is creation outside of science's scope?

[archaeologist]

Your claim was both wrong and irrelevant, you do our own research

it is funny, i was doing some research for another topic and i ran nto this little tidbit which debunks the aboce rudenes:

http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/cdagenda.htm

The standard, long held view of the connection between Darwin's religion and his theory is wrong. Supposedly he was a Christian who studied at Cambridge to become a minister. But then, during his voyage around the world on the Beagle, the scientific facts persuaded him to believe in evolution and give up his Christian faith. However, an examination of the various influences upon the youthful Charles Darwin reveals an entirely different story

There is no evidence in all of Charles Darwin's published correspondence and writings that he ever embraced biblical Christianity. As we have seen, virtually all the formative influences on his thinking were contrary to Christian faith. He always concealed his rejection of Christianity, but in his 1876 Autobiography he stated his unbelief in very blunt, even crude words. His closest scientific associates were all men who had given up biblical Christian faith, and some of them were committed enemies of the faith. For example, Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was determined to discredit the biblical record of earth history, and Charles' "bulldog," anatomist T.H. Huxley, wrote that he was "sharpening [his] claws," ready to "disembowel" any clergymen who criticized Darwin's Origin of Species.

now hopefully this will inspire assyrian to re-think his uppity position and post links and quotes to back up his contentions instead of just declaring someone is wrong and going no further.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Has Archie loped off into the sunset ne'ver to come back?

(Oh wait, with a flat earth, can there be a sunset? Archie, how does that work?)

 

[KokoTheGorilla]

Koko loves Archie!

 

[Assyrian]

answer me this: you claim i am wrong though i have done my own research and had it confirmed by another person, and yet, you can't even post the link or quote that backs you up. why should i answer any more of your posts or take you seriously, when your credibility has been undermined by this one singular act of refusal to post what you have found, then demand that i do my own research?

how arrogant is that? it certainly isn't the christian attitude you claim to follow.

please do not ask me to provide any more sources until you can do the same for your own argument.

The irony here is breathtaking when you don't even provide a reference for your original claim for another 5 posts after that one.

I was the one who provided the text of Barr's letter you gave a cut and paste from. I kept asking you for the full text of the letter but you ran around in circles making excuses instead. You could have found it simply by
Googling: James Barr letter full text

Then you make a claim about Darwin and evolution that was not ony wrong but irrelevant. What was the point in providing references to show it was wrong, when you had not gone to the bother of checking it out yourself and you certainly had not provided any evidence to support your claim.

Why even go down that road when your whole claim is irrelevant even if it were true? The fact that scientists are not Christians, or that they do not ascribe their research to God does not invalidate the research. Watson and Crick were atheist or at least agnostic. The helical structure of DNA is still true even if they did not ascribe it to God. It was a Pagan Greek who discovered the earth is round. It is still true.

Instead of dealing with the fact that Watson and Crick's correct analysis of DNA completely debunks your whole point, you just going on about the basis of your irrelevant claim asking me for evidence when you had not done so yourself.

Your claim was both wrong and irrelevant, you do our own research

it is funny, i was doing some research for another topic and i ran nto this little tidbit which debunks the aboce rudenes:

http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/cdagenda.htm

The standard, long held view of the connection between Darwin's religion and his theory is wrong. Supposedly he was a Christian who studied at Cambridge to become a minister. But then, during his voyage around the world on the Beagle, the scientific facts persuaded him to believe in evolution and give up his Christian faith. However, an examination of the various influences upon the youthful Charles Darwin reveals an entirely different story

There is no evidence in all of Charles Darwin's published correspondence and writings that he ever embraced biblical Christianity. As we have seen, virtually all the formative influences on his thinking were contrary to Christian faith. He always concealed his rejection of Christianity, but in his 1876 Autobiography he stated his unbelief in very blunt, even crude words. His closest scientific associates were all men who had given up biblical Christian faith, and some of them were committed enemies of the faith. For example, Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was determined to discredit the biblical record of earth history, and Charles' "bulldog," anatomist T.H. Huxley, wrote that he was "sharpening [his] claws," ready to "disembowel" any clergymen who criticized Darwin's Origin of Species.

now hopefully this will inspire assyrian to re-think his uppity position and post links and quotes to back up his contentions instead of just declaring someone is wrong and going no further.

The first quote is a strawman, I certainly don't know any TE in this forum who views Darwin that way. He was a Unitarian rather than a biblical Christian and he struggled with his faith because of the death of his daughter Annie. All your quote shows is that he did struggle with his faith and that some of his friends and associates were atheists. How does that back up you claim that Darwin never ascribed evolution to God?

