Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[lasthero]

No, that's where oil and coal comes from.

Getting past the fact there's no evidence the oil we observed was made 4,000 years ago in one event, if the flood killed plant and fungal life all over the world, what exactly did herbivores and fungivores eat?

 

[Skaloop]

No, that's where oil and coal comes from.

No, it's not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that's where oil and coal comes from.

If that was true you could use flood "geology" to predict where we can find oil.

Too bad that no one does.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, that's where oil and coal comes from.

If that were the case concentrations of oil should be greater around areas with land surfaces rather than under water, and that isn't the case.

 

[EternalDragon]

If that were the case concentrations of oil should be greater around areas with land surfaces rather than under water, and that isn't the case.

If it weren't for the flood you wouldn't have large areas of oil and coal under the earth.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If it weren't for the flood you wouldn't have large areas of oil and coal under the earth.

You apparently didn't get the hint in my statement, but just for the sake of informing you, much higher concentrations of oil are under water covered areas, not land masses. We can just get to the land sources easier. If the flood and the death resulting from it created all that oil, it stands to reason areas that were already covered in water should have the least amount of it, as, per "bible logic", sea creatures didn't suffer much in the way of casualties from the flood and thus wouldn't have formed oil from such an event. Of course, reality doesn't match up with your claim at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that were the case concentrations of oil should be greater around areas with land surfaces rather than under water, and that isn't the case.

Again, no. There was no flood. That foolish idea was debunked long before Darwin's time.

There are no flood sediments. Geologists know what flood sediments look like and we do not have thousands and thousands of feet of flood sediments.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Again, no. There was no flood. That foolish idea was debunked long before Darwin's time.

There are no flood sediments. Geologists know what flood sediments look like and we do not have thousands and thousands of feet of flood sediments.

-_- I wasn't agreeing with the flood.

 

[46AND2]

I was under the impression that you were a former Christian.....so I would assume you would know why the Jews made the mistake of rejecting Christ.

Yes, I know why Christians say that Jews make the mistake of not accepting Christ as the messiah...

However, since I have been able to read the Bible more objectively, I completely agree with the Jewish scholars that Jesus did not fulfill their requirements of a messiah.

As I have stated, every messianic prophecy that the NT says that Jesus fulfilled has been taken out of context from the OT (or even was not present in the OT), usually not even intended to BE a messianic prophecy.

 

[46AND2]

Well, the verse context is of course a whole other debate. But my dictionaries all assert "Parthenos" refers to a virgin. The Song of Solomon, being a song of courtship, would certainly consider the prospective bride to be a virgin, so I'm not sure how your reference would apply there, either. You are, of course, referring to the Septuagint for the Song of Solomon, and not the Hebrew?

My apologies for the Song of Solomon mixup. The discussion I was reading included both parthenos and the Hebrew word almah. The reference to Song of Solomon was in relation to the Hebrew text.

However, I stand by my claim that parthenos does not always mean virgin. In Genesis 34:2-4, parthenos is used to describe a woman who has been defiled.

But it is not surprising that your dictionaries tell you that it means virgin, because it has come to take on that meaning in modern Greek, but at the time of the Septuagint, it usually meant virgin, but could also be used, much like the Hebrew word almah, as young woman.

And the context is important here, because most Christian scholarship agrees that this is a "dual" prophecy dealing with both a modern time (at the writing of Isaiah) child, and with Jesus. Therefore, by necessity, the word would have to be somewhat ambiguous, since the first "fulfillment" would clearly not be a virgin birth.

Of course, the more parsimonious explanation is that it was a contrived fulfillment of prophecy by Matthew, and no such "dual" prophecy actually exists.

 

[stevevw]

So much for your god being omnipotent then.

Why Jesus defeated sin and death. He came back from the dead. I cant think of any greater power than to be able to come back from the dead. So death could never ever have any power of us if we believe in Jesus. That is a knock out blow if you ask me.

And so much for your god being omniscient then.

There is a difference between being omniscient and choosing not to use it and not having those powers at all. Jesus became man so that he could save us. He became flesh and was sacrificed for our sins so that we may be able to come to God justified with our sins forgiven. Big difference.

Which was his plan in the first place.

Jesus being flesh and could feel all the weaknesses of man. So He could feel scared and fear what was happening. He was an innocent man being accused of something He didn't do. He could have went off at them or defended Himself or saved Himself but He didn't. He simple told the truth and they were going to crucify Him no matter what.

Being a pain in the neck and getting himself nailed to a cross might have had something to do with it as well.

How was he a pain in the neck. Gee someone telling the truth is not a pain in the neck. The only ones causing any pain or being a nuisance were the rulers who sentenced an innocent man to death. Even pilot said he could find no fault in Him and washed his hands of the matter.

So, not dead at all. Hurrah!

