darwin's beliefs

[Robert the Pilegrim]

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.

Humans can take religion or science or just about anything and use it for good or ill.

Not enough drinkable water though is far more a side-effect of human population growth than it is an effect of science.

Overall we maintain a far higher population density and a far lower mortality rate than we would otherwise be able to sustain because of science.

The agricultural and health practices of the Bible are pretty good for a fairly sparsely populated Israel, but for the here and now, they simply don't cut it.

If you want a view of Biblical times go to much of Africa or South America. Thankfully science based programs are helping eliminate diseases and parasites even there. Without science-based sanitation and medicines the infant mortality rate would dwarf the sins that have been enabled by science.

 

[metherion]

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

His conversion or his de-conversion? After all, according to Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN 0-7181-3430-3, pgs 12-15 and 80-81 he attended a Church of England school and attended Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman. So it seems, like most early 19th century Englishmen, he was born a Christian.

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

Being born again. Aka being baptized. Well, to be an Anglican clergyman I do believe you must be baptized.
Oh, and I like John 3:13. Since Elijah and Enoch have both gone into Heaven as well.

'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.

Setting a tone and a time is just as much a factor in a myth as in a literal story.

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

What religious myths(I messed up and forgot the plural earlier)? Genesis of course! Both chapters 1 and 2!

please cite the extra-biblical references, i know many athiests who would be deeply shocked at that.

The Apocrypha for starters. A whole bunch of other books that didn't make it into the Bible.

granted it is relevant for salvation but so is believing God's words.

And you still apparently still don't see the distinction between literally believing and believing.

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

If it did, if it really did speak for an early Creation, don't you think there would actually be a heated scientific debate? At least between the believers who see it right and the non-believers who see it wrong? But there they are, side by side, getting the same results, with the people OUTSIDE the field screaming at them that the scientists don't know what they're doing.

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.

Oh, yes. Archaeological and historical records. Like the UNinterruption during when the Flood took place. Gotcha.

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.

Mr. Kettle, I would like to introduce you to Mr. Pot. He says you're black.

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.

Genesis 3:8-11 only talks about how they hid from God and He couldn't find them. And aren't we unable to hide from God anyways? How does THAT work?

read romans.

Well, 5:12-20 talks about death, but that's all I see. Perhaps I'm missing something.

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.

Disbelief in a literal Genesis DOES NOT EQUAL disbelief in Genesis! And questioning the salvation of others for not believing a literal Genesis but still believing in Jesus DOES put a literal Genesis above Jesus. For belief in Jesus is all that is necessary!

by following God's directions.

Which are…?

And yes, science does have bad side effects. But then again, misinterpretation of the Bible and belief in God have been used to justify some of the worst atrocities in the world. And of course there are a lot of untruths in the Bible, like the cosmology in it.


Metherion

 

[busterdog]

as a p.s.-- i use the question, 'who says einstein got it right because the book, Final Theory, looks at this issue and questions who was right--newton or einstein.

i haven't finished the book yet so i won't go further on this issue.

Arguably, Lorentz did a better job.

If the speed of light varies, then Einstein was wrong, in part.

 

[archaeologist]

like most early 19th century Englishmen, he was born a Christian.

but there you go, you can't be born a christian. so if he had no conversion experience, theni would say chances are he never was a believer.

Being born again. Aka being baptized

no. two different acts. baptism comes after one is born again.

Setting a tone and a time is just as much a factor in a myth as in a literal story

different tone, different setting. one is real, 'in the beginning...,' the other' 'once upon a time...' is not.

Genesis of course! Both chapters 1 and 2!

so you do not believe then.

The Apocrypha for starters. A whole bunch of other books that didn't make it into the Bible.

right ...books that are only accepted by the official catholic church.

And you still apparently still don't see the distinction between literally believing and believing.

i see more than i am telling you but using the word 'literally' to justify following secular thinking is not right either.

If it did, if it really did speak for an early Creation, don't you think there would actually be a heated scientific debate

No! you omit so much. [ but i could answer we do have heated scientific debate it is just that the secular world doesn't accept any science other than its own.]

But there they are, side by side, getting the same results

proof. of course there are extenuating circumstances you are not posting in this part.

Like the UNinterruption during when the Flood took place. Gotcha.

again--show the proof. there actuall has been interuption, you just don't accept it. in fact the book, 'The Discovery of Genesis' by C.H. Kang goes togreat lengths to show hos the flood and creation are found in the chinese characters.

it also points out for the first 2000 years after the disporia at babel, the chinese worshiped God.

but your problemis, you accept the fallible as infallible and make the infallible, the Bible, fallible. so of course you would make this argument.

this is a common error made by so many people as they accept worldy items above the Bible and attribute sinful practices to God, His word and His authors while attributing what the Bible teaches to all secualar fields. you and others have things screwed up.

