Earth

[lucaspa]

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Creation shows that there is good and evil in the world. Creation also perdicts that good will ultimately win out over evil.

Creation shows that the world we live in is fallen in some way. But also creaton perdicts that all of creation will be restored so that it will become like pardise.

You went off topic again. Jet Black said "Originally Posted by Jet Black
Creationism does not predict anything."

Notice that Jet Black used the word "creationism" and you went off topic with "creation".

Creationism is the scientific theory and makes predictions of how the physical universe should look. You are talking about the theological concepts of good and evil. Science doesn't address those concepts and all, and neither does creationism.

As to "the world we live in is fallen in some way", this is not a prediction because it doesn't forbid anything. That is, any data can be explained by simply saying "the world is fallen".

By "prediction", we don't mean predicting the future, but predicting facts or knowledge that will be found. So what specifically should we find in the physical universe from the statement "the world is fallen"?

 

[lucaspa]

It depends if the evidence lines up with the word of God. IF it contradicts the Bible, then it is not relyable "evidence".

Setting up the Bible as a false idol.

John, who created the universe? Who put everything we find in the physical universe in that universe?

So why would evidence in the physical universe not be reliable? Considering who it comes from.

Do you understand that we don't care if the evidence lines up with what you say "the word of God" is?

 

[lucaspa]

"Originally Posted by lucaspa
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437 "

No, I do not accept that statement. Esp. when you use the word: "appears".

Mark 13:22
for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order, if possible, to lead the elect astray.

What does the word "appears" mean to you?

I read it as of course the physical universe can't contradict the Bible, because both are from God. But since our interpretation of the Bible isn't from God, then the interpretation can be, and is, wrong.

John, you put the verse up from Mark to apply to anyone who accepts evolution. I could intepret that as a personal attack. However, instead show us how that verse doesn't equally apply to the positions of you and your fellow creationists. Why aren't you a "false Christ and false prophet"? Remember that I have already argued that you are worshipping a false idol. That would put your positions into both the "false Christ and false prophet" categorty, wouldn't it?

 

[lucaspa]

There is nothing hypothetical about that statement. Either something lines up with the living word of the living God, or it does not. There is no middle ground. You are either for God, or against Him. Your either saved or your lost.

Is it possible to be against your interpretation of "the living word of the living God" or is your interpretation absolutely correct? If you say it is absolutely correct, how do you explain why your interpretation doesn't fit with God's other living word: His Creation?

Can I be against your position about God and still be for God? Can I be saved and you lost?

 

[JohnR7]

Can I be saved and you lost?

Are you saved? Then show me your fruit: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, & Self Control.

Matthew 3:10
"And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

 

[JohnR7]

But since our interpretation of the Bible isn't from God, then the interpretation can be, and is, wrong.

You know, I almost never talk about my interpretation of the Bible on here. So how do you even know what my interpretation even is?

 

[JohnR7]

Yes, God can draw people to Him. But your god has to have you to lead people to it.

Again, all your doing is showing me how misinformed you are.

 

[Siliconaut]

@John: First you say:

You know, I almost never talk about my interpretation of the Bible on here. So how do you even know what my interpretation even is?

... and then you go and *wham!* refute your previous statement:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by lucaspa
Yes, God can draw people to Him. But your god has to have you to lead people to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, all your doing is showing me how misinformed you are.

That's your interpretation. You are constantly arguing with your interpretation of the bible in mind. While we can't pinpoint your every thought on every verse, we can certainly deduce your general stance on how certain parts of the bible should be interpreted - e.g. you have expressly told us how exactly "In the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth" should be interpreted in another thread.

Your total, wilful ignorance of data contrary to your preconceived notions is, thankfully, not shared by modern christianity, but only by a loud minority.

 

[JohnR7]

That's your interpretation.

What is my interpretation?

 

[Jet Black]

address his whole point, not just pull a line out at random and (purposely?) attempt to drag the conversation off topic

 

[JohnR7]

address his whole point,

I do not know what his point is, to address it.

 

[Jet Black]

stop pulling parts of what people say and addressing it as if it is all they have said.

 

[JohnR7]

stop pulling parts of what people say and addressing it as if it is all they have said.

I am not saying that is all they said. That is all I choose to comment on. I do not have time to comment on everything people say.

 

[Jet Black]

but selective quoting distorts what people say though, so in effect you are not answering their question, which is what you have done to me and others almost continually since I got here about a week ago.

 

[Siliconaut]

John, when you state that lucaspa is misinformed because he thinks god doesn't need *you* to lead people to him, then that's your interpretation of what god wants. Piece of cake.

 

[JohnR7]

John, when you state that lucaspa is misinformed because he thinks god doesn't need *you* to lead people to him, then that's your interpretation of what god wants. Piece of cake.

When my first son was 3 years old, he use to try and dress himself. Somehow he would get his shirt on inside out and backwards. That is the same thing you have managed to do here. You not only have it back wards, you have it inside out also.

 

[JohnR7]

but selective quoting distorts what people say though, so in effect you are not answering their question, which is what you have done to me and others almost continually since I got here about a week ago.

Like I said, I quote the part that I am commenting on. I leave out the part I do not comment on. You people seem to want to try and take everything I say and use it as a weapon against me. That is why I seldom discuss my personal beliefs on here.

 

[Jet Black]

I am merely pointing out that you quote part of what someone says, and hence don't answer at all the intended meaning of what it is that they are saying. what you are commenting on has little or no bearing on what they are actually saying.

 

[JohnR7]

I am merely pointing out that you quote part of what someone says, and hence don't answer at all the intended meaning of what it is that they are saying. what you are commenting on has little or no bearing on what they are actually saying.

At least I give them a clue. You don't use the quote function at all, and leave it up to us to guess at who your talking to and what your responding to. At least I give people a little bit of something to go by.

 

[Siliconaut]

@John:

When my first son was 3 years old, he use to try and dress himself. Somehow he would get his shirt on inside out and backwards. That is the same thing you have managed to do here. You not only have it back wards, you have it inside out also.

Please elaborate. I think I made myself pretty clear, please do me the same favor.