He was dead but then he was raised from the dead. He defeated death and Hades.

Yes, primitive blood sacrifice. Not religion's most sophisticated idea.

Except this one was the ultimate one that purchased our salvation. There was no need for any more.

Except it wasn't a sacrifice at all as you've just pointed out yourself.

I dont understand what you are meaning.

Just for clarification, who does the forgiving in this story? Who is the sacrifice supposed to impress enough to allow some forgiving to take place?

God the father the creator of everything. The one in the old testament who people use to sacrifice to so their sins could be atoned. He will forgive our sins if we come to Jesus and seek redemption. We are all sinners and unworthy before God but Jesus has bought us freedom by His death on the cross. He took on our sin so that we could be made righteous before God.

 

[46AND2]

Then they're wrong.

After the Scriptures were completed in AD 96, there was no need for anymore prophets to add to Them.

Put another way, God finished writing His Diary in the first century AD.

And they think you are wrong...

Like I said, as always, it boils down to interpretation...

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Why Jesus defeated sin and death. He came back from the dead. I cant think of any greater power than to be able to come back from the dead. So death could never ever have any power of us if we believe in Jesus. That is a knock out blow if you ask me.

You said this omnipotent being was reduced to one choice. Does that sound like omnipotence to you?

There is a difference between being omniscient and choosing not to use it and not having those powers at all. Jesus became man so that he could save us. He became flesh and was sacrificed for our sins so that we may be able to come to God justified with our sins forgiven. Big difference.

So you are saying that your god is omniscient, but chooses not to use his omniscience to know what it's like to be human. Really? in your words "God became jesus...to know the experiences of man". You don't regard this as a rather laborious roundabout route of knowing something for a being who is omniscient? It doesn't strike you as ridiculous in any way?

Jesus being flesh and could feel all the weaknesses of man. So He could feel scared and fear what was happening. He was an innocent man being accused of something He didn't do. He could have went off at them or defended Himself or saved Himself but He didn't. He simple told the truth and they were going to crucify Him no matter what.

When I said it was his plan in the first place I meant that, being omniscient, god would have known the whole storyline before he even created the universe. It was his plan all along.

How was he a pain in the neck. Gee someone telling the truth is not a pain in the neck. The only ones causing any pain or being a nuisance were the rulers who sentenced an innocent man to death. Even pilot said he could find no fault in Him and washed his hands of the matter.

He deliberately went around preaching subversive rhetoric that got him noticed by roman authorities who were in the habit of crucifying subversives. Who are you going to blame? Especially as it was his plan to get himself nailed to a cross in the first place.

He was dead but then he was raised from the dead. He defeated death and Hades.

Yay, immortal being not dead after all.

Except this one was the ultimate one that purchased our salvation. There was no need for any more.

The ultimate in primitive religious blood sacrifices you mean? Way to go!

I dont understand what you are meaning.

You can't kill god. At best your story describes a rather elaborate suicide gesture by an immortal being. 'Immortal being pretends to kill himself'. Not quite the front page he was looking for. You needed a hell of a lot of spin to make people swallow that story.

God the father the creator of everything. The one in the old testament who people use to sacrifice to so their sins could be atoned. He will forgive our sins if we come to Jesus and seek redemption. We are all sinners and unworthy before God but Jesus has bought us freedom by His death on the cross. He took on our sin so that we could be made righteous before God.

So, god sacrificed himself in order to impress himself enough to do some forgiving, which he could't have done otherwise even though he's omnipotent. Correct?

 

[stevevw]

You said this omnipotent being was reduced to one choice. Does that sound like omnipotence to you?

Who said it was anything about being reduced to one decision. He was dealing with the situation as it came up and was presented to Him. Satan intervened and was trying to challenge God. God responded in the best way He knew how and that was to defeat what Satan had done and provide a way out for mankind.

So you are saying that your god is omniscient, but chooses not to use his omniscience to know what it's like to be human. Really? in your words "God became jesus...to know the experiences of man". You don't regard this as a rather laborious roundabout route of knowing something for a being who is omniscient? It doesn't strike you as ridiculous in any way?

It wasn't just about Jesus becoming flesh. It was about defeating the power of sin and death. Even though the flesh had died Jesus rose again. So death didn't keep Him down. Death is the end result of sin. The wages of sin is death. So by defeating death it no longer has a hold on us.

When I said it was his plan in the first place I meant that, being omniscient, god would have known the whole storyline before he even created the universe. It was his plan all along.

Yes but its not the way we think it would be. The bible says no one knows the mind of God. So we dont know the big picture of why and how this happened. You are only injecting what you think of how it was and why He would do the things he would do. It maybe that even though He does know all things He still had to do what He did as it was the best way to defeat Satan and make a connection with us. He may be able to be both all knowing and also someone that can feel and act in the position of how someone would be not knowing. Its like how can Jesus have the qualities of God and yet become man. He may know of all the Godly qualities and powers but then also have to be all the things that man is at the same time.