Genesis 3:8-11 only talks about how they hid from God and He couldn't find them. And aren't we unable to hide from God anyways? How does THAT work

if you don't see it, then how am i going to teach it to you? why did they hide? fear. fear was not inthe world prior to that act...think about it.

Well, 5:12-20 talks about death, but that's all I see. Perhaps I'm missing something

it is a start, keep researching.

Disbelief in a literal Genesis DOES NOT EQUAL disbelief in Genesis

actually, yes it does.

And questioning the salvation of others for not believing a literal Genesis but still believing in Jesus DOES put a literal Genesis above Jesus. For belief in Jesus is all that is necessary!

read mat. 25:37-46 then think on it again. there are other scriptures as well.

But then again, misinterpretation of the Bible and belief in God have been used to justify some of the worst atrocities in the world. And of course there are a lot of untruths in the Bible, like the cosmology in it.

yes, MIS-interpretation but secular science has wracked up a lot more tragedies on its side: nagasaki, hiroshima, to name a couple more.

i know there are problems with people and their interpretations, i don't hide from it nor paint a one-sided picture tomake things look rosy. believers know they are there and we are saddened by it notsweeping it under the rug.

prove the cosmology is false.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

as a p.s.-- i use the question, 'who says einstein got it right because the book, Final Theory, looks at this issue and questions who was right--newton or einstein.

i haven't finished the book yet so i won't go further on this issue.

I will.

They use a rave review from a computer programmer on their page, and reading the article from which the review comes from suggests he may well have been speaking tongue-in-cheek.

To quote from their "science flaws" page:
=================
Q: But don't we know all about the gravity of Black
Holes and how even light can't escape?

A: No. This often-repeated error is based on a clear oversight.
Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear
energy and physically collapses. But starlight only shines from
intact, functioning stars, of course. There is no more reason to
expect light to shine from Black Holes than from a burnt-out,
smashed light bulb. This is a commonly repeated error in
plain view that is intended to showcase and dramatize our
scientists' deep understanding of Black Holes and gravity, but
which actually exposes how little is truly understood about
either.
======================
This person doesn't have a clue.

 

[busterdog]

I will.

They use a rave review from a computer programmer on their page, and reading the article from which the review comes from suggests he may well have been speaking tongue-in-cheek.

To quote from their "science flaws" page:
=================
Q: But don't we know all about the gravity of Black
Holes and how even light can't escape?

A: No. This often-repeated error is based on a clear oversight.
Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear
energy and physically collapses. But starlight only shines from
intact, functioning stars, of course. There is no more reason to
expect light to shine from Black Holes than from a burnt-out,
smashed light bulb. This is a commonly repeated error in
plain view that is intended to showcase and dramatize our
scientists' deep understanding of Black Holes and gravity, but
which actually exposes how little is truly understood about
either.
======================
This person doesn't have a clue.

OK.

So prove it really is ultra-dense matter from a collapsed star.

Halton C. Arp received his Bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology in 1953, both cum laude. He is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, conducted Edwin Hubble's nova search in M31. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For 28 years he was staff astronomer at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he produced his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are disturbed or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, from photographs and spectra with the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically connected to galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Because of Arp's observations, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the Big Bang theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - has to be fundamentally reexamined.!

Halton Arp has a clue.

Accretion processes onto Black Holes are supposed to enable them to radiate high energy X-rays. When X-ray telescopes found strong X-ray sources in galaxies they said, aha, this is too strong to be an X-ray star so it must be a black hole in orbit around a star - a binary with a massive black hole revolving around it. Discovery of these now MASSIVE Black holes was so exciting that innumerable papers have appeared showing the X-ray positions and deep photographs at the positions the objects.

Strangely, when these objects were seen optically no one took spectra in order to see what they actually were. Finally a paper appeared in a referred Journal 3 where the authors showed the spectra of two of them to be that of high redshift quasars! Just to cement the case they looked at previously identified quasar in or close to galaxies and in 24 out of 24 cases the quasars belonged to the class of Ultra Luminous X-ray Sources.

2. This result is a double disaster in that the massive Black Holes turned out to be high redshift quasars, not a Black Hole in a binary star. Perhaps worse, they have been accepted as members of nearby galaxies and therefore cannot be out at the edge of the universe. Bye bye Big Bang and all that fundamental physics. (This result was not put out as a press release.)

