• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

darwin's beliefs

Status
Not open for further replies.

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
from the OXFORD:

condemn-- 1. to expressvery strong disproval of sb/sth usually for moral reasons
.

i think that applies quite well though i understand why you left it out as you wanted to charge me with something i didn't do or am not doing.

Okay. How about his online autobiography? Using his own words, even.

i read those words and that doesn't mean he was a believer but just defended the Bible's morality stance. one can be orthodox and not christian.

No. We would contradict it if it said "this is not an allegory". Which it doesn't

i haven't checked all of the parables yet but some actually state: 'he told a parable to them...' with Genesis the writing is clear revelation, stating facts not a story.

it doesn't have to say this is not an allegory for then your logic would make the crucifixion and ressurrection as such.

I wonder, then, how I do not understand this:

nice of you to leave the author's name off the board. please provide the name as i have the church fathers at home and can verify the context before commenting.

Only natural evidences. However, the earth is natural

and this is where you err. the earth may be natural to you but it was made supernaturally. natural 'evidence' and doing everything naturally isn't going to give you the answers.

and if it were 6000 years old it would reflect that it was only 6000 years old

it does but evolutionists interpretate things their way not with God's leading, so what answer do you expect? keeping in mind that the evil one works in the hearts deceiving, destroying and so on.

I put the rephrase in there to pre-empt the mention of "The Bible isn't scientific because science is secular" deal

not worried about it, the words are there and it still isn't teaching the earth is flat. it is using a phrase commonly understood, i understand it and do not think the earth is flat so the problem lies with you.

or you just need an excuse to justify changing scriptures to allow foe a secular theory.

Because a literally taken scientifically correct (or accurately detailing reality) Bible can only teach a flat earth.

wrong again.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
If it suffered a global flood it would reflect that it had suffered a global flood

you want to live in an ideal world where everything is cut and dried.

you need to factor in the actions of:

volcanoes, earthquakes, typhhons, tornados, tidal waves, mud slides, local floods, construction, dust storms, sand storms, engineering, and so on

before you can make such a statement such as that. what evidence that has been discovered is easily dismissed because of thinking similar to the above quote.


we have:

south american caves filled with skeletons of animal and humans mixed together, ryan and pittman's work in the black sea, the north sea discovery (article was printed recently), the city or evidence found off the coast of India, woolley's discoveries, etc.

there is plenty of evidence it all depends if you are willing to accept it.
 
Upvote 0

Rudolph Hucker

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,540
332
Canberra ACT
✟26,803.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
you want to live in an ideal world where everything is cut and dried.

you need to factor in the actions of:

volcanoes, earthquakes, typhhons, tornados, tidal waves, mud slides, local floods, construction, dust storms, sand storms, engineering, and so on

before you can make such a statement such as that. what evidence that has been discovered is easily dismissed because of thinking similar to the above quote.


we have:

south american caves filled with skeletons of animal and humans mixed together, ryan and pittman's work in the black sea, the north sea discovery (article was printed recently), the city or evidence found off the coast of India, woolley's discoveries, etc.

there is plenty of evidence it all depends if you are willing to accept it.
Archie, are you an archaeologist?
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
south american caves filled with skeletons of animal and humans mixed together, ryan and pittman's work in the black sea, the north sea discovery (article was printed recently), the city or evidence found off the coast of India, woolley's discoveries, etc.

Assuming you're not telling tales out of school or misunderstanding anything on this uncited laundry list, how are they inconsistent with an old Earth and no Global flood?
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
for those who think that darwin was a christian on the beagle here are his own words, requoted from the original post:

Formely I was led by feelings such as those just referred to, (although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the existence of God, and of the immortality of the soul.

kind of undermines the argument that he was.

Assuming you're not telling tales out of school or misunderstanding anything on this uncited laundry list, how are they inconsistent with an old Earth and no Global flood?

sigh! i am not telling tales out of school. you just have to do a little research. its uncited because i have mentioned these things before and named authors.
 
Upvote 0

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
39
✟28,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
i think that applies quite well though i understand why you left it out as you wanted to charge me with something i didn't do or am not doing.