Afterall if Omniscience is knowing all things at the same time then He can feel and be all things at the same time. It is a concept that we find hard to comprehend. But what you are doing is putting limits and certain interpretations that you are deciding from a mind that is limited and doesn't understand in the first place.

He deliberately went around preaching subversive rhetoric that got him noticed by roman authorities who were in the habit of crucifying subversives. Who are you going to blame? Especially as it was his plan to get himself nailed to a cross in the first place.

He wasn't noticed by the roman authorities. he was singled out by the Jewish high priests who didn't like what he was saying. They accused Him of blasphemy. But if He truly was the Son of God then He wasn't blaspheming was He. But what Jesus was saying was the truth about how they were being Hypocritical. Remember Jesus was the fulfillment of the old testament so He had come to tell them that there was no need to keep doing all those rituals to keep the laws. We could now be born again in the spirit of God. They didn't like that and so they made a case against Him and got the Romans involved. The Romans thought He was an innocent if anything. But because the high priests had so much influence they got Pilot to go along for the ride.

Yay, immortal being not dead after all.

He was dead because He was flesh. But God raised Him and defeated death.

You can't kill god. At best your story describes a rather elaborate suicide gesture by an immortal being. 'Immortal being pretends to kill himself'. Not quite the front page he was looking for. You needed a hell of a lot of spin to make people swallow that story.

You dont believe anyway so what is the use of even telling you what the meaning of this was. It is the very core of a Christian belief.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1 ,14; Col. 2:9), and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.
Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? | Forgiven of sins in Jesus | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

So, god sacrificed himself in order to impress himself enough to do some forgiving, which he couldn't have done otherwise even though he's omnipotent. Correct?

No God the Father gave His only Son. Jesus prayed to His Father in the garden of Gethsemane. God said He was pleased with His son and Jesus said I go to be with my Father and sit at His right side. Ig God is omnipotent then He can be and do all of the above as He is omnipotent and omniscient. Like I said you are putting it all into a box of human thought and giving it certain limits and explanations that you dont know. You are reasoning according to your limited knowledge on something that is beyond our comprehension.

 

[Subduction Zone]

-_- I wasn't agreeing with the flood.

Sorry Sarah, I quoted E.D., but somehow the site messed up.

Certain members' names can affect the quote function sometimes and I did not see that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know why Christians say that Jews make the mistake of not accepting Christ as the messiah...

However, since I have been able to read the Bible more objectively, I completely agree with the Jewish scholars that Jesus did not fulfill their requirements of a messiah.

As I have stated, every messianic prophecy that the NT says that Jesus fulfilled has been taken out of context from the OT (or even was not present in the OT), usually not even intended to BE a messianic prophecy.

Yep, especially when they claim a number of "fulfilled prophecies" in the hundreds. Most of those are simply quote mines of the Bible.

If you ever have wondered why so many Christians have no shame about quote mining you can see where the practice started. If someone is willing to quote mine his own holy book do you think that he is going to be willing to give someone else's work the respect it deserves?

 

[AV1611VET]

And they think you are wrong...

Like I said, as always, it boils down to interpretation...

Without that interpretation, we would be under pressure by you scientists to accept them as legitimate.

(Why does this remind me of Frances Kelsey?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without that interpretation, we would be under pressure by you scientists to accept them as legitimate.

(Why does this remind me of Frances Kelsey?)

I don't know. But thank you for admitting that you are wrong. Without your failed interpretation you would have to accept reality, I could not have said it better myself

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Who said it was anything about being reduced to one decision.

You did. Here:

So The only way to restore that was to do something that would re establish the balance and power to man. Sin and death had to be defeated. The only thing that could do that was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Doesn't sound very omnipotent to me.

He was dealing with the situation as it came up and was presented to Him.

Everything seems to come as a surprise to your all knowing omniscient god!

Satan intervened and was trying to challenge God. God responded in the best way He knew how and that was to defeat what Satan had done and provide a way out for mankind.

God was reduced to trying to intervene in the mess he's created "the best way he knew how"? Seriously? Faced with a complete balls up your omnipotent god's solution is to pretend to sacrifice himself in human form so that he could permit himself to do a bit of forgiving? Really? Your god sounds not only limited and a bit dumb but also lacking in common sense. "Duh, I know I'm omnipotent, but, duh, I can't allow myself to forgive anyone until I've changed myself into human form and had myself nailed to a cross. Yeah, that's a plan." !!! Seriously?

It wasn't just about Jesus becoming flesh. It was about defeating the power of sin and death. Even though the flesh had died Jesus rose again. So death didn't keep Him down. Death is the end result of sin. The wages of sin is death. So by defeating death it no longer has a hold on us.