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/astronomy_by_press_release

OK Archie, the tags on you.

Here's what I want you to do:

 

[metherion]

but there you go, you can't be born a christian. so if he had no conversion experience, theni would say chances are he never was a believer.

…
no. two different acts. baptism comes after one is born again.

Okay, THIS is a topic for Soteriology.

different tone, different setting. one is real, 'in the beginning...,' the other' 'once upon a time...' is not.

Nope. "In the beginning" functions just as well as "once upon a time" for an origins myth.

right ...books that are only accepted by the official catholic church.

Perhaps I could have made myself clearer. The New Testament Apocrypha. The ones that aren't accepted by anybody. They were still written, they still referred to the Resurrection, and they aren't in the Bible.

i see more than i am telling you but using the word 'literally' to justify following secular thinking is not right either.

Yes. Secular thinking. Like "God is real." And "God made the universe." Just because we don't think it didn't happen the exact way described in Genesis doesn't mean we think it didn't happen.

No! you omit so much. [ but i could answer we do have heated scientific debate it is just that the secular world doesn't accept any science other than its own.]

No. If it there were a scientific debate, if truly scientific evidence were really found to support a Young Earth, then there would be a debate. The debate you refer to is a socio-political debate. If there were actually real scientific evidence for a Young Earth, it would be highly published, highly debated, and everybody would know about it. This is why I don't pay much attention to the books that have been popularized detailing why evolution and the accompanying grab bag is wrong, because if it were valid it would be all over the science journals and the papers and whatnot, as well or instead of in a book.

proof. of course there are extenuating circumstances you are not posting in this part.

By proof I take it you mean you want me to prove that Christians and non can look at the same evidence with the same science and get the same results? Well, the complete lack of a scientific debate on the general age of the earth (4.x billion years) might be considered one.

again--show the proof. there actuall has been interuption, you just don't accept it. in fact the book, 'The Discovery of Genesis' by C.H. Kang goes togreat lengths to show hos the flood and creation are found in the chinese characters.

it also points out for the first 2000 years after the disporia at babel, the chinese worshiped God.

I'll hold off on this unless and until I get a copy of that book.

but your problemis, you accept the fallible as infallible and make the infallible, the Bible, fallible.

The Bible is infallible. Not literally infallible. Every truth the Bible gives us is right, but the truths are not always literal truths.

and attribute sinful practices to God, His word and His authors

What sinful practices do I ascribe to God?

if you don't see it, then how am i going to teach it to you? why did they hide? fear. fear was not inthe world prior to that act...think about it.

Nope. You don't see what I am asking. How could they hide from God? God is everywhere, and God is omniscient. Hiding from Him is impossible. You can try but you can't actually do it. So how were they able to do it?

so you do not believe then.

actually, yes it does.

Fallacy: Law of the excluded middle. Excluding all options besides two when the exclusion is not valid. E.G. belief is either literal or non-existent.
You, sir, fail at this particular point of logic. And at being right, as the statement itself is wrong.

Matthew 25:37-46 is the story of the goats and the sheep. All we need to do is have faith, which includes good works (such as those described) according to James. So when you look at other parts of the NT, it fits with the 'all you need is faith' idea. And I still don't see anything about how not believing a literal Genesis is not feeding the hungry, not giving drink to the thirsty, etc.

yes, MIS-interpretation but secular science has wracked up a lot more tragedies on its side: nagasaki, hiroshima, to name a couple more.

i know there are problems with people and their interpretations, i don't hide from it nor paint a one-sided picture tomake things look rosy. believers know they are there and we are saddened by it notsweeping it under the rug.

Yes. Both sides have screwed up. People (Christians and otherwise) have misused science. Religion has misused its own texts. But you still haven't answered the question of how we are supposed to discover the unknown and improve human life according to the Bible.

prove the cosmology is false.

Actually, that's your job over in the 'Biblical Teachings' thread.
Or do you mean proving science is right and the Bible is wrong?
Well, there is the Sun being a star, airplanes. The trip to the Moon, the contradiction of the world being both immovable and shaken at times…
Shall I go on?

@busterdog:
I can't see the picture, just a "hosted by" bit. What is the image supposed to be?

Metherion

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

If you right click, properties, then paste that into the url line, you will see a tag wrestling match with one fellow lying on the ground and the other about 2 metres in the air - on the way down.

 

[metherion]

aaah, I see it now.

Thanks a lot, RH!

Metherion

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

OK.

So prove it really is ultra-dense matter from a collapsed star.

Halton Arp has a clue.

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/astronomy_by_press_release

OK Archie, the tags on you.

What exactly is your point?

