Creationism vs God...

[Hanani]

water could have been created by God right then on the spot another theory is that it was underground water

were did it go well we have oceans seas destruction yes water can be destroyed since it's not energy ice caps our constant climate.....

i have no clue what percentage was rain could have been 1% could have been 99%

as for the olive branch the tree could have been on the mountain God could have created a new tree God could have given the bird the olive branch..............................

and as far as data for the flood other then viewing the bible as a historical reference i also believe the grand canyon also shows proof of the flood

 

[Arikay]

LOL

Remember when I said many people just say Godidit. And thts not good enough. So, show me in the bible where it says god did any of those things. We shall take a look at them one by one. Then ill add my own (using your logic)

water could have been created by God right then on the spot another theory is that it was underground water

The bible says that god created two waters, and seperated them by the firmament. We know where the water came from. It came from the sky, and was directly called rain in the bible.
The bible also states that some water comes from under the ground. However, as I pointed out, the total volume of water is 3x larger than our oceans. So that is a massive amount of water coming from the ground. if that much water came from under the ground, we would have plenty of scientific data to show for it.

were did it go well we have oceans seas destruction yes water can be destroyed since it's not energy ice caps our constant climate.....

Um, water is energy. Water has mass, which has energy. Water could be taken apart. and somehow scattered out in space. However thats not what the bible says. The bible says that the water was blown off the earth by wind.

i have no clue what percentage was rain could have been 1% could have been 99%

Neither do I. However, considering the amount of water was 3 times the amount of the oceans. quite a bit of it needed to come from heaven.

as for the olive branch the tree could have been on the mountain God could have created a new tree God could have given the bird the olive branch

All mountains were covered. The bible never says that god made a new olive tree or olive branch. So unless you want to put words into gods mouth (probably not a good idea), then the bible doesnt say he did it.

Its aparent that you dont trully follow the bible literally, because your answers have added words to the bible that arent there.

Based on your logic, its obvious, that an alien mother ship was dumping a load of water and thats what caused the flood, etc. They then used a strengthening beam to hold the ship together and to keep noah alive. Since none of your evidence came from the bible, none of mine needs to either.

 

[Hanani]

i never added words to the bible i submited theories i have heard that may explain how whats in the bible may have happened that is all don't put words in my mouth |8-[)

 

[Arikay]

Ok, you said you take the bible literally. None of these theories are in the bible, so you had to add them. Thus the bible, the true word of god, either needs more information, or cant be taken literally. So god either left us without a lot of important information, or they are symbols and not true stories.

 

[Hanani]

no God gave us all the important information the only truely important information is having to do with salvation everything else is extra just like the example earler God gave the isrialites certain laws about dealing with things such as dead bodies or sick people God did not say this was because of germs in the bible he didn't need to even though we now know that that very well could have been his reasoning God gives us the law to protect us in that instance and science proves that those actions protect us

yes you could say no where in the bible does it say that Gods express purpose in giving those laws were to help prevent illness ........ but this is yet another theory one that i do ascribe to that if it is Gods reasoning behind this action makes sence

 

[gentu]

Today at 04:14 AM Hanani said this in Post #25 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680822#post680822)

no God gave us all the important information the only truely important information is having to do with salvation everything else is extra...

I agree with you here, Hanani! The real important message is that of Jesus' teachings. Many of the other stories, including Genesis, are metaphorical and not to be taken literally without interpretation. Even if we take everything at face value, there are still some questions that remain. God wants us to think for ourselves sometimes!

 

[Arikay]

So are you agreeing with me that the bible shouldnt be taken literally when it comes to science?

Or are you saying that since its not in the bible, we dont need to know it?

Im slightly confused at your response.

However, getting back to the original post and adding to it. The arrogance and "know it all ism" that some creationists show, is definatly not christ like and so not christian. So by acting that way, they are actually endangering themselves to hell, for lies and decite. So, is proving creationism, worthy of going to hell to attempt to do it?
If god greated the world. Then isnt evolution just the study of something god created? Just like the bible (but without the prejudice )?