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/cequc101.html

"Darwin asked his imaginary reader to suppose the existence of: `a Being with penetration sufficient to perceive differences in the outer and innermost organization quite imperceptible to man, and with forethought extending over future centuries to watch with unerring care and select for any object the offspring of an organism produced under the foregoing circumstances, I can see no conceivable reason why he could not form a new race (or several were he to separate the stock of the original organism and work on several islands) adapted to new ends. As we assume his discrimination, and his forethought, and his steadiness of object, to be incomparably greater than those qualities in man, so we may suppose the beauty and complications of the adaptations of the new races and their differences from the original stock to be greater than in the domestic races produced by man's agency.... With time enough, such a Being might rationally (without some unknown law opposed him) aim at almost any result....Seeing what blind capricious man has actually effected by selection during the few last years, and what in a ruder state he has probably effected without any systematic plan during the last few thousand years, he will be a bold person who will positively put limits to what the supposed Being could effect during whole geological periods' (Darwin F., ed. "The Foundations of the Origin of Species, Two Essays Written in 1842 and 1844, by Charles Darwin," Cambridge UK, 1909, pp.85-87). A striking conception, this idea of a Master Breeder infinitely wise and patient, with infinite time at his disposal, who, carefully selecting from among the variations in nature those which suited his purposes, molded organic nature to his own wise ends. Such a Being could be little less than God Himself." (Greene J.C., "The Death of Adam: Evolution and its Impact on Western Thought," [1959], Mentor: New York, 1961, reprint, pp.261-262. Ellipses Greene's).

Now deal with the fact that your whole claim is irrelevant in the first place.

 

[Assyrian]

part 1--assyrian:
not afraid, just not there yet.

You mean you don't understand what the prophecy about the seed crushing the serpent's head meant? And you lecture us on the meaning of Genesis?

are you saying God can't literally take a rest?or how about He rested to provide an example for His creation to follow? still is literal.

Yet he uses the same word to describe his rest as are used to describe weary labourers. He was refreshed after he had a rest. How is the God who does not get tired refreshed after having a rest? Besides Jesus tells us his Father never stopped working. John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

read the passages again. it is quite clear how God did it.

What passages? The off topic word search for 'follow'? the word search for every reference to 'create' in the bible? You just claim unspecified passages support your claims about evolution. Show us which passages and show us why they mean what you think.

you don't get it. evolution is not of God it is in opposition to Him. until you realize that fact, this is pointless.

So I can only have a sensible discussion with you if I accept your unsupported view about evolution first?

yes it does. each close of a day the number is mentioned.

So what? It does not say there were six days. It mentions six different days but does not say they were consecutive, it does not even count the the way it does consecutive days are counted in the rest of the bible. And there was day and night before 'day one' even began. Look at the first half of verse 5.

it never says the days are consecutive

now you are desperate and reaching.

And that does not count as an answer. OK read Gen 2:4These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. How many days?

which biblical calendar days?? you really need to start posting links and quotes to make sense.

Check out Lev 23:32 the Sabbath runs from evening to evening.

prove this. do you really know moses' mind?

I know what he wrote in Psalm 90.

not at all. you obviously do not deal with atheists very much or people who regard the bible as fairy tales. what i ask of you is the exact same thing they ask of me.

So this is where you got the argument from. I asked you about it before and you did not answer. I will ask again:

Are you saying the atheists are right when they claim the bible does not provide independent witnesses, because the writers all believe in God? That the witnesses to the resurrection are not independent because they are all Christians?

If you want to use this argument against evolution you are selling your inheritance for a bowl of lentil soup.

you are assuming that science is infallible, sinless and has the ability to discern what God did eventhough God said 'my ways are not your ways' so how can science know if it is right if it can discern what God did?

youplace science on par with God yet it is rife with sin, corruptibility and under the authority of the evil one.

Why do you keep making the same mistakes over and over again? No science is not infallible, no one ever claimed it was infallible. No one ever claimed it is on a par with God.

But science has a pretty good track record when it is well tested. It does not try to discern God's ways, it just looks at the result of what God has created, the natural world.

The people who try to discern God's ways even though God said 'my ways are not your ways' are Christians who claim an infallible understanding of scripture and set their interpretation up against scientific research. They have failed in the past with flat earth and gecentrism, and they fail now. The only difference between flat earther and geocentrists, and our modern YECs is that the science behind the age of the earth and evolution is much stronger than the science these well meaning believers set themselves against in the past.

you love playing word games--did Jesus just give us His interpretation and the disciples were free to disagree with His words? or did Jesus tell them the truth about what the scriptures said and the disciples learned the true story?

which is it? you can't have it both ways.

If Jesus taught bible interpretations, then you claim i don't believe that Jesus taught that we are to follow interpretations is completely unscriptural.

Why should the disciples be free to disagree with his words? Why would they even consider that?

The question you should ask is whether Jesus gave them a complete list of all the bible interpretations? Or whether he showed them some interpretations, ones specifically about the messiah, but in doing so, taught them how to interpret scripture?

Now are you still avoiding the question about whether seed crushing the serpent's head is about the messiah? As a follower of Christ, has Jesus taught you how to interpret scripture?

the minute someone adds something to the Bible, like evolution, they have changed the God's word.

I don't add evolution to God's word. It doesn't mention it just like it doesn't mention a round earth, heliocentrism, gravitation, of the double helix of DNA. But they are all part of the heaven and earth the bible does say God created.

that is amazing. iguess everyone needs to throw their clocks and watches out now.