Dr. Arp is/was an observational astronomer, not an astrophysicist, but yes, he has a clue.
<sigh>
Okay, look, there are a number of different issues here.

The book Archie cites favorably, if with caution, is, judging by the web site, either written by somebody totally ignorant of physics or by a con man.

Any theory that purports to replace GR must, as a minimal start, provide two calculations:
1) A calculation of the precession of Mercury
2) A calculation of the bending of light by the Sun.
And it must do so to an accuracy at least equal to that of GR.

Doing those calculations will nearly guarantee being published in a refereed journal. Not necessarily acceptance, but publishing so that the theory can be evaluated.

Dr. Arp's complaints are not with General Relativity, they are with the Big Bang and with using red shift to measure distance.

Dr. Arp is at the fringes of science, mainly because he doesn't appear to have the physics background to be more mainstream but he is actually doing what scientists do, he is examining the evidence.

The Big Bang is a possible consequence of General Relativity, pointed out decades after Einstein published his GR paper, and lacking evidence until decades later when the 4 degree background radiation was found.

Invalidating the Big Bang would not invalidate GR and would provide zero support for a young Earth.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

if you don't see it, then how am i going to teach it to you? why did they hide? fear. fear was not inthe world prior to that act...

And we know this because?

Disbelief in a literal Genesis DOES NOT EQUAL disbelief in Genesis

actually, yes it does.

No, it doesn't.
It equals a disbelief in your interpretation of Genesis.

yes, MIS-interpretation but secular science has wracked up a lot more tragedies on its side: nagasaki, hiroshima, to name a couple more.

So what you are saying is that you think that getting rid of modern warfare for the smaller scale but equally horrific warfare of the past would be worth putting up with infant mortality and death from childbirth going through the roof, rotting teeth, lousy nutrition and sanitation leading to a collapse of population...

i know there are problems with people and their interpretations, i don't hide from it nor paint a one-sided picture to make things look rosy.

Glad to hear it.

believers know they are there and we are saddened by it not sweeping it under the rug.

Some believers, others are more than happy to either sweep it under the rug or claim it was justified.

prove the cosmology is false.

The world is a sphere, the Earth rotates about its axis and revolves about the Sun.

The classic observation for the first is to watch a ship with a mast approach from the sea, you see the mast first, not the larger hull of the ship.

Rotating about its axis can be demonstrated by the Foucoult pendulum.

Revolving around the Sun can be seen via parallax.

 

[archaeologist]

Okay, THIS is a topic for Soteriology

whatever but it stills shows you can't defend your claim that he was christian. instead it proves mypoint that he wasn't.

The New Testament Apocrypha. The ones that aren't accepted by anybody. They were still written, they still referred to the Resurrection, and they aren't in the Bible.

link them up, let's see the quotes.

Just because we don't think it didn't happen the exact way described in Genesis doesn't mean we think it didn't happen

then you don't believe God or His word.

If it there were a scientific debate, if truly scientific evidence were really found to support a Young Earth, then there would be a debate

is it only me who sees that TE's are very naive and gullible??you don't get it, 1. there is only one type of evidence; 2. non-believers donot want to believe the Bible, it doesn't matter what evidence you put in front of them; 3. theywouldn't have scientific debate but look for another alternative to the Bible.

By proof

get me credible links. i do not take your word forit.

I'll hold off on this unless and until I get a copy of that book

no worries.

The Bible is infallible. Not literally infallible. Every truth the Bible gives us is right, but the truths are not always literal truths.

what do you consider to be 'non-literal truths?

What sinful practices do I ascribe to God

mis-representation, lying, copying, stealing, to name a few.

You don't see what I am asking

i know exactly what you are refering to but look at their act and the attitude behind it. that was not present before their eating of the fruit. adam had talkedwith God before, He wasn't afraid then so he shouldn't have been when God visited after their eating of the fruit if things hadn't changed.

And I still don't see anything about how not believing a literal Genesis is not feeding the hungry, not giving drink to the thirsty, etc.

1 John 1:5-8; 1 John 3:7-8 to name a couple answers for you. you can't change the words of God to allow you to follow that which is not of God and still claim to follow Him.

 

[metherion]

whatever but it stills shows you can't defend your claim that he was christian. instead it proves mypoint that he wasn't.

It does neither. All it does is show we have differing ideas on infant baptism.

link them up, let's see the quotes.

Alas, I lack links to the actual texts. But I can tell you some names.
The gospel of Nicodemus, aka "Acts of Pilate"
Questions of Bartholomew (gets quite bizarre at times)
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (by Bartholomew)

There's three for ya.

then you don't believe God or His word.