You do not disapprove someone to somewhere, you sentence them there. I was thus referring to the 2nd definition.


i read those words and that doesn't mean he was a believer but just defended the Bible's morality stance. one can be orthodox and not christian.
How exactly does that work? That one can hold onto their beliefs in an orthodox manner and still not believe them?

i haven't checked all of the parables yet but some actually state: 'he told a parable to them...' with Genesis the writing is clear revelation, stating facts not a story.

it doesn't have to say this is not an allegory for then your logic would make the crucifixion and ressurrection as such.
Yes, some do actually state it. But not all. So does that mean we should take the parables that DON"T explicitly state it literally?

And no. Believeing Genesis is an allegory does NOT equal believing that the ressurrection didn't happen as well.
me said:
I always thought of it this way: God can do what science says can't happen. God can (since God can do anything), but DID NOT do what science says didn't happen.

So it's really a case of can't versus didn't. God can do what science says can't be done, but God didn't do what science says He didn't do.

Science says a person can't be raised from the dead. Doesn't mean God didn't do it. No long-term measurable repercussions to say it didn't happen.

Science says the world didn't get created in 6 days 6000 years ago. Means God didn't do it. Long-term measurable repecussions say it didn't happen.

Science says a normal person can't heal a sick Roman's slave just by saying that he is healed from a distance away. Doesn't mean He didn't. No long-term repercussions to say otherwise.

Science says the world didn't get deluged in a global flood of (pun intended) Biblical proportians. Means it didn't happen. Long-term measurables say it didn't happen.



nice of you to leave the author's name off the board. please provide the name as i have the church fathers at home and can verify the context before commenting.
Yeah. Sorry for leaving the name of the author off, I thought the name of the work and the year would be plenty. That was St. Augustine.

and this is where you err. the earth may be natural to you but it was made supernaturally. natural 'evidence' and doing everything naturally isn't going to give you the answers.
Unless God is lying to us it darn well should. Examining something natural and figuring out when it came from should give the same answer whether or not it was natural or supernatural. If they don't, someone involved in the process is deceiving.

it does but evolutionists interpretate things their way not with God's leading, so what answer do you expect? keeping in mind that the evil one works in the hearts deceiving, destroying and so on.
We expect the true answer. Especially since we DON"T have any preconceived notions when we start. We actually take a look at the stuff and see where it goes, instead of figuring out what we want to see and shoehorning it in there.

not worried about it, the words are there and it still isn't teaching the earth is flat. it is using a phrase commonly understood, i understand it and do not think the earth is flat so the problem lies with you.
Oh, so some places when it clearly is talking about something literal it actually isn't? Hmmm.

or you just need an excuse to justify changing scriptures to allow foe a secular theory.
Nope. The Scriptures don't need changing. What needs changing is how some people look at them.

wrong again.
Stand up and face the music. The Bible does teach several things. As a matter of fact, I think I'll show some of them anyways. I'm gonna open up a new thread for them.

you need to factor in the actions of:

volcanoes, earthquakes, typhhons, tornados, tidal waves, mud slides, local floods, construction, dust storms, sand storms, engineering, and so on

before you can make such a statement such as that. what evidence that has been discovered is easily dismissed because of thinking similar to the above quote.
And you know what? None of those things alters nuclear decay. Not a single one. Scientists have put decaying atoms under even worse conditions than can be found in nature and there are some things that just don't change. Those are what we use. So some things are already factored in AND DON"T MATTER.

And just because Darwin said he was never a strong believer, it doesn't mean he was an unbeliever. Big difference between not-strong and non.

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
476
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟86,155.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
archaeologist said:
you want to live in an ideal world where everything is cut and dried.

you need to factor in the actions of:

volcanoes, earthquakes, typhhons, tornados, tidal waves, mud slides, local floods, construction, dust storms, sand storms, engineering, and so on

before you can make such a statement such as that. what evidence that has been discovered is easily dismissed because of thinking similar to the above quote.


we have:

south american caves filled with skeletons of animal and humans mixed together, ryan and pittman's work in the black sea, the north sea discovery (article was printed recently), the city or evidence found off the coast of India, woolley's discoveries, etc.

there is plenty of evidence it all depends if you are willing to accept it.
Let's see some credible links for every single piece of supposed evidence archie!
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
why would God use a non-believer, and subsequent non-believers (those who do not believe in Him), to tell the world how He did something when He is capable of doing that Himself and has done so in His word?

