to discuss the Bible on the Bible's terms, as opposed to your own.

...and you kept the magical thinking to a minimum.

 

[dad]

You think life is imaginary? You've reached a whole new level of blather.

Dishonest. I think the imaginary first life form, from the dank recesses of the so called science dream factory is quite imaginary. A total fabrication with zero proof.

Kids, disbelieve your teachers...they have been lying to you. Some on purpose...

 

[Tiberius]

Tell us where you think it did come from then? Where did the first imaginary life form come from?

Ah, so just because science can't answer that right now must mean all of evolutionary theory is wrong? Needless to say, I think it's rather odd that you seem to be deriding evolution by claiming that life must have come from nothing while embracing a religion which has, as one of it's core concepts, the idea that God created life from nothing.

In any case, the origin of life is not related to biological evolution, as biological evolution deals solely with how that life has changed over time. Evolution says NOTHING about how life got here.

Science cannot test Eden. They cannot test Adam, or the pre flood laws on the world.

So why believe them?

There are examples of life that changes fast in the bible, so that we can deduce that fast changes are a part of the true nature..i.e. created nature as well.

You wanna provide some examples of where this has happened?

Lions will eat grass in the time right after Christ returns. It does not say He recreates all life! That means they change. If they change fast, that means our laws will not be here. Elementary really.

Yeah, I'm sure the Bible makes that claim. Well, when it actually happens, you come let me know, m'kay?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Dishonest. I think the imaginary first life form, from the dank recesses of the so called science dream factory is quite imaginary. A total fabrication with zero proof.

Kids, disbelieve your teachers...they have been lying to you. Some on purpose...

Folks, disbelieve your pastors for the same reason.

 

[dad]

Ah, so just because science can't answer that right now must mean all of evolutionary theory is wrong?

Yes. Their not knowing means, well, that they do not know! People in that position need to learn to be quiet.

Needless to say, I think it's rather odd that you seem to be deriding evolution by claiming that life must have come from nothing while embracing a religion which has, as one of it's core concepts, the idea that God created life from nothing.

False! God is something! Therefore life came from Something. Since all we now see is what we conceive of as something, naturally, it would not have come from that stuff. Elementary.

In any case, the origin of life is not related to biological evolution, as biological evolution deals solely with how that life has changed over time. Evolution says NOTHING about how life got here.

Ha! So as long as evolution says nothing about how life got here, it has some germ of truth. However, it DOES say plenty that depends on present state laws existing, to set the rates of evolving, and timeframe involved! That means you must prove the state of the past, or it is all naught. Also, if you include in your definition of evolution a first lifeform, then you are in troubled water indeed. Do you? Where do you draw the line?

So why believe them?

Why not? Since you are just believing, there are few rules.

You wanna provide some examples of where this has happened?

Yes. As I said, the lion in the millennium, as well as the wolf, and etc, will eat grass or straw. The end of the tribulation is when that period starts. There is no long ages for wolves and etc to evolve, it has to be fast! The evidence we see also supports this. After the flood, man had his skin pigmented and many other adaptations to the sun, and cold. The time frame for the flood makes it impossible for the evolving to have happened slow.

Yeah, I'm sure the Bible makes that claim. Well, when it actually happens, you come let me know, m'kay?

You can't use science of the here and now do deal in that can you? Apply that to the past, and you will see where you stand.

 

[dad]

Folks, disbelieve your pastors for the same reason.

Let's have an intellectual Libya...

 

[TheReasoner]

Folks, disbelieve your pastors for the same reason.

Think critically! We did not evolve brains to flush them down the toilet like 'dad' suggests.

Come to think of it I hope 'dad' isn't a parent. His nickname almost gives me nightmares. I can picture the following remark: "son, don't take your medicine and don't drive a car - ever. Those things are from satanic scientists"
Goodness, just add "robot zombie ninja" between satanic and scientists and add "from mars" after it all and it sounds almost like a villain from some webcomic.


I envision the following quote:
"Oh noes! The satanic robot zombie ninja scientists from mars are coming! Hide your mice and petri-dishes lest they perform experiments! John, put down that calculator right now!"

 

[AV1611VET]

We did not evolve brains to flush them down the toilet like 'dad' suggests.

"We" evolved brains then, did we?

Was that a Freudian slip?

Don't TEs believe that God guided evolution?

 

[Nathan Poe]

For those of you looking to separate the wheat from the chaff, allow me to help:

1611AV is using the Bible as his one and only guide to evolutionary theory, based on the premise that the Bible is 100% literal and historically accurate, therefore something not mentioned or condoned by the Bible (such as evolution) cannot exist in reality.

I told 1611AV that I could prove that not only was the Bible not historically accurate, it was never meant to be. I offered to prove this using the New Testament, with any particular part of Jesus' life.

We both agreed to start with the birth narratives.