Whatever happened to not judging and bolstering others' faith? Telling them they don't have any is a rather poor way to do that. Especially combined with extra-biblical notions about salvation requirements.

is it only me who sees that TE's are very naive and gullible??you don't get it, 1. there is only one type of evidence; 2. non-believers donot want to believe the Bible, it doesn't matter what evidence you put in front of them; 3. theywouldn't have scientific debate but look for another alternative to the Bible.

You honestly believe this? You believe that everybody who doesn't accept your specific view is in some sort of Bible-denying conspiracy that's worldwide where they would rather spread lies than acknowledge what the evidence says? SERIOUSLY?!
Conspiracy theories are by their nature impossible to prove, because there's always something wrong with any evidence to the contrary. Like I have a feeling that the minute I show you an honest Christian who admits to an old earth you'll immediately decry the source as phony because he didn't share your view.

And as far as the proof you want about nonChristians and Christians both being able to accept evolution, I would point you towards the Pope's recent declarations. But I bet you'll denounce it in pretty much the exact same manner I described above. "The Pope and his science advisors aren't really Christians anymore because they accept TE!"
And if no nonbelievers want to believe, why are there converts to Christianity?

what do you consider to be 'non-literal truths?

Metaphorical truths. Allegorical truths. Moral truths. Truths from parables (since parabolic has many meanings). And so on.

mis-representation, lying, copying, stealing, to name a few.

Accusing God of mis-representation and lying? No. I don't. I accuse Him of using metaphors, parables, allegory, and myth to get His non-literal point across. Nothing wrong there.
Accusing God of stealing and copying? By this I assume you are referring to the idea that some of the Biblical myths were hijacked and changed to show the difference between God and the pagan gods? There is nothing wrong in that. It is merely taking a lie and twisting it to the truth. The lie was the pagan's, the truth is God's. There's nothing wrong in doing so; it wasn't like they were copyrighted or anything. And it would provide a reference point the Hebrews were familiar with for comparison.
[sarcasm]And you missed some. You forgot the TEs must believe all the rightful death God inflicted was actually unjustified murder, and the God is a bloodthirsty evil person who demands sacrifices for wrongs, and a bunch of other things.[/sarcasm]

1 John 1:5-8; 1 John 3:7-8 to name a couple answers for you. you can't change the words of God to allow you to follow that which is not of God and still claim to follow Him.

1 John 1:5-8
5This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

*If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

In other words, God is good. Don't be evil and claim you're good. If you are good, you and us have ties to each other and Jesus purifies our sins.

And don't say you're perfect; you're only lying to yourself and thus don't know God.

And this is relevant how…?

1 John 3:7-8
7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

He who does good is good; he who does bad isn't, and Jesus came to destroy the source of the bad.

And that is relevant how…?


Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

It does neither. All it does is show we have differing ideas on infant baptism

no, it shows thatwe differ on what salvation is. baptism is not conversion. again salvation was explained in Jesus' conversation with nicodemus. baptism comes after one converts.

so it is now up to you to produce documentation of such a conversion experience for darwin. if you provide proof thathe was subject to infant baptism then i will have proof thathe did not have a conversion experience and he and his theory are not rooted in God.

There's three for ya.

okay, i will try to search for them.

You honestly believe this? You believe that everybody who doesn't accept your specific view is in some sort of Bible-denying conspiracy that's worldwide where they would rather spread lies than acknowledge what the evidence says?

1. i never use or used the word conspiracy.
2. i have studied enough secular works to make such a statement
3. please show me where the requirement of faith can be displayed via evidence.
4. you continually omit the workings of the evil one. until you factor in its influence, your results will be off.

I would point you towards the Pope's recent declarations. But I bet you'll denounce it in pretty much the exact same manner I described above. "The Pope and his science advisors aren't really Christians anymore because they accept TE!"
And if no nonbelievers want to believe, why are there converts to Christianity?

we have a different definition of the christianity of the pope. i wouldn't take his word for anything especially in light of his latest declaration that the catholic church is the only true church. he based that statement on apostolic succession. well the Bible and Jesus never taught that apostolic succession was a sign of the true church.

if all you are going to do is point to r,c,c,'s as examples then i doubt you have independent people who would prove your point.

Metaphorical truths. Allegorical truths. Moral truths. Truths from parables (since parabolic has many meanings). And so on.

no such categories exist. the Bible says--"ye shall know the truth and it shall set you free. " no categories listed here, truth is truth.