Why would God use a non-believer to tell the world how gravity works? Albert Einstein wasn't a Christian, but his theory of general relativity was one of the most important theories of our time. Likewise, why would God use millions of non-believers to help improve lives through medicine and technology and science if He's so capable of doing it himself?
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFijian
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
476
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟86,155.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
So why does God allow secular non-believing doctors and nurses to heal people when he's quite capable of doing it himself?

Why would God use a non-believer to tell the world how gravity works? Albert Einstein wasn't a Christian, but his theory of general relativity was one of the most important theories of our time. Likewise, why would God use millions of non-believers to help improve lives through medicine and technology and science if He's so capable of doing it himself?

These questions really deserve an answer archie.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You do not disapprove someone to somewhere, you sentence them there. I was thus referring to the 2nd definition

sentencing is not within my authority, it is within God's thus the first definition applies. i just warn.

How exactly does that work? That one can hold onto their beliefs in an orthodox manner and still not believe them?

you tell me. TE's say they believe God yet continue to follow secular ways and thinking, so you should know better than i.

And no. Believeing Genesis is an allegory does NOT equal believing that the ressurrection didn't happen as well.

sure it does, the two are the same as they are telling us what happened. infact the words 'in the beginning...' are a statement of fact not mere words leading into a a story .

Examining something natural and figuring out when it came from should give the same answer whether or not it was natural or supernatural

there is your misconception, you think that the two are one and the same. they are not. speaking something into existence is not the same as having it take billions of years.

i can't believe you are so naive about this. every builder knows that different methods leave different evidence only those who interpret the methods wrong interpret the evidence wrong & vice versa.

We expect the true answer. Especially since we DON"T have any preconceived notions when we start.

and you think that is smart? you just open the door to being deceived and made it easier todo so.

What needs changing is how some people look at them

if you are thinking of using secular science and its conclusions then you are wrong. you do not go against God's word to explain God's word.

Stand up and face the music. The Bible does teach several things. As a matter of fact, I think I'll show some of them anyways. I'm gonna open up a new thread for them

i saw it. by your logic then, the Bible teaches suicide--'and judas went and hung himself...'

Scientists have put decaying atoms under even worse conditions than can be found in nature and there are some things that just don't change

i don't see how you are talking about atoms when my statement was based upon the flood evidence not dating. manipulation is not cool.

And just because Darwin said he was never a strong believer, it doesn't mean he was an unbeliever

show quotes to the contrary. still doesn't mean he believed God is God of all nor that he was led by Him to originate the theory, in fact, he wasn't. how do i know this, God had it done millenia before with Genesis (not to mention that adam and eve probably were filled in on the details).

Why would God use a non-believer to tell the world how gravity works

who says einstein got it right? but we have been down this road once before and i am not traveling it again.
 
Upvote 0

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
39
✟28,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
you tell me. TE's say they believe God yet continue to follow secular ways and thinking, so you should know better than i.
Aha. So neither us nor Darwin actually believe (or ever did, in Darwin's case), is that it?

sure it does, the two are the same as they are telling us what happened. infact the words 'in the beginning...' are a statement of fact not mere words leading into a a story .
Then you should have no problem showing they are factual words and not just such a myth beginning.
Furthermore, I have said time and time again that believing an mythological Genesis does not mean disbelieving a literal resurrection. The Bible isn't all history OR all fact. It is a mixture. You are misrepresenting my position worse than you claim I do yours.

there is your misconception, you think that the two are one and the same. they are not. speaking something into existence is not the same as having it take billions of years.
However, if something is spoken into existence at a certain time it should show evidence of only having aged after it was spoken into existence. Since we aren't told it was spoken into existence to look as if it were older.