Today at 08:14 PM Hanani said this in Post #25 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=680822#post680822)

no God gave us all the important information the only truely important information is having to do with salvation everything else is extra just like the example earler God gave the isrialites certain laws about dealing with things such as dead bodies or sick people God did not say this was because of germs in the bible he didn't need to even though we now know that that very well could have been his reasoning God gives us the law to protect us in that instance and science proves that those actions protect us

yes you could say no where in the bible does it say that Gods express purpose in giving those laws were to help prevent illness ........ but this is yet another theory one that i do ascribe to that if it is Gods reasoning behind this action makes sence

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 07:37 PM Arikay said this in Post #1

Hello,

Some thoughts came to mind and I figured I would write them here. There are three parts: Interpretation, worship and character. I am however going to try to keep it short.
The main question was, whether creationism was trully following god.

Interpretation.
Why was the bible originally written in ancient hebrew and greek and not english? Obviously the answer is that no one would have understood what was being written. So we can assume that the bible was written in a way people could understand along time ago. How many people would have understood modern evolution, or astronomy back then? Probably about as much as they would have understood modern english. so this brings us to also assume that the bible was written in a way that the people would best understand. This would include very basic views on creation and astronomy. anything odd that couldnt be grasped would be a threat to the bible, as many people destroy things they dont understand or dont like. this can be seen by the romans (and other peoples) persecution of the christians. So it would stand to reason that the creation stories in the bible werent ment to be taken literally by people over 2000 years later. Since modern science would have been understood about as well as modern english. It was not included in the bible.

Novices built the Ark. Experts built the Titanic. Which one sunk?

worship.
The bible is written by the hand of man, with the inspiration of god. So the bible wasnt directly created by god. But what has been directly created by god? If god created the earth and the universe, then the universe would have been a direct creation of god. The basic universal language of this universe is Math and science. So the study of the earth and the universe would be closer to studing how god created everything, than the text in a book.

Character.
The final thought is about the character of some creationists. The bible says that lieing and misleading people is a sin and wrong. Many creationists dont do either or dont understand they are doing it. However, there are some that lie and misslead to try and get their views across. This causes a problem, as they say they are holding the bible, the holy book over and above science, but they cant follow the basic principles layed out in that book. Missrepresenting information, and making up other information to fit their needs is not following the principles of the bible, and is going against the very book they believe in. Even though they believe they are spreading gods work, they are actually going against some of gods basic principles.

Just some thoughts I had.

I think you have a reprobate mind.

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 11:07 PM Arikay said this in Post #24

Ok, you said you take the bible literally. None of these theories are in the bible, so you had to add them. Thus the bible, the true word of god, either needs more information, or cant be taken literally. So god either left us without a lot of important information, or they are symbols and not true stories.

This could also be applied to Darwin's theory and how it has changed. To change it is to put words into his mouth. Or maybe he was to lame to understand "Modern science".

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 12:05 AM Arikay said this in Post #27



So are you agreeing with me that the bible shouldnt be taken literally when it comes to science?

Or are you saying that since its not in the bible, we dont need to know it?

Im slightly confused at your response.

However, getting back to the original post and adding to it. The arrogance and "know it all ism" that some creationists show, is definatly not christ like and so not christian.

Guess you would know. You have become such an expert at this.

 So by acting that way, they are actually endangering themselves to hell, for lies and decite. So, is proving creationism, worthy of going to hell to attempt to do it?

So it's now you who defines the laws of God? And how people will be judged? In your attempt to disprove the Bible, your begining to sound silly. 


If god greated the world. Then isnt evolution just the study of something god created? Just like the bible (but without the prejudice )?

So now the truth comes out. We believing in God only are prejudice? Because we do not believe the way you do? The last I checked, I live in America. Where we have the freedom to worship as we choose. I hear though that some people would like that freedom taken away.

 




 

 

[anon5354]

This could also be applied to Darwin's theory and how it has changed. To change it is to put words into his mouth. Or maybe he was to lame to understand "Modern science".

Are you comparing Darwin with God? Darwin never said to anyone that his theory must be read and follow literally and certainly he did not have enough the information when he had his theory. He is mortal; God is the the almightly omnipotent one.