Accusing God of mis-representation and lying? No. I don't. I accuse Him of using metaphors, parables, allegory, and myth to get His non-literal point across. Nothing wrong there

sure there is, when you apply it to the wrong passages to fit your comfort zone or your desire to practice secular science.

it wasn't like they were copyrighted or anything. And it would provide a reference point the Hebrews were familiar with for comparison

sigh... excuses, excuses. i see so many accusations that God's writers copied from other sources it isn't funny. i amgoing through a book right now which does the exact same thing except the author is not as nice about it as you.

6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth

it is relevant if youlook closely at what is being said. if you walk with the secular world and accept, adopt or adapt their thinking, do you really think you are walking with God?

And don't say you're perfect; you're only lying to yourself and thus don't know God.

please...with the mistakes i have made on this board alone, do you really think i can claim that?

7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.

if you walk with the world and its views, if you change passages from literal to allegory or methaphors when they are not; do you really think you are doing what is right? or are staying on the straight and narrow?

 

[metherion]

Just letting you guys know I'm still cooking up a response.

Haven't forgotten about all y'all yet!

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

take your time

 

[metherion]

Again, the thing about Darwin's baptism is soteriology. I'm not going to discuss it further here. Your being one of the small minority that reject infant baptism is not the defining factor of whether Darwin believed. And Darwin could have believed without being saved by being born again regardless. Furthermore, did the other guy on the Cross that Jesus specifically told was going to be in Heaven with Him get baptized as an adult? (Luke 23:43) How about Elijah and Enoch?

1. i never use or used the word conspiracy.

You may not have used the word, but you have used the definition. A group of people of seemingly opposing viewpoints or with outwardly conflicting goals collaborating together to hide a bigger truth in spite of all evidence for some un-provable reason to the contrary IS a conspiracy. Whether you apply the word to it or not. And Christians combining with non to hide a Young Earth despite all the evidence actually saying that the Earth is young because of either Satan or their want/need to deny the Bible fits that definition to a letter.

2. i have studied enough secular works to make such a statement

Baloney. Bring them up. Bring up the scientific documents that state the evidence actually says one thing but is discarded solely because it fits with a Young Earth and not because there is anything validly wrong with it.

3. please show me where the requirement of faith can be displayed via evidence.

Do you mean where somebody's faith can be evidenced to be true or where faith can be proved via evidence? And either way, doesn't this un-evidence-ability undercut your demand to show Darwin's belief?

4. you continually omit the workings of the evil one. until you factor in its influence, your results will be off.

Then you get out one of the things you've studied. Get one. Get it and show me that the exact same experiment was done with the exact same equipment and materials under the exact same conditions by two people whose only difference was their ideology and that the answers they got were different beyond standard (and if the report is worth its salt, calculated) experimental error without a valid explanation.
And to me, it is seeming that believing in Satan and his works is about as important to your arguments as believing in God or His works because you can't seem to dismiss any evidence without relying on unsubstantiated claims of Satan to do so.

we have a different definition of the christianity of the pope. i wouldn't take his word for anything especially in light of his latest declaration that the catholic church is the only true church.

Yes he did. But he didn't say that other Christians weren't true Christians, now, did he? Just about the churches.

he based that statement on apostolic succession. well the Bible and Jesus never taught that apostolic succession was a sign of the true church

Well, that's because it came about after the Bible was written. Pretty good excuse, don't'cha think?

if all you are going to do is point to r,c,c,'s as examples then i doubt you have independent people who would prove your point.

No, I was just giving an example to prove my point.
Now, normally among the people I would point you to is Kenneth Miller, but he's RC, so I'll leave him out this time.
How about the entire American Association for the Advancement of Science? Not every single one of them are atheists.
Or the US National Academy of Sciences? Same with them.
Or perhaps the 1997 study found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm that shows 40% of scientists are TE and 55% are atheistic evolution accepters (I'd say that's a pretty high amount of believers and non)?

no such categories exist. the Bible says--"ye shall know the truth and it shall set you free. " no categories listed here, truth is truth.

Yet you talk about literal truth yourself, and that is certainly a category. Just because it didn't make a list of types of truth doesn't mean it isn't talking about all kinds of truth. Like Geico. Just because they offer car insurance doesn’t mean they don't offer Chevy insurance, Ford insurance, Toyota insurance, etc. Or minivan insurance, convertible insurance, truck insurance, etc. You're going to have to do better than that to show the only truth is literal truth, ESPECIALLY when Christ Himself doesn't exclusively use it.

sigh... excuses, excuses. i see so many accusations that God's writers copied from other sources it isn't funny. i amgoing through a book right now which does the exact same thing except the author is not as nice about it as you.