i can't believe you are so naive about this. every builder knows that different methods leave different evidence only those who interpret the methods wrong interpret the evidence wrong & vice versa.
Apples and oranges. Remember I said 'when' it came from. Some things only weather at one rate. Once we figure out that rate we can figure an age. That's all there is to it. How the earth came to be doesn't matter.

and you think that is smart? you just open the door to being deceived and made it easier todo so.
So looking to discover things that we don't already know the answer to is how we are deceived? New technology, new research, etc is how evil gets into science? We should only stick with what we already know, not try to confirm it, and not invent anything new or else Satan will trick us?


i saw it. by your logic then, the Bible teaches suicide--'and judas went and hung himself...'
Nope. The Bible says that is what Judas did, not what people should do. After all, the Bible says Cain killed Abel but the Bible doesn’t say we should kill our brothers. Stories of what people do wrong are great for teaching.

i don't see how you are talking about atoms when my statement was based upon the flood evidence not dating. manipulation is not cool.
Yeah. You're right; I made a mistake. Sorry. Ahem. Flood evidence. Right. Like the fact that Noah and his sons repopulated the Earth so fast the existing civilizations like the Chinese and Egyptians continues their civilizations without missing a beat.
And that Noah and his sons knew and perpetuated all the pagan myths that were around beforehand despite having interacted with God and having seen His power first-hand, and forgetting Him so fast that they believed the myths that they knew were false.
Or the fact that the Tower of Babel event took place after the Flood (which was supposedly in ~2300 BC) yet different languages predate the supposed Flood. Or the fact that the Bible can't add up the days of the Flood right.

show quotes to the contrary. still doesn't mean he believed God is God of all nor that he was led by Him to originate the theory, in fact, he wasn't. how do i know this, God had it done millenia before with Genesis (not to mention that adam and eve probably were filled in on the details).
Wait, quotes that show he was at one time a believer and then later didn't know show that he never actually believed? What?!

You know, I find it interesting that your faulty argument of only true (according to your definiton) believers can do correct science argument applies to genetics. Especially since the name of the fallacious argument you are using is the genetic fallacy. What their religious beliefs were is IRRELEVANT. Religion has no bearing on science. Science has no bearing on religion. Period.

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Aha. So neither us nor Darwin actually believe (or ever did, in Darwin's case), is that it?

don't make assumptions or read into anything. darwindid not believe whenhe constructed the theory. at best he probably had a idea of God when he was on the beagle but iwouldn't call him a true believer. look at his words i quoted again.

Then you should have no problem showing they are factual words and not just such a myth beginning.
Furthermore, I have said time and time again that believing an mythological Genesis does not mean disbelieving a literal resurrection

the words in genesis are basically the same style as the words concerning the ressurrection: 'inthe beginning...' {not --once upon a time...}; then, 'He is not here...' same style. do you apply an arbitrary guide as to what you consider allegorical and what is literal?

both very direct, literal and no inferrence to being a story.

However, if something is spoken into existence at a certain time it should show evidence of only having aged after it was spoken into existence. Since we aren't told it was spoken into existence to look as if it were older.

you again omit the effects of the fall of man. corruption entered into the world, what do you expect to find...a new car look and smell on something that has been altered? (for lack of a better word). look at all the data, not just that which you want to look at.

only the Trinity, adam and eve, the devil and the angles were witness to what the world looked like prior tothe fall of man and immediately after creation.

think about it.

Remember I said 'when' it came from. Some things only weather at one rate. Once we figure out that rate we can figure an age. That's all there is to it. How the earth came to be doesn't matter.

but that rate didn't apply till after the fall of man, as far as we know and we probably won't know till we die. but you can't figure the age because you do not know the start time. knowing the rate does not give the origin point, at best you can guess.

New technology, new research, etc is how evil gets into science

no, you do not understand and i am hesitant to explain it. you open the door by putting God aside and saying we have no idea what we will find. secular people do that, christians shouldn't.

The Bible says that is what Judas did, not what people should do. After all, the Bible says Cain killed Abel but the Bible doesn’t say we should kill our brothers. Stories of what people do wrong are great for teaching.

the Bible says the corners of the world, it does not say it is flat; that is your reading into the scripture. sorry but you are wrong to say a literal reading states the Bible teaches the world is flat. this is just an argument out of convenience.

