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.
And this is where you cross the line. Its one thing to disagree with folks. Its another thing entirely to basically call the ministries deliberate thieves and anyone that supports them ignorant toadies.
What if a ministry genuinely is dishonest and supported only by ignorant toadies? It seems to me that in such a case, calling them on their behavior is not only appropriate, but necessary.
And I've seen many MANY people turned off to Christianity thanks to creationists such as Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. To them, Christianity is made up of liars who elevate dishonesty and credulity to virtues, who see skepticism as a vice, and who go about making fallacious claims in God's name. What do you say to such people, laptoppop?
I appreciate your position and your honesty. I believe that truth can stand up to any examination -- and I hope you hang around and we can discuss more details.
Oh really? This sounds like a rather serious charge against fellow forum-members. Maybe you'd better provide some citations or withdraw the accusation.
Again, you'd better back this up.
Fair enough -- and yes, it looks like I was responding while you were deleting. I want to say that I really appreciate your understanding that it was coming off too strong.
Since I've begun studying the OT heavily, it becomes increasingly clear to me the books of the OT, particularly the early ones, were written to address the early Hebrews on terms they could understand and they pull elements of other lands' oral traditions and their own oral traditions and combine them together. 
I believe this is because they feel it is important to present a solid Biblical foundation for someone's faith. You must admit, that taking it at face value, is a great deal easier for a non-believer than what we are going through here. I mean, if I think about everything I've had to read, research and evaluate, just to *fingers crossed* sound knowledgeable enough to actually discuss something, it's ridiculous.
) creationism wins. If the first man was made from dust, that doesn't change the fact that every subsequent man and woman has been made from sperm and egg with nary a whiff of the supernatural. If the creationists prove that the first six days and a year in the middle of creation were chock full of miracles, that doesn't explain how the spiritual world went incognito for thousands of years in between. And just because science can't explain how a few nanostructures in life came about doesn't mean it's going to let go of the rest of the universe on every conceivable scale any time soon.
Aaaaaaaaand here we go, like I said I am simply offering what I perceive as their reasons behind it. I agree with them, but that's neither here nor there. If you don't accept them (the reasons they are doing it) you will likely continue to bathe in incredulity, not understanding why and so on and continue to post as such, I'm not bandying words with you, it really isn't my loss at the end of the day now is it?We don't need people to become degree-holding evolutionary biologists before they become Christians! But no, I don't think taking it "at face value" (whatever that means) makes life any easier for the theist. Why, after all, would God want to communicate "at face value"? God can communicate any way He wishes, and He made us so capable of grasping metaphor and the non-literal in communication that I think it would be an utter shame for Him not to tickle those circuits once in a while!
Evolution is simple to understand. Of course, it is difficult to convince a skeptic (by definition) but the core of it is really simple: Populations adapt to environmental changes over time; these adaptive changes accumulate into the development of new biological features, developmental sequences or behavioral patterns, which are cumulatively responsible for the generation of presently-observed biodiversity from primeval life. That's really all there is to it. And before you protest that it's difficult to prove: how do you know that atoms exist, or that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that your doctor really earned his qualifications from a medical school instead of going to a degree mill? All manner of people accept that E=mc^2 today; frankly, it's at least three times less obvious than evolution in everyday life (plus most people don't get it either, anyway), and yet people accept the counterintuitive notion that mass changes into energy far more easily than the intuitive notion that small changes add up to large changes.
And to be honest, I don't think evolution is a big impediment to accepting the Bible. That there are figurative texts in the Bible is something only the most hardened atheist would ignore. That Genesis 1 might be one of those - it's then that the Christians start getting on our case as well. But from a textual point of view there is nothing that really distinguishes the passage from anything that can be taken non-literally - it has a refrain, for crying out loud! - so it is really a matter of philosophy. What does it mean for man to have a natural origin? What does it mean for science to be operative in the world and where does that leave miracles? How can a loving, personal God be related to a creation that seems to run on clockwork?
These questions won't go away even if (per imposibile!
Whatever the creationists think they're doing simply won't help in the long run. Do they get people saved? By the grace of God yes - but by hardly anything else!
Oh, I understand their reasoning for what they do. If that's what you wanted to achieve, then you achieved it. At the same time, I'm just not convinced at all that it's a valid reason. If creationists think that dispelling evolution will help their cause, I think they're mistaken, and I have every right to say that I think they're mistaken. If you have any evidence to the contrary, do present it. I change my mind when I'm shown that I'm wrong. I used to be a creationist myself, after all.
This is what I like to call Gospel abuse
I'm actually quite a Gospel literalist, so I usually take offense to misrepresented verses, from the Gospel.
The verse here is just a rephrasing of what Christ says in other parts of the gospel, and what Isaiah says:
"And he replied: Go and say to this people: Listen carefully, but you shall not understand! Look intently, but you shall know nothing!
You are to make the heart of this people sluggish, to dull their ears and close their eyes; Else their eyes will see, their ears hear, their heart understand, and they will turn and be healed."
I find something terribly sad about using these verses to defend one's position whether it be inerrancy, dispentionalism, or gap theories, etc..
The first question that should be asked when one reads these verses, is it I who is closing my eyes, is it my heart that is sluggish? Is there a message in the gospel that I refuse to believe, refuse to follow? What you will find is that there is. Figure out what are those things, which you refuse to follow, refuse to believe, and then your eyes will be opened. The verse is a return to God after we have lost our way, it is a call to repentance, to follow the will of God. Do not take it, and make it less than that.
But to steal that verse from the Gospels to defend one's position, is a great crime I think.
Ah ha ha ha! This is the most hilarious thing I've read all day (though I admit I have yet to visit Uncommon Descent). You go around telling people that they worship science, you add nothing to the discussion yourself, then you complain about the arrogance of others when they don't automatically accept your unsupported claims...and you expect me to believe that you're the "real scientist"? You remind me of "Dr." Kent Hovind more than Hawking or Dawkins.
Do you have anything to add to the discussion besides falsehoods and insults? Where has Arunma ever told people they worship science? Unlike you, he seems interested in discussing facts and positions. Oh, and by the way, Arunma is not a "creationist" -- check his profile.