It is not an excuse. It is exactly what is needed to teach a lesson.
How do you tell people something is wrong without referring to that something? How can you alter a story with the wrong morals to have the right morals without using the story in question? And how is adopting something familiar to the people to be used by them morally wrong?

it is relevant if youlook closely at what is being said. if you walk with the secular world and accept, adopt or adapt their thinking, do you really think you are walking with God?

But I don't accept, adopt, or adapt the thinking of the secular world. I believe in Jesus.

please...with the mistakes i have made on this board alone, do you really think i can claim that?

I wasn't accusing you, I was stating what the verses said. The extra blank line in between was mirroring the extra blank line in the quoted verses. Sorry about the mix-up.

if you walk with the world and its views, if you change passages from literal to allegory or methaphors when they are not; do you really think you are doing what is right? or are staying on the straight and narrow?

You still have to show that I'm doing it when it isn't appropriate. Something that states when Moses wrote Genesis he was copying down what God said word-for-word and God was not using any metaphors the entire time.


Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

Again, the thing about Darwin's baptism is soteriology. I'm not going to discuss it further here. Your being one of the small minority that reject infant baptism is not the defining factor of whether Darwin believed. And Darwin could have believed without being saved by being born again regardless.

infant baptism isn't the issue here for that is not salvation. your last sentence is in contrast to the words of Jesus himself:

'i twll you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again

so sorry, he couldn't. read John 3:1-21

so it is highly likely that darwin never was a believer in Christ but assumed he was because he was baptised as an infant. okay, we have dealt with darwin, he was not a believer according to scriptures thus the theory of evolution has no foundation in God.

You may not have used the word, but you have used the definition. A group of people of seemingly opposing viewpoints or with outwardly conflicting goals collaborating together to hide a bigger truth in spite of all evidence for some un-provable reason to the contrary IS a conspiracy. Whether you apply the word to it or not. And Christians combining with non to hide a Young Earth despite all the evidence actually saying that the Earth is young because of either Satan or their want/need to deny the Bible fits that definition to a letter

no, i haven't used the definition for more than one meaning of people's actions apply here. ever hear of the snowball effect?

Baloney. Bring them up. Bring up the scientific documents that state the evidence actually says one thing but is discarded solely because it fits with a Young Earth and not because there is anything validly wrong with it.

not baloney. let's go with the dust layer on the moon. before landing it was discussed about how big the feet on the lunar module should be as they were expecting a lot of dust from billions of years of accumulation. when they landed and found it to be FAR less than they thought, the topic was dropped immediately.

Then you get out one of the things you've studied. Get one. Get it and show me that the exact same experiment was done with the exact same equipment and materials under the exact same conditions by two people whose only difference was their ideology and that the answers they got were different beyond standard (and if the report is worth its salt, calculated) experimental error without a valid explanation

this is done all thetime, i will have to think where i can find some examples to post up.

Yes he did. But he didn't say that other Christians weren't true Christians, now, did he? Just about the churches.

let's not go there.

Well, that's because it came about after the Bible was written. Pretty good excuse, don't'cha think?

sorry doesn't fly. it would have been stated by Jesus if that were the case but what He did say---'...by their fruits ye shall know them...' NOT apostolic succession.

that shows 40% of scientists are TE and 55% are atheistic evolution accepters (I'd say that's a pretty high amount of believers and non)?

you forget, i don't consider TE's as true christians , if they are lucky they are deceived believers but that is up to God. where are your creationists? your independents? why just atheists and TE's?

Yet you talk about literal truth yourself, and that is certainly a category

You're going to have to do better than that to show the only truth is literal truth, ESPECIALLY when Christ Himself doesn't exclusively use it.

John 1:14 & 17;3:21; 7:18-19; 8:42-47; acts 20:29-30;
28:25-27; 2 cor. 4:2; 11:10; 13:8; 2 Th. 2:10; Titus 1:14;

i could go on but this should demonstrate that there seems to be only 1 truth.

And how is adopting something familiar to the people to be used by them morally wrong?

if it is not of God then it is wrong and leads people astray.

But I don't accept, adopt, or adapt the thinking of the secular world. I believe in Jesus.

you do if you accept and believe evolution.

Something that states when Moses wrote Genesis he was copying down what God said word-for-word and God was not using any metaphors the entire time

2 peter 1:12-21

 

[metherion]

so it is highly likely that darwin never was a believer in Christ but assumed he was because he was baptised as an infant. okay, we have dealt with darwin, he was not a believer according to scriptures thus the theory of evolution has no foundation in God.