And it is also true that the evolution theory we have today are not purely Darwinian, So? Science is about taking out wrong ideas to improve on a theory. No scientist would claim they have the absolute truth, however their theories are tested enough that we can safely say they are not wrong.

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 02:29 AM anon5354 said this in Post #31

Are you comparing Darwin with God? Darwin never said to anyone that his theory must be read and follow literally and certainly he did not have enough the information when he had his theory. He is mortal; God is the the almightly omnipotent one.

And it is also true that the evolution theory we have today are not purely Darwinian, So? Science is about taking out wrong ideas to improve on a theory. No scientist would claim they have the absolute truth, however their theories are tested enough that we can safely say they are not wrong.

What's the difference between not wrong and absolute truth? Sounds like a double bias standard.

Ex: We're not absolutely sure, but we're never wrong. LOL, You crack me up.

 

[Arikay]

I agree.

It all se3ems to come down to "know it all ism" creationists know for a fact that they are right, and that the bible is right. Many scientists know that they are close, but that they dont know everything. Thats why evolution will never get beyond scientific theory, no matter how much evidence it has.

"know it all ism" is ironicaly un christ like and is against the humble nature of jesus.

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 03:01 AM Arikay said this in Post #33

I agree.

It all se3ems to come down to "know it all ism" creationists know for a fact that they are right, and that the bible is right. Many scientists know that they are close, but that they dont know everything. Thats why evolution will never get beyond scientific theory, no matter how much evidence it has.

"know it all ism" is ironicaly un christ like and is against the humble nature of jesus.

So, do you have a problem with what I believe? Calling creationist know it alls sounds like it. The same can apply to the oppisite.

And the know it all ism. Is this a new age religion?

Besides, we are supposed to try to be more like Christ. The Bible never said that this would be achievable. Perfection is impossible to achieve. We are just given a goal to reach for.

 

[Arikay]

Hehe.

Not all creationists. Just the ones who think that they know the answer for sure even without any evidence, and that anything else is satans work

Heh know it all ism are people that think they know it all. Its been around for a long time.

I never said it was achievable either, just that some creationists seem to move further away from christ instead of towards him. Being arrogant is moving away from christ. I see some creationists that are definatly arrogant and believe tht they are completly right, even when they prove to everyone else that they know nothing about what they are talking about.

 

[TheBear]

Just a reminder....

This is a Christian website. And even though there are disagreements on positions and issues, please show some respect for fellow members. Calling someone a liar or dishonest, is in violaion of rule #1, and will not be tolorated.

Disagreements are fine, but do so with respect and dignity. The next member who accuses members with opposing views of dishonesty or lying, will recieve an official warning.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:59 PM Hanani said this in Post #23

i never added words to the bible i submited theories i have heard that may explain how whats in the bible may have happened that is all don't put words in my mouth |8-[)

  No, Hanani, you are adding words to the Bible.  You are saying that events happened that are not mentioned in the Bible, important events. For instance, for God to have created the olive tree from scratch just before the dove got there is a very important fact that tells us a lot about how we should expect God to act.

As it is, Genesis 6-8 is not a "miracle" in having God violate what are the normal processes in nature.  The water comes from what the Babylonians and Hebrews thought were real reservoirs of water above and below a flat earth. 

It is creationists who require these insertions into the Bible and putting words into the Bible.  Because the creationists have used the Flood as a scientific theory, not the theological story it is.  It is their violent Flood (not Biblical) that is supposed to have deposited all the sedimentary rock and scooped up all the plant life to make deposits that will be coal and oil that make it impossible for a living tree to have survived. Therefore it is creationists who must now put words into the Bible. Since they believe the Bible is "God's Word", they must put words into God's mouth.  This is the path of apostasy.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 03:19 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #34

So, do you have a problem with what I believe? Calling creationist know it alls sounds like it. The same can apply to the oppisite.

And the know it all ism. Is this a new age religion?

Besides, we are supposed to try to be more like Christ. The Bible never said that this would be achievable. Perfection is impossible to achieve. We are just given a goal to reach for.