Like the fact that Noah and his sons repopulated the Earth so fast the existing civilizations like the Chinese and Egyptians continues their civilizations without missing a beat.
And that Noah and his sons knew and perpetuated all the pagan myths that were around beforehand despite having interacted with God and having seen His power first-hand, and forgetting Him so fast that they believed the myths that they knew were false.
Or the fact that the Tower of Babel event took place after the Flood (which was supposedly in ~2300 BC) yet different languages predate the supposed Flood. Or the fact that the Bible can't add up the days of the Flood right

i could explain all of this to you but you lack understanding and i am hesitant to even try.

I find it interesting that your faulty argument of only true (according to your definiton) believers can do correct science argument applies to genetics. Especially since the name of the fallacious argument you are using is the genetic fallacy. What their religious beliefs were is IRRELEVANT. Religion has no bearing on science. Science has no bearing on religion. Period.

you don't see what you are saying here do you?
 
Upvote 0

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
39
✟28,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
don't make assumptions or read into anything. darwindid not believe whenhe constructed the theory. at best he probably had a idea of God when he was on the beagle but iwouldn't call him a true believer. look at his words i quoted again.
Ah. So he not only has to believe, he has to believe according to your standard.

the words in genesis are basically the same style as the words concerning the ressurrection: 'inthe beginning...' {not --once upon a time...}; then, 'He is not here...' same style.
I'm sorry. I fail to see two things here. I fail to see how "In the beginning" is different from "Once upon a time" for THE STORY OF THE ORIGIN OF EVERYTHING. Second, I do not see how "In the beginning" is the equivalent of "He is not here".
Furthermore, the resurrection has 4 independent accounts that coincide with each other about the major details. It isn't present in poetic language, it isn't so similar to Babylonian myths as to be copied and corrected, and so on. I can go on for a while here. They're not even comparable. But most of all, the earth itself doesn't say that a one-time resurrection event didn't happen, but it does say a one time creation event 6000 years ago didn't happen.

do you apply an arbitrary guide as to what you consider allegorical and what is literal?
Nope. There is a rhyme and a reason to it. I don't decide everything is literal, ignore a bunch of stuff, and use one poorly supported idea to add a whole bunch of stuff into the Bible so I can call other Christians not true believers.

you again omit the effects of the fall of man. corruption entered into the world, what do you expect to find...a new car look and smell on something that has been altered? (for lack of a better word). look at all the data, not just that which you want to look at.
Nope. I don't overlook what the Fall of Man did. You see, what the Fall of Man did is clearly presented in Genesis 3.

Genesis 3:14-19 said:
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."
16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Let's sum it up. The snake is cursed to live on the ground and eat dust, and have its head stepped on by, but only be able to bite the heels of, Men. (guess God never heard of tree-dwelling snakes, huh? Or the fact that most snakes actually eat rodents. Oh well.)

Women will feel pain when they bring forth children. Their husbands will rule them, and they will still desire their husbands despite it.

Men must work to produce food from the ground.

And all humans must eventually die.

There. God spelled it out for us. Those are the consequences of the Fall. Nothing in there about distorting dating methods, nothing in there about deceptive aging, nothing in there about ANYTHING else you say the fall did. Furthermore, corruption didn't enter the Garden at the Fall. The serpent was corrupt BEFOREHAND, clearly telling Eve to disobey God. If that isn't corrupt then blowed if I know what is.

only the Trinity, adam and eve, the devil and the angles were witness to what the world looked like prior tothe fall of man and immediately after creation.

think about it.
And isn't it funny how the angels being created and Satan's own Fall are left out of Genesis? Think about that.
As a matter of fact, if you could tell me where they are in the Bible that would be awesome.

but that rate didn't apply till after the fall of man, as far as we know and we probably won't know till we die. but you can't figure the age because you do not know the start time. knowing the rate does not give the origin point, at best you can guess.
Yes yes yes. "The Fall did it even though it isn't in the well spelled out consequences God gave us for the Fall. And no, we don't add things to the Bible. So you're wrong."

no, you do not understand and i am hesitant to explain it. you open the door by putting God aside and saying we have no idea what we will find. secular people do that, christians shouldn't.
So Christians should not invent or use anything that isn't already in the Bible? Because that would entail saying God hasn't given us the specific answer for this or that bit of technology and since we shouldn't say we have no idea what we'll find we shouldn't try to better understand anything not detailed in His Word? We shouldn't look to better understand anything about the world or use the gifts of logic, ingenuity, resourcefulness, or any other gift relating to the fields of science?