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold on there. You're wrong in so many ways I don't think I can even get all of them.
1. You're judging whether or not Darwin was a Christian again based on an interpretation of the Bible rejected by the vast majority of Christianity that you have not backed up as absolutely true yet (namely, credobaptism only).
2. You are assuming without backing it up that infants cannot be reborn in Christ while still infants. There are also verses such as Mark 10:13-15, Acts 2:38-39, Ephesians 6:4 that point to baptizing children, and children believing.
3. Parallel with circumcision. Verses such as Colossians 2:11-12 tell that baptism is the equivalent of circumcision (which was no longer necessary). And infants were circumcised.
4. Times when entire households were baptized in the Bible. Acts 16:14-15, Acts 18:8, 1 Cor 1:16 talk about entire households being baptized. Not entire households old enough to profess faith verbally and understand it, but entire households. Including children.
5. How can someone assume they are a believer? Either you believe Jesus is God, or you don't. There isn't a middle ground.
6. The theory of evolution deals with something created by God and does not discount His existence. How does that make it have no foundation in Him, being founded in something He made?
7. The kingdom of God that you need to be born again to see in not of this world according to Jesus' words before Pilate. So the fact that Darwin lost his belief and (presumably) wasn't going to get to Heaven doesn't mean that he couldn't ever have truly believed.
8.I would also advise you to look at this, http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm, from Issues, Etc. Journal.
You are leaping waaaaaaaaay ahead of yourself.
And He DID accept Jesus while he was on the Beagle. So at the time he WAS a believer, according to the Scriptures.
If anyone else wants to take a stab at this paragraph, go ahead.

not baloney. let's go with the dust layer on the moon. before landing it was discussed about how big the feet on the lunar module should be as they were expecting a lot of dust from billions of years of accumulation. when they landed and found it to be FAR less than they thought, the topic was dropped immediately.

Pretty much every creationist except Hovind has realized that this argument is bunk. I'll even post AIG's page telling you NOT to use this one.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/moondust.asp
They (Nasa) realized they were wrong and corrected BEFORE launching, not after landing and seeing they were wrong in person.

this is done all thetime, i will have to think where i can find some examples to post up.

I'll be waiting.

sorry doesn't fly. it would have been stated by Jesus if that were the case but what He did say---'...by their fruits ye shall know them...' NOT apostolic succession.

Fruits like denouncing most of His other followers?
Just as so many other things that came after the Bible, like the Internet, the computer you are using, WWII, and many others are mentioned by Him?

you forget, i don't consider TE's as true christians , if they are lucky they are deceived believers but that is up to God. where are your creationists? your independents? why just atheists and TE's?

Oh yes. I forgot it's all according to what YOU think is a real Christian.
And the other 5% were the creationists. 40+55=/= 100.
Also, keep in mind that that wasn't a survey just of biologists, but of all scientists. Since there aren't any major issues in, say, electrical engineering or chemistry where there are ~5% creationists on the one side and the 95% of everyone else on the other, it should tell you that there isn't a huge gap between their understandings and results because of their belief systems. Heck, some people in my chemical engineering classes are YECs and we still get the same answers for the problems we do when we do them right. (but you'll probably say that's anecdotal evidence and therefore doesn't count.)

John 1:14 & 17;3:21; 7:18-19; 8:42-47; acts 20:29-30;
28:25-27; 2 cor. 4:2; 11:10; 13:8; 2 Th. 2:10; Titus 1:14;

i could go on but this should demonstrate that there seems to be only 1 truth.

Cute. Very cute. But wrong. You see, there is a difference between one truth and one TYPE of truth. Yes, God is truth. God is the only truth. But it does not say God is only one type of truth. Just that God is the only truth. And since God is all-encompassing, His truth encompasses all the types of truths out there and is made up of all of them.
(by the way, I find it very ironic that you use Titus 1:14, because that verse tells us SPECIFICALLY to not pay attention to Jewish fables like the creation stories.)

if it is not of God then it is wrong and leads people astray.

So God is incapable of taking something outside of Himself and sanctifying it so it IS of Himself? Guess He's not that omnipotent after all.

2 peter 1:12-21

All that says is that the message came from God. If it is a non-literal message from God, it is still a message from God. And it still isn't said to be literal or non by the prophet who gave it.

Metherion

 

[theFijian]

John 1:14 & 17;3:21; 7:18-19; 8:42-47; acts 20:29-30;
28:25-27; 2 cor. 4:2; 11:10; 13:8; 2 Th. 2:10; Titus 1:14;

i could go on but this should demonstrate that there seems to be only 1 truth.

If literal truth is the only truth why on earth did Jesus use parables??? Dear me archie, your hermeneutic is full of holes.