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.
self defeating logic is the funniest sort.Mistermystery said:This works on so many levels:
1. This whole "man's theories is a lie"-theory is a theory of man.
2. Man's theories are lies.
3. Help help, this post is caught in a forum vortex of doom, and can't get out.
Because that is what this forum is for: a debate between creation and evolution.Dal M. said:So why is the theory of evolution your sole target?
he goes through phases. at the moment he is on the "everything I say is right and evolution is a lie, but I can't back either statement up" phase. he's not worth talking to at the moment because he just ignores everything you say or misrepresents you.Ryal Kane said:Is it just me or do Johns posts seem to be gettign less articulate. I seem to remember, when I first came to these boards (long time lurker) that while the science was debatable, at least the arguements were sound. Quoting scripture is limited enough in a science debate but to do so out of context with such a blatant bias seems a far cry from what I seem to remember of his old posts.
My memory could be wrong. Just a frail human being.
Ryal Kane
The fact is that the Earth was roughly spherical. What is being discussed in Genesis is the belief that the land [Earth] was without form, not the whole planet. The authors of the Bible, (most of it anyway) were unaware of the whole planet, and regarded the "Earth" only as the land above the sea.JohnR7 said:Genesis 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
These are the facts, that the earth was without form and void.
Actually, the days in Genesis were never supposed to be time periods of any duration. They were successive stages. Originally, before the old Hebrew tradition was altered, these were generations. Each stage of creation was completed by a different generation of gods. Men were created by the sixth generation so that the seventh generation could rest.Now according to the OEC the earth was in this condition million or billion of years ago. This is not a literal interpertation of the Bible though. In order to have a literal interpertation then a day in Genesis must be 1000 years. Unless someone can show that a day in Genesis is anything other than 1000 years.
Well, yes, it does.This does not falsify the OEC that is still true.
Don't forget theistic evolution. I know of at least one world-famous, respected and peer-reviewed paleontolgist who is also a fiery Pentecostal preacher, and he goes into some considerable historic detail defending the Bible and evolution.Often the Bible talks about two or more things at one time. So, if you eliminate the YEC, then the only thing left is the GAP.
True. But the first vestiges of this tale are estimated to have been conceived at some point between 3700 BCE and 2200 BCE. The only mammoths left anywhere at that time were stuck on islands in the North Pacific that no one in the Middle-East would have known about.Now according to the GAP Genesis 1:2 took place 12,000 to 14,000 years ago. Now, if you look to science they have some interesting things to say about what happened during this time frame. The ice was melting, the ocean level was rising and there was something going on called the late Pleistocene Extinctions
That's good advice. I never deny any fact, so I am able to see what is true. How about you?Now, you can try to deny the facts all you want, but your denyal of the truth is not going to change the truth one tiny little bit.
But in this case, it isn't God you're talking about but the Bible, which was written by men, not God. To believe otherwise, and to worship it the say you say here, (where anything and everything which contests it must be execrated) constitutes idolatry.As the Bible says: Let God be true and every man a liar.
Actually, "the Devil" you're talking about is a weird twist on Satan, (Shaitan in Hebrew). The word simply means "opposer", and specifically, "one who opposes faith". The idea seems to have come from Zoroastrian belief in Ahriman, "the opposer" who rules the kingdom of the lie.That is exactly the condition that fallen man is in. He has bought into Satan lies. The devil is a liar and the father of all liars.
The only reason "one who opposes faith" is considered a liar is because 'faith' demands you consider all men liars who oppose your sacred dogma. Of course if the dogma is the lie, your faith will prevent you from ever realizing that. What John is arguing against is not some malevolent spirit or demon; he is arguing against cognitive reason which stands against the blind faith he demands.John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
This much is true.So, if you do not abide in the truth, then the only thing that remains is a lie
If you are capable of participating in a formal debate where we each must answer every direct question to the best of our ability within reason, and we each must properly address every point of evidence levied against us. That means if you can't defend any point, you will be expected to concede it. If you can do abide by that, then I can prove that evolution is at least basically true, and considerably more accurate than any other competing concept including Genesis. I can prove that to your satisfaction, not mine, and I can prove it so conclusively, that you will admit it publicly, and be some form of 'evolutionist' from that point on. Whaddya say?and man's theory of evolution is a lie.
That's dogmatism, and dogmatism itself is a lie; a lie which eminates from the auto-deceptive nature of faith. I don't have that, so I am able to see any truth that presents itself, even if it isn't one I wanted to see. Its very liberating to live without faith.Man's theorys are always going to be a lie, because they start with man and not with God. All truth comes from God.
This much is true.As you say, the facts are consistant and you can not change them. You can not change the fact that the would went though radical changes 12,000 years ago.
Nope. Sorry. The Bible is not supported by anything other than itself, and even that is not consistently true.The facts support the Bible.
True enough. But yours is not truth. Yours is only the dogma of religious faith, defined as a stubborn conviction held in lieu of, or (as we see here) even in spite of, evidence or logical proof. So you will probably just ignore me, and refuse my challenge, and go on pretending that everything we know is a lie and your fabulous fables are unasailable. But I really can prove otherwise.Your opinions about the facts do not really mean anything at all, if it does not line up with the truth.
Yes, we did cover that along the way. We talked about how evolution has it's roots in beliefs that go back even before Christ. We talked about how the early church father argured against some of the very things that creationists argue against today.Freodin said:Short question (forgive me if it has already been asked - I only read to page three):
If the mentioned "delusion" refers to the Theory of Evolution - why did God wait 1800 years until he send it? Were there no "deniers of the truth" around at the time the letter was written?