Arikay is echoing an idea by Michael Shermer that humanity seems to consist of Skeptics and True Believers.  True Believers are certain they have the answers even tho they don't have the evidence to be certain or even if the evidence contradicts them.

YECers (such as those at ICR and AiG) and biblical literalists like Micaiah are True Believers.  So are atheists like William Provine and Peter Atkins.  Most Christians are Skeptics. They have a good grounding between what they know and what they believe.  Shermer even classifies Jesus as a Skeptic due to his doubts in the Garden of Gethsemane.

So the 'know-it-all-ism" isnt a new age religion. It is a different way of describing an age-old way that some people look at the world.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:23 PM Hanani said this in Post #18

as we have covered before science obviously changes with time and i'm convinced that if we ever find out everything it will point to the literal translation of the bible wich some things already point to

Science falsifies theories. Theories are statements about the physical universe.  Once a statement is shown to be wrong that doesn't change.  For instance "the earth is flat" was shown to be wrong. That is never going to change. No matter what science may do in refining what we know about the shape of the earth, it is never going to be flat.  Never, ever.

Creationism based on a literal interpreation of the Bible was falsified before 1830.  Just like the data showing the earth not to be flat will never go away, so the data showing creastionism to be false will never go away.  So however science refines its theories about the origin of the universe, the origin of species, etc. it will never go back to creationism.  It can't.

I'm afraid you are expressing wishful thinking.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:21 PM Hanani said this in Post #17

and lucaspa it is your history that is flawed plato and arristotle were some of the first philosophers that tried to explain creation without God therefore they would be the beginings of evalution in a very general sence

Please document this.

"We shall begin with Aristotle's conception of God. It is with a certain awe we read that magnificent chapter in his Metaphysics in which he demonstrates the existence of a Prime Mover and First Principle of all things. That a pagan philosopher, by the unaided light of reason, should acquire so clear a conception of the Godhead in Its unity and simplicity, is marvellous. Let us follow him for a moment: The eternal Something that imparts motion without being moved must be both Substance and Energy. This Immovable First Mover must be Entity; It must subsist after an excellent manner; It must be Necessary Being, and inasmuch as necessary, It must constitute the Good; It must therefore be the First Principle from which have depended Heaven and Nature. This Prime Mover must have Intelligence; <!--
Aristotle and the Schoolmen in Metaphysics 101
-->but since intelligence is activity and activity is life, It must be Eternal Life; It must be Eternal Mind. Essential energy belongs to God as His Everlasting Life. With Him life and duration are uninterrupted and eternal; and this constitutes the very essence of God.<SUP><SMALL><A name=n2><A href="]ttp://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/aatcc11.htm#n_2">{2}[/URL]</SMALL></SUP> It is all reasoned out with the neatest precision of his great intellect." http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/aatcc11.htm

To Aristotle, God had to create because there is no way to get motion without God. Aristotle's belief is not Christian, but it is belief in God.

"Aristotle went in a direction opposite that of his teacher, <B>Plato</B>. While Plato focused his attentions on the mysterious world of the perfect Forms, Aristotle focused his attentions on the messier visible world immediately around him. Aristotle was greatly fascinated by this empirical or physical world. He was looking for Plato's Forms contained within this visible world.

But Aristotle eventually surmised that these Forms were merely abstractions in our mind which we use to categorize the immense information that comes to us about the surrounding world. The Forms, though useful to human logic, were themselves only mental constructs. They had no separate existence like gods or defining spirits (as Plato had asserted). However, when it came to discussion of things beyond this earthly realm--the heavenly realm of the the sun, moon and stars--Ariostotle evidenced a religious awe. Though the earth might be marked with physical imperfections, these heavenly bodies were the essence of the divine, for they were perfect--perfect in their circular shape and circular movement.&nbsp; Thus for Aristotle the perfect-imperfect dualism in life occured not between things seen and unseen (as it had for Plato), but between the imperfect things seen on earth and the perfect things seen in the heavens."&nbsp; http://www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/aristotle2.htm

For Plato, the imperfect world is a creation by deity reflecting the perfection of the mind of God.

So both were creationists.




&nbsp;