And anyways, we don't put God aside. Or stop believing in Him to do science. But even if we did it wouldn't alter our results in any way because what people believe doesn't affect the science they do!

the Bible says the corners of the world, it does not say it is flat; that is your reading into the scripture. sorry but you are wrong to say a literal reading states the Bible teaches the world is flat. this is just an argument out of convenience.
The saying of corners isn't the only thing in the Bible that indicates a flat Earth. But there is another thread for that. And to show it's wrong you must first show things such as the Hebrews knew about and used that particular phrase thousands of years ago when the Bible was being written, and didn't get the idea from the pagans because then it would be wrong since the pagans weren't lead in their knowledge by God (just the way you claim Darwin wasn't).

i could explain all of this to you but you lack understanding and i am hesitant to even try.
Then go ahead and try.

you don't see what you are saying here do you?
Yes I do see what I am saying. I am saying I find it amusing that the name of the logical fallacy you are using is the same as one of the branches of science you are attacking with it (even if you deny you are actually attacking it because it is true and useful.)

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Ah. So he not only has to believe, he has to believe according to your standard.

no, God's. i do not consider him a believer based upon his own words. his beliefs are certainly not described as what Jesus taught so one would have difficulty accepting his salvation. after all, many people think they are humanly born into afaith when that is not true with christianity.

another decision is to be made and we do not have record of that taking place in darwin's life.

I fail to see two things here

i figured as much

Furthermore, the resurrection has 4 independent accounts that coincide with each other about the major details.

the creation account has far more references to it thanthat. all holding to a literal act and fact.

But most of all, the earth itself doesn't say that a one-time resurrection event didn't happen, but it does say a one time creation event 6000 years ago didn't happen.

the earth is not saying a one time creation event 6,000 years ago never happened, it is the interpretation of secular scientists that is saying that. big difference.

Nope. I don't overlook what the Fall of Man did. You see, what the Fall of Man did is clearly presented in Genesis 3.

you forgot sin, death and corruption, along with the knowledge of good and evil gen. 3:8-11, but solely focus on the 3 curses. you only do things which are convenient for your argument and do not look at all the information.

And isn't it funny how the angels being created and Satan's own Fall are left out of Genesis

they weren't done at the same time that we know of:

angels

Created by God and Christ —
Nehemiah 9:6; Colossians 1:16

satan:


—​
Called Abaddon (Hebrew: Destroyer)

Revelation 9:11​
1607​
—​
The accuser of our brethren

Revelation 12:10
—​
The adversary

1 Peter 5:8
—​
The angel of the bottomless pit

Revelation 9:11
—​
Apollyon (Greek: Destroyer)

Revelation 9:11
—​
Beelzebul

Matthew 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15
—​
Belial

2 Corinthians 6:15
—​
The Devil

Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:2,6; Revelation 20:2
—​
Our common enemy

Matthew 13:39
—​
Evil spirit

1 Samuel 16:14
—​
The father of all lies

John 8:44
—​
Gates of hell (Hades)

Matthew 16:18
—​
Great red dragon

Revelation 12:3
—​
The liar

John 8:44
—​
Lying spirit

1 Kings 22:22
—​
The murderer

John 8:44
—​
That old serpent

Revelation 12:9; 20:2​
1608​
—​
The power of darkness

Colossians 1:13
—​
The prince

Of this world
John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11
Of demons
Matthew 12:24
Of the power of the air
Ephesians 2:2
Ruler of the darkness of this world
Ephesians 6:12
Satan
1 Chronicles 21:1; Job 1:6; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18;
Romans 16:20
The serpent
Genesis 3:4,14; 2 Corinthians 11:3
The spirit that works in all disobedient people
Ephesians 2:2
The Tempter
Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5
The god of this world
2 Corinthians 4:4
Unclean spirit
Matthew 12:43
The wicked one
Matthew 13:19,38
—​
Kingdom of, to be destroyed

2 Samuel 23:6,7
—​
With the context of

Matthew 12:29; 13:30; Luke 11:21,22; 1 John 3:8
—​
The synagogue of

Revelation 2:9; 3:9

in my refernece material they do not give all the specific information so you may have to search through those passages to find which one answers your question.