• My first "shot across the bow," as it were, is here -- focusing on Matthew's account and his tendancy to model his description of Jesus' life based on Old Testament heroes -- figures which would have been familiar to the target audience -- the Jews.
• 1611AV responded thus, and as you can see not much later, I was less than impressed with what I thought to be willful blindness.
• By that point, I had moved on to Luke's account of the birth narrative, finding no less than 9 serious historical snafus in the first five verses alone.
• Both 1611AV and dad chimed in with responses to one of the issues -- sadly, I was again disappointed with 1611AV's response.
• Dad, however, completely broke character and delivered an answer which was not only offered up only the slightest trace of his usual blather, but relied on a source which, for once, was not himself (David Enjay).
• This resulted in something rarely recorded in the annals of CF -- dad posted something which actually merited a serious response -- which I gave here.

That's where we are thus far. The rest is pretty much either blather or responses to blather -- if I missed anything important, let me know.

 

[AV1611VET]

My point? They say history repeats itself, but never so completely or conveniently -- not unless someone's writing it that way.

It's called typology -- ever heard of it?

Jesus, the Antitype, is all through the Old Testament.

Even the Tabernacle in the Wilderness is a three-dimensional representation of Him, right down to the boards.

Do you have a specific question? maybe I can help.

 

[rjc34]

Let's have an intellectual Libya...

I keep clicking 'view post' in this thread just because your responses are so hilarious. (Also, you did post something of moderate use to support a point you tried to make, so I was hoping that would happen again...)

But I feel you almost grabbed onto the ledge of reality and then slipped hopeless back down into the depths of delusion.

 

[rjc34]

Jesus, the Antitype, is all through the Old Testament.

Or perhaps his story was specifically molded that way through the gospel writers so it would look as such. Why is that such an invalid explanation in your books? I think Nathan has provided adequate evidence to support at least a consideration that it might be the case.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's called typology -- ever heard of it?

Jesus, the Antitype, is all through the Old Testament.

Even the Tabernacle in the Wilderness is a three-dimensional representation of Him, right down to the boards.

Do you have a specific question? maybe I can help.

Yes -- how do you reconcile your idea here with 1611AV's insistence that he was going to rely soley on the "Word of God" without interpreting it?

QV please -- 364

 

[Nathan Poe]

I keep clicking 'view post' in this thread just because your responses are so hilarious. (Also, you did post something of moderate use to support a point you tried to make, so I was hoping that would happen again...)

I, too, was rather hoping lightning would strike twice -- sadly, it hasn't.

But I feel you almost grabbed onto the ledge of reality and then slipped hopeless back down into the depths of delusion.

A much better metaphor! But let's not get distracted.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or perhaps his story was specifically molded that way through the gospel writers so it would look as such. Why is that such an invalid explanation in your books? I think Nathan has provided adequate evidence to support at least a consideration that it might be the case.

That's just wrong on so many levels.

1. The Romans, who tried to suppress Christianity before it got started, would have exposed this plot.

2. The Jews, who knew the Old Testament like the back of their hands, would have done the same.

3. Why would a man agree to die for something he knows is a lie?

4. There are events that occurred that would have been impossible to predict ahead of time; such as the visit from the Wise Men and the Roman soldier piercing Jesus' side.

 

[Greg1234]

Ah, so just because science can't answer that right now must mean all of evolutionary theory is wrong?

Just replace "evolutionary theory" with "chance". That's only materialism. If you people were just going to ask people to accept materialistic doctrine then don't go through all the trouble of attaching "theory" to it and think that that distinguishes it from any other materialistic request.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Or perhaps his story was specifically molded that way through the gospel writers so it would look as such. Why is that such an invalid explanation in your books?

When you have the old stories right in front of you, it's pretty easy to mold the new stories in such a way that it fits in seamlessly.

I think Nathan has provided adequate evidence to support at least a consideration that it might be the case.

Why thank you! It's always nice to be appreciated.

Although, not to boast or anything -- we're not even done with the birth narratives yet.

Consider the following:

According to Matthew, Joseph had to quickly get his family out of Judea and into Egypt in order to escape Herod's decree that all male children be put to death -- yet, according to Luke, not only did Joseph stay at least another five to six weeks, he also brought the baby Jesus into Jerusalem -- straight into the lion's mouth, as it were -- not once, but twice: the first time after eight days for his circumcision, the second time after 40 days for his presentation at the Temple (Luke 2:21-22).

Think about that for a moment: presentation at the Temple. With the King's decree to slaughter every newborn male, Joseph decides to make a public spectacle of his bouncing baby boy in the very heart of Jewish political and social life.

I mentioned earlier that Joseph's actions during this birth story nominate him for "Bonehead of the Century." I'd say this pretty much seals the deal -- the polls are closed; we have a winner!

Hmmm... that's about all I have for the birth stories for now -- anyone else want to move on?

 

[AV1611VET]

When you have the old stories right in front of you, it's pretty easy to mold the new stories in such a way that it fits in seamlessly.

Not hardly -- you would need some extra cooperation, even from the Romans themselves; like the aforementioned visit of the Wise Men, the slaying of the children, the piercing of Jesus' side, and making sure "Jesus" was placed between the two thieves.

And for this man who played the part of the Messiah to die like that -- knowing it was a lie -- well, that just plain doesn't happen.