Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.God is omnipresent and omniscient, He is an eye-witness to EVERY event in history. I'll trust Him to tell me what happened way back when.
That's interesting since both Romans and Corinthians were written to believers. How one could then surmize that the passages I quoted were somehow exclusively written for non-believers is quite fascinating. I think this is another example of taking the text and applying, or should I say twisting, it so that it fits your personal worldview.I like the fact that vossler used passages that clearly refer exclusively to non-believers who completely reject the gospel, in searching for Biblical comparisons to evolutionists.
He didn't say the text was written for non-believers. He said the text was referring to non-believers, not Christians like you supposed in your proof text.That's interesting since both Romans and Corinthians were written to believers. How one could then surmize that the passages I quoted were somehow exclusively written for non-believers is quite fascinating.
To believe in philosophical materialism one must also believe in the hypothesis of billions of years.
Did you know that an appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument?
If you insist that creationism is man's invention (which a disagree with),
This is an appeal fallacy.
Did you know that the fallacy of the single cause is a logical fallacy of causation that occurs when it is assumed that there is one cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
Two words: global flood.
The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships.
Again we are on the topic of the supposed "age" of the planet. My intention had nothing to do with disproving evolution.
Evolution happens all the time. We observe it. We can study it. Natural selection happens all the time. We observe it. We can study it. What we observe, however, can be labeled as micro-evolution, since the chnages we study and observe occur within the same kinds. We do not observe a kind of creature change into a different kind of creature
that would be macro-evolution, and that is a theory based on the philosophy of uniformitiarianism
To be 100% accurate he said the text was referring exclusively to non-believers. I see nothing in the text that makes that distinction. If you do I'd like to hear how.He didn't say the text was written for non-believers. He said the text was referring to non-believers, not Christians like you supposed in your proof text.
It seems ridiculous to you, because your personal interpretation of scripture is not threatened by electrons, but it is threatened by the way He created the diversity of life. Otherwise, it's the same statement you made.
YE creationism was invented in the last century by Seventh-Day Adventists. It has never been the orthodox Christian understanding.
?Actually, it's a refutation of your assertion. Would you like some evidence for that?
That's precisely what you have done, to wit:
If you think so, you'll have to explain how a desert, a forest, and then an estuary had time to appear, fossilize, and then be covered by flood sediments in less than a year's time.
If you don't want to talk about it, why do you keep bringing it up?
The first documented macroevolutionary event was about 1904. Macroevolution, as you might know, means the evolution of new taxa. Speciation, in other words. We have quite a number of directly observed ones.
All sciences are based on uniformitarianism. I suspect that you don't know what the word means. What do you think it means?
To be 100% accurate he said the text was referring exclusively to non-believers. I see nothing in the text that makes that distinction. If you do I'd like to hear how.
You may not be openly advocating compromise, but most certainly in the end that's what you get. Creationists don't accept anything that claims to be 'science' that directly refutes the Word of God and is based on conjecture and speculation; all Christians should do likewise. As far as roadblocks are concerned, well Scripture deals with that.
Romans 1:18-25 sums this up quite well:For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Let's see, we have wicked idol worshipping homosexuals who hate God and worship birds animal and creeping things. We have Jews who did not obey the gospel (Rom 10:16), who are enemies of God as regards the gospel (11:28), whose hearts were hardened and were not God's elect. And we have those who are perishing rather than being saved, Jews for whom the cross is a stumbling block and Gentiles to whom it is foolishness.Romans 11:7-10 goes on to say:What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,I like Isaiah 5:21 in helping us to remember how little it is we know:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day." And David says,
"Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever."
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!Finally I think this really puts an exclamation point on it, it specifically deals with your post 118 and the theme of many of your posts. 1 Corinthians 1:18-29 states:
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,That's the problem, evolutionists love to mix up how the Bible is read in order to fit their paradigm. That's why there's little consistency to their doctrine.
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
Of course not, especially if it conflicts with our own ideas.
That is not true.
We know for a fact electrons exist, we even have machines that can count them.
As for the idea of billions of years, that is based not on observable science, but philosophical assumption.
I am forced to call myself a YE creationist, for the lack of a better title. However, I don't call the Earth either old or young. I call it as it is, mature. I adhere to a literal six day creation scheme, which most of the early church also adhered too.
This means I believe the Earth is less than 12,000 years old allowing for telescoping effects on the genealogies.
Do you have any idea what I was commenting on?
Your fallacy was this statement: "all of whom were creationists." This has nothing to do with the argument, yet you toss it out as if it has significance when it truely doesn't. This is simular to the fallacy of appealing to authority.
Two words: global flood.
I do not adhere to only one cause. True, I do believe that a global flood caused great catastrophe to our planet,
Natural science today seems to be hung up on the philosophical idea that uniform progression has happened since the beginning.
They exclude the notion that a supernatural being did anything supernatural.
I believe in the flood because God said it happened.
Barbarian observes:
If you think so, you'll have to explain how a desert, a forest, and then an estuary had time to appear, fossilize, and then be covered by flood sediments in less than a year's time.
How do you know the desert, forest, and estuary were fossils when they got covered by sediment?
The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships.
Again we are on the topic of the supposed "age" of the planet. My intention had nothing to do with disproving evolution.
I agree with what wikipedia has for is definition. And it's been the definition I have been using.
The principle [or philosophical idea] that the same scientific laws and processes are constant throughout space and time. It applies specifically to sciences that require a long timescale such as geology, astronomy, and paleontology.
It assumes that the natural processes that operated in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodology is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.
Yes, we die in sin. Physical death was around well before the Fall, though (the Tree of Life has no explanation otherwise).Is it because of sin we die? Yes or no.