So Christians should not invent or use anything that isn't already in the Bible

if you didn't go to the absurd all the time this discussion could actually be interesting,.

What their religious beliefs were is IRRELEVANT. Religion has no bearing on science. Science has no bearing on religion.

you can belive that if you wish but it isn't correct.
 
Upvote 0

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
39
✟28,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
no, God's. i do not consider him a believer based upon his own words. his beliefs are certainly not described as what Jesus taught so one would have difficulty accepting his salvation. after all, many people think they are humanly born into afaith when that is not true with christianity.
Ah. Yes. I forgot. Your standard is God's standard, complete with things not in the Bible. Right. And you can tell that he never in his entire life believed in this from a few words, and his own admission of belief is false. Right. Tell me where he disbelieved what Jesus taught while on the Beagle again?

i figured as much
And you don't say a word in attempting to explain them. How nice of you.

the creation account has far more references to it thanthat. all holding to a literal act and fact.
No it doesn't and no they don't.
See, I can do it too.

Anyways, the Jews had no idea how the earth actually came about. All they had was a religious myth. Lacking anything else, it isn't surprising THEY considered it fact. But they didn't know any better. Nowadays we do.

The Resurrection, however, is documented by extra-Biblical sources, is the basis of the entire New Testament, is actually relevant to salvation, and doesn’t have evidence all over the world saying it didn't happen.

One time events that leave no major physical evidence do not compare with one time events that would leave absolutely huge amounts of physical evidence that are not only absent but contradicted by what is present.

the earth is not saying a one time creation event 6,000 years ago never happened, it is the interpretation of secular scientists that is saying that. big difference.
Nope, the earth is actually saying it, with or without the scientists listening. And the 6000 year old earth is only in YOUR interpretation of the Bible. As is the nonexistent requirement for a literal Genesis.

you forgot sin, death and corruption, along with the knowledge of good and evil gen. 3:8-11, but solely focus on the 3 curses. you only do things which are convenient for your argument and do not look at all the information.
Sin was disobeying God. It was the Fall of Man. Or it was the cause of. It wasn't the result of. Death was specifically detailed. What corruption do you speak of, and where was it mentioned? If there are only 3 curses, and corruption isn't among them or even mentioned, how do you fit it in there with no mention of it? And then make it a requirement for salvation above believing Jesus is Lord? How exactly do you DO that?

Thanks for the verses and stuff above the angels and Satan. I'll open another thread about them soon.

if you didn't go to the absurd all the time this discussion could actually be interesting,.
I don't see how it is absurd. What is your stance? If we shouldn't admit that we don't know something and try to find it out because then evil will get in, how is any progress to be made?

you can belive that if you wish but it isn't correct.
No, YOU can believe what you want about it, but your belief isn't correct. Something completely irrelevant to science does not arbitrarily make all science null and void, even though you forgot to mention science and inventions and technology actually WORK.

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Yes. I forgot. Your standard is God's standard, complete with things not in the Bible. Right. And you can tell that he never in his entire life believed in this from a few words, and his own admission of belief is false. Right. Tell me where he disbelieved what Jesus taught while on the Beagle again

--i think i asked you for documentation of his conversion experience first.

--one has to use God's standard, a person canot make up their own. read the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus

And you don't say a word in attempting to explain them. How nice of you

i know, i thought it was --ha ha ha.

I'm sorry. I fail to see two things here. I fail to see how "In the beginning" is different from "Once upon a time" for THE STORY OF THE ORIGIN OF EVERYTHING. Second, I do not see how "In the beginning" is the equivalent of "He is not here".