Theistic evolution does show a large number of people in the polls. But remember there is a harlot apostate church out there.Aron-Ra said:Don't forget theistic evolution.
The problem here is what you mean by: "defend a point". If I have to use science to argue against science, then I would say that your working with a stacked deck of cards. While I do believe in true science, what we know as science has been far to often corrupted by man.If you are capable of participating in a formal debate where we each must answer every direct question to the best of our ability within reason, and we each must properly address every point of evidence levied against us. That means if you can't defend any point, you will be expected to concede it. If you can do abide by that, then I can prove that evolution is at least basically true, and considerably more accurate than any other competing concept including Genesis. I can prove that to your satisfaction, not mine, and I can prove it so conclusively, that you will admit it publicly, and be some form of 'evolutionist' from that point on. Whaddya say?
That I would like to see. Of course man's theory of evolution has been falsified by science. They have basicly replaced it with a theory of decent, But they still call it evolution.I can prove that to your satisfaction, not mine, and I can prove it so conclusively, that you will admit it publicly, and be some form of 'evolutionist' from that point on. Whaddya say?
What was this theory of evolution that was falsified, in what way does it differ from this 'theory of decent' you mention, and in what way is modern evolutionary theory not evolution?JohnR7 said:That I would like to see. Of course man's theory of evolution has been falsified by science. They have basicly replaced it with a theory of decent, But they still call it evolution.
According to man's hyper theory species may evolve, they may degenerate or they may stay the same, they only make a natural change. But they still call it evolution. Also, from what I understand about it, changes take place between the generations. So if you do not descend or have a descendant, then no "evolution" or change can take place.PhantomLlama said:What was this theory of evolution that was falsified, in what way does it differ from this 'theory of decent' you mention, and in what way is modern evolutionary theory not evolution?
JohnR7 said:According to man's hyper theory species may evolve, they may degenerate or they may stay the same, they only make a natural change. But they still call it evolution. Also,from what I understand about it, changes take place between the generations. So if you do not descend or have a descendant, then no "evolution" or change can take place.
Theistic evolutionists represent approximately 40% of the United States population. So the only 1st world nation where there are also a significant number of creationists is still divided pretty much half-and-half with theistic evolutionists. Throughout the rest of the Christian world, theistic evolutionists tend to be the majority, and this is especially true across Europe. What polls were you referring to? Because I want to see their figures.JohnR7 said:Theistic evolution does show a large number of people in the polls. But remember there is a harlot apostate church out there.
What I mean is simply this; if you cite any claim or evidence supposedly supported by "real science" you will be expected to explain and defend that claim with "real science". If you make a claim based on logic, you must defend that point with logic. In other words, you must use reason. If you don't give me some reason to believe you, there will be no reason to believe you. Get it?The problem here is what you mean by: "defend a point". If I have to use science to argue against science, then I would say that your working with a stacked deck of cards. While I do believe in true science, what we know as science has been far to often corrupted by man.
I don't mean to mislead you. The Bible is a storybook, nothing more. It is a compilation of the elder fables of Hebrew tradition, and is no more an authority than the Bhagavad-Gita, the Zend Avesta or any other compilation of fables promoted as the "one true word of God". Quoting your scriptures to me would be as meaningless as me quoting Probhupada, Aesop, Shakespear or Lovecraft to you.I could use the Bible, but then it would be far to easy for you to say that the scripture is taken out of context or does not apply to that situation. So, while you may not deny the Bible, you would be denying the use of the Bible as a way to defend a point.
As I am a college-level student of evolutionary biology, I know for a certain fact that it has not been falsified. This is one of those claims I was talking about where you will be expected to defend it with real science. So, how was it falsified, and by whom? And why do the whole of mainstream science still attest that evolution is an observed fact? With something of this magnitude, you should certainly be able to cite the peer-reviewed journal(s) this was published in. But if not, that's fine. Because with news THIS big, everyone with a television should already know all about it.That I would like to see. Of course man's theory of evolution has been falsified by science. They have basicly replaced it with a theory of decent, But they still call it evolution.
And we theistic evolutionists are NOT members of it !!!JohnR7 said:Theistic evolution does show a large number of people in the polls. But remember there is a harlot apostate church out there.
Assuming there is, which one is it? So many churches; so hard to tell...JohnR7 said:Theistic evolution does show a large number of people in the polls. But remember there is a harlot apostate church out there.
Not at all. If you're going to compete on a football field, play football, not hockey.The problem here is what you mean by: "defend a point". If I have to use science to argue against science, then I would say that your working with a stacked deck of cards.
Some of whom did so with a Bible in their hand.While I do believe in true science, what we know as science has been far to often corrupted by man.
Christians would be denying the misuse of the Bible. Is there something wrong with that?I could use the Bible, but then it would be far to easy for you to say that the scripture is taken out of context or does not apply to that situation. So, while you may not deny the Bible, you would be denying the use of the Bible as a way to defend a point.
Because it is.That I would like to see. Of course man's theory of evolution has been falsified by science. They have basicly replaced it with a theory of decent, But they still call it evolution.
JohnR7 said:Yes, we did cover that along the way. We talked about how evolution has it's roots in beliefs that go back even before Christ. We talked about how the early church father argured against some of the very things that creationists argue against today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?