There's a lot that could be said here but I'd like to focus on the fact that TEs believe that the verses I cited have no application for the Christian and are directed exclusively toward the unbeliever. Is it any wonder we disagree so often?And you really think Paul might be talking about Christians? And you think we mix up how the bible is read?
Yes, just like Paul. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
Yes, we die in sin.
Physical death was around well before the Fall
the Tree of Life has no explanation otherwise
So what does this have to do with the creation of the earth???
Genesis 2:9 tells us that before the Fall, God planted a Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden of Eden.Death is the result of sin. For the wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23. The whole world is subject to death, because all have sinned. By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12).
God makes it very clear in the Bible that sin requires death as the punishment: For every living soul belongs to me,the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die. (Ezekiel 18:4)
Would Adam have died if he never ate from the fruit?
Explain.
Your philosophy requires death NOT be the result of sin. This is in direct conflict with Scripture.
You've never seen an electron, nor has anyone else. You have only indirect evidence for their existence, just as we do for long ages. In fact, we have machines that count long ages.
YE creationism was invented in the last century by Seventh-Day Adventists. It has never been the orthodox Christian understanding.
No. St. Augustine, the most respected theologian among Christians, pointed out that it could not be six literal days. The "Life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly refuted by Genesis.
You're a bit confused here. You were asserting that it was based on evolutionary assumptions.
That's not what you wrote. Have you changed your mind, now?
No. If you believe that, you know nothing of science.[/quote]
So then it is not assumed within the scientific communtiy that uniform progression has happened since the supposed beginning steming from the cosmic Big Bang?
No. Science can't even comment on the supernatural, much less deny it.
Which is why it fails in understanding our origins and how the universe was created/developed. It can not include the hypothesis that a supernatural being divinely called into existence fully formed and mature objects.
Christians don't deny a flood happened. You just tried to make it a lot bigger than Scripture says it is.
If it was a local flood, why did God have Noah spend 100 years building an ark and fill it with animals to re-populate the world? God should have told them to move? Plus, the waters are said to have risen above the mountain tops. Some local flood.
Oenothera gigas, a mutant from O. lamarkiana, exists as a new species, no longer interfertile with the parent population.
Wow! A flower that is still a flower! Amazing.
Hey, Assyrian. I admire you that you can quote the Scripture so quickly and so properly. Another person who usually do this is AV. I have a long way to go.But thanks for the encouragement. I will try:
[bible]Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, ...[/bible]
Likewise, we can never experience millions of years, because of how long they are, but we know they existed, not based on philosophy, but because we can physically measure them, and observe their effects.We will never be able to see electrons because of how small they are, but we know they physically exist, not based on philosophy, but because we can physically count them and cause them to physically react.
We can observe what the electrons do in the present. As for long ages, those are already past. We see all evidence in the present. We can not physically count the years or time that has past. The hypothesis of billions of years is purely philosophical and the science that supposedly supports it is based on the assumption that the very philosophy is true.
It's quite true. As recently as the Scopes trial, creationism was of the OE variety, acknowledging billions of years. It wasn't until the adventists sold their doctrines to some evangelicals that it became widespread.Pure fallacy. Even if what your saying is true, that fact cannot make YEC wrong or false.
But it does clearly rule it out as the Christian belief. Such a view was never orthodoxy. If you want to believe it, that's fine. Just keep in mind that it's a new doctrine, neither Biblical nor part of Christian tradition.Just because something is new or from the SDA does not make it wrong or false.
Yep. He denied the "creation week" interpretation, pointing out that it was not logically possible if you accepted all of Genesis.Augustine argued that it could have happen in an instant.
And just because he had this view does not make my statement false.
Nope. As you know, Augustine is regarded by the majority of Christians in the world as a Doctor of the Church, and he was perhaps even more prominent in his own time. Most accepted his theology on this. But if you think you have checkable evidence for your belief, I'd be pleased to see it.And I dare you to prove it wrong. The majority of the early church saw the 6 days of creation, just as that, 6 actual days.
Nope. It's you. You brought up the "evolution" issue. Would you like to see it again?I am not confused here,
First you argued that uniformitarianism was about gradualism, and then you cited a source that said otherwise. Which do you believe now?I did not change my position. I only stated what I felt was missing from the equation.
Barbarian observes:Natural science today seems to be hung up on the philosophical idea that uniform progression has happened since the beginning.
No. Why would you think that?So then it is not assumed within the scientific communtiy that uniform progression has happened since the supposed beginning steming from the cosmic Big Bang?
No. It can describe how the universe developed quite well. How it was created will always be out of reach.Which is why it fails in understanding our origins and how the universe was created/developed.
Yes, that can be refuted for most things, such as the Earth.It can not include the hypothesis that a supernatural being divinely called into existence fully formed and mature objects.
It doesn't say to re-populate the world. "Eretz" means "land", not world.If it was a local flood, why did God have Noah spend 100 years building an ark and fill it with animals to re-populate the world?
Which is like saying for humans evolving from apes:Wow! A flower that is still a flower! Amazing.
Sure all scripture is inspired and profitable. Reading back over your post I see you referred to these passages as describing the road blocks that come between people and the gospel, rather than describing TEs that way. I misunderstood youThere's a lot that could be said here but I'd like to focus on the fact that TEs believe that the verses I cited have no application for the Christian and are directed exclusively toward the unbeliever. Is it any wonder we disagree so often?
AmenSure all scripture is inspired and profitable.
Now that's refreshing!Reading back over your post I see you referred to these passages as describing the road blocks that come between people and the gospel, rather than describing TEs that way. I misunderstood youSorry Vossler.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?