You seem to be forgetting that your god is immortal. He could transmute himself into a wooden coffin, have himself buried and rot in the ground for a thousand years and 'newsflash' he still wouldn't be dead. Get it?

Yes but its not the way we think it would be. The bible says no one knows the mind of God.

He's either omniscient or he isn't. Your god would appear to be severely mentally challenged.

So we dont know the big picture of why and how this happened.

The story is nonsensical, we can agree on that.

You are only injecting what you think of how it was and why He would do the things he would do.

No, I'm just following through the implications of him being omniscient.

It maybe that even though He does know all things He still had to do what He did as it was the best way to defeat Satan and make a connection with us.

Wave goodbye to omnipotence again.

He may be able to be both all knowing and also someone that can feel and act in the position of how someone would be not knowing.

Omniscient but just pretending not to be. Right.

Its like how can Jesus have the qualities of God and yet become man.

Being god, but just pretending not to be. I see.

He may know of all the Godly qualities and powers but then also have to be all the things that man is at the same time.

Yeah, but being god makes being a human for a short while just an exercise in passing the time. It's playtime. It's meaningless. He's still god. You can churn him up in a mincing machine: he's still god.

Afterall if Omniscience is knowing all things at the same time then He can feel and be all things at the same time.

Except when he's pretending not to be omniscient, apparently. But, yes, that would be about the size of it.

It is a concept that we find hard to comprehend.

Absolutely, because I seem to remember it's s quality that is self-contradictory, but it's one you've lumbered your god with so you have to live with the consequences.

But what you are doing is putting limits and certain interpretations that you are deciding from a mind that is limited and doesn't understand in the first place.

I'm not limiting him, you are. You want him to pretend not to be omniscient and to act as if everything came as a such a surprise to him that he makes truly bizarre decisions. That's you, not me.

He wasn't noticed by the roman authorities. he was singled out by the Jewish high priests who didn't like what he was saying. They accused Him of blasphemy. But if He truly was the Son of God then He wasn't blaspheming was He. But what Jesus was saying was the truth about how they were being Hypocritical. Remember Jesus was the fulfillment of the old testament so He had come to tell them that there was no need to keep doing all those rituals to keep the laws. We could now be born again in the spirit of God. They didn't like that and so they made a case against Him and got the Romans involved. The Romans thought He was an innocent if anything. But because the high priests had so much influence they got Pilot to go along for the ride.

OK, I won;t get into the history versus scripture argument about jesus's death because that's a whole 100 page thread in itself, but the basic point is that in order for god to do some forgiving, jesus had to get himself crucified. The whole plan would have been a washout otherwise.

He was dead because He was flesh. But God raised Him and defeated death.

Yeah, big deal. Immortal being not actually dead shocker.

You dont believe anyway so what is the use of even telling you what the meaning of this was. It is the very core of a Christian belief.

That's the point. The story at the centre of the christian religion is completely nonsensical. You've just been fed the story in a particularly angled way over and over again, so the idea of deconstructing it and looking at it in other ways that show it in a different light strikes you as utterly wrong. Probably even blasphemous.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1 ,14; Col. 2:9), and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.
Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? | Forgiven of sins in Jesus | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Yes, that's the story. Unfortunately it's got more holes in it than a colander.

No God the Father gave His only Son. Jesus prayed to His Father in the garden of Gethsemane. God said He was pleased with His son and Jesus said I go to be with my Father and sit at His right side. Ig God is omnipotent then He can be and do all of the above as He is omnipotent and omniscient.

If he is omnipotent and omniscient he wouldn't have need to do any of the above. That's the point. Not unless he was a complete nut job anyway.

Like I said you are putting it all into a box of human thought and giving it certain limits and explanations that you dont know.

No, I'm trying not to limit him. An omnipotent god can forgive anyone anything at anytime without having to go through a big drama pretending to be a human for a bit. He can just forgive. That is omnipotence. You are the one who wants a limited god.

You are reasoning according to your limited knowledge on something that is beyond our comprehension.

I'm not the one who lumbers your god with impossible qualities which he then doesn't live up to.

But I think even you can see that pretending to have yourself killed so you can then make a big deal out of doing some forgiving, (which being omnipotent you could have done anyway - that being the point of being omnipotent) isn't reflecting well on the main character. Or those who think the story is touching, come to that.

We still haven't even mentioned how someone else being tortured is supposed to absolve you of your crimes, but then that's just another twisted aspect of the tall tale.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't know. But thank you for admitting that you are wrong. Without your failed interpretation you would have to accept reality, I could not have said it better myself

You mean that if we reject the imaginings of people who make stuff up, we'd have to actually rely on the results of people who work for a living?

Say it ain't so, Shoeless Joe!