'in the beginning' like 'he is not here' are both statements of fact. the former sets the tone, the time, and so on while the latter states another simple fact. Jesus is gone. neither are allegorical introductions.

No it doesn't and no they don't.
See, I can do it too.

childish. the books of exodus, job, psalms, are a few references.

the Jews had no idea how the earth actually came about. All they had was a religious myth

you can prove this, right?? what religious myth? they had the words of God.

The Resurrection, however, is documented by extra-Biblical sources, is the basis of the entire New Testament, is actually relevant to salvation, and doesn’t have evidence all over the world saying it didn't happen.

please cite the extra-biblical references, i know many athiests who would be deeply shocked at that. granted it is relevant for salvation but so is believing God's words. (other thantacitus, josephus, philo. as far as i know, only the gospels were eye-witness accounts)

as for the last item, again all you have is secular interpretation. that same evidence speaks for an earlier creation.

plus we have the results of creation continuing everyday, with both archaeological and historical records confirming that fact. that is something you don't have.

Nope, the earth is actually saying it, with or without the scientists listening. And the 6000 year old earth is only in YOUR interpretation of the Bible. As is the nonexistent requirement for a literal Genesis

no, a 6,000 year old earth is what some creationists say; i say 'in the beginning' and do not go beyond 10-12,000 years... you only have interpretation, conjecture, faulty data, incomplete information to base your conclusions on.

What corruption do you speak of, and where was it mentioned?

i gave you the passage which shows what took place. the knowledge of good and evil entered into the world, thus sin, corruption, death and all other sorts of things have entered as well.

If there are only 3 curses, and corruption isn't among them or even mentioned, how do you fit it in there with no mention of it?

read romans.

And then make it a requirement for salvation above believing Jesus is Lord

i am not making it a requirement for salvation, never have but if one disbelieves portions of the Bible then others must question if the one is really saved or not. we do have that right to do so.

If we shouldn't admit that we don't know something and try to find it out because then evil will get in, how is any progress to be made?

by following God's directions. man's ways have produced so much destruction. shall i list them?

ddt; atom bombs, cannons. land mines, anthrax, other germ and chemical weapons, polluted air, water and lands, undrinkable water, lethal side affects, and so on.

you like to hold up only the good things you think science does but you rarely acknowledge the cost of those items, or their counterparts.
 
Upvote 0

Robert the Pilegrim

Senior Veteran
Nov 21, 2004
2,151
75
65
✟25,187.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
you again omit the effects of the fall of man. corruption entered into the world, what do you expect to find...a new car look and smell on something that has been altered? (for lack of a better word). look at all the data, not just that which you want to look at.

only the Trinity, adam and eve, the devil and the angles were witness to what the world looked like prior to the fall of man and immediately after creation.

think about it.
I have.

We can see stars in the Galaxy for 80,000 light years. If there were any fundamental changes in the physical universe anytime going back 80,000 years we would see it in the light from those stars.

But contrary-wise the light coming from stars 4 light years away looks exactly as it does from stars 40, 400, 4000, 40000 light years away.

Indeed observation of the supernova SN1987A, 168,000 light years away, has demonstrated that radioactive decay rates have not changed in that amount of time, and observation light from quasars has demonstrated that at best only miniscule changes have occured to a number of fundamental constants since the Big Bang.
---
There is no evidence that I am aware of that anybody thought the world was a sphere at the time Genesis was written.

By the 1st Century the evidence for anybody, Christian or otherwise believing in a flat Earth is very sparse indeed, the analysis of the evidence for a curved Earth had been done and was clear. There were a very few people who held to the flat earth belief on religious grounds, but the evidence suggests they were very much in the minority.

The number of people who believed the Earth went around the Sun was even smaller than those who believed in a flat earth, all good believers thought that when the book of Joshua reports that the Sun stood still in its path, it literally stood still. There was no other possibility for any but those very few who were aware of Aristarchus of Samos.

Until Copernicus and then Galileo showed otherwise.

Christian geologists went looking for the flood and found an ancient earth.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm
(thank you gluadys)

The Bible's purpose is to save souls, not teach science (or math... pi = 3 )
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.