My watch is digital and the last computer to be made of clockwork was by Babbage. You were talking about clockwork computers weren't you? You do know we have progressed a bit since Babbage's Difference Engine?

And that was a lot more advanced than the ancient Greek 'clockwork computer' you mentioned, which was basically an early astrolabe.

do cell phones, satellites, movies, computers lead to God, give Him glory or is the glory given to man's intelligence? if you say the latter, then it is wrong.

more than one meaning to the word 'wrong'.

No they just work. Ancient boats never led a person to God, they weren't meant to. That responsibility is given to the church, not technology, though the church has always used the technology of the day.

Modern technology provides even better means of transport and communication because it is based on a better understanding of science. If the science was wrong the technology would not work, the same as a badly built boat would sink whether in the first century or now.

take it up with him, he is the one who said it. i don't know if i could explain this so you would be able to answer it.

You try to use Ecclesiates to support some weird view about ancient technology and when I point out the obvious flaws in your interpretation you tell me to take it up with Solomon?

not at all. i told you in another post, probably another thread, that all you have to do is go to the hospital matrnity ward, the vet's or even the plant nursery and you will see the results of creation in action everyday.

that proves creation but you cannot show me one transitioonal species to prove evolution all you can give are excuses.

What we see are the results of sexual and asexual reproduction. How does this 'prove' creation? Your claim you can 'prove creation' while science cannot prove evolution. Back it up.

Meanwhile if you want to look at a list of transitional species look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

as i have said i have to do a complete study on all the verse that refer to creation to provide you with any answers.

So perhaps you could hold back on making claims about what the bible says until you have studied what it says? just a thought.

that takes time BUT how do i know evolution is wrong? consider the source. consider its construct. consider the time frame. consider none of it is proven except by declatory statements and conjecture and pressupposition. consider that God is not invloved.

Science does not deal in proofs, it deals in evidence and the evidence supports evolution. Its source is scientists, just the same as the source we have for a round earth, heliocentrism, gravitation, the double helix of DNA and vast arrays of other scientific knowledge. And none of it depends on the scientists being Christians. None of it depend on the scientist realising God created it all. As for the timeframe, the young earth interpretation was shown to be wrong by Christan geologists long before Darwin arrived on the scene. And this was confirmed as more and more scientific discipline began to calculate the age of the earth an the universe.

Archie: that is another non-believer's favorite tricks--hide under the 'you do not understand' argument. please, i thought you could do better than this.
Assyrian: Generally TEs only use that with people who don't understand the science but think they do. You probably get it a lot though.
Archie: personal attacks will be ignored.

The irony. You accuse me of 'hiding' and 'using non-believer tricks' and I am the one making personal attacks.

i wouldn't jump the gun just yet.

Of course I don't expect you to actually admit you were wrong when you claimed you were able to test and observe creation. Not your style. I just point it out

only in a 'christinaized' version of the theory. if you think that evolution is from God, then you must not believe in a devil either and that he is active like scriptures says.

The science has show us the age off the earth, the bible tells us God created it all. What is the problem? Is it a 'christinaized' version of astronomy that says God created the solar system? It it a 'christinaized' version of biology that say God formed the double helix? Honestly your arguments make no sense. And what has believing in the devil got to do with anything? You are the one who cannot figure out who crushed is head.

show me the passage and credible sources wich state it is ametaphor. i do not take your word for anything anymore.

You are the one who claims you know when passages are literal. You whole argument against evolution is based on your claim to an infallible knowledge of this. Back it up. You asked for a verse that says they were a metaphor, that is a bit hypocritical when you know there are no verses that say they are literal.

I would expect a secular scientist to be able to tell me about the natural world.

you do not see what is wrong with that statement?

No.

Where does the bible say the natural man cannot understand the natural world?

On the other hand, understanding the universe around us is learning about God's handiwork. Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. You think that studying this is wrong?

if you do it the secular way--yes.

The psalm continues: 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice has gone out through all the earth, their words to the end of the world. The sky proclaims Gods handiwork and pours out knowledge. This proclamation goes throughout the world. Aren't people supposed to learn about this? Yet when the Psalmist wrote, the only people with any of the bible was located in a thin strip of land in the middle east.

How is it wrong to learn about God's handiwork in 'a secular way' when God appoints the sky to proclaim his handiwork throughout the world before he gave them the bible?

 

[Assyrian]

part 2--assyrian:
didn't admit anything of the sort. i just said everyone is guilty of it, which means you should drop the accusations, since you can't even provide one link to back up your statements. they at least do.

I have provided the full text of the letter which clearly makes a very different claim to the AiG extract. It flatly contradicts their whole point. You could not find any way to justify their twisting of Barr's letter, so you hid behind a claim everybody is deceitful.

if you read the books on heresies i alluded to, you would see that the exact same heresies that were present then are present today. not much has changed. even the idea of worshipping on sunday was already banded about in the 1st century. you have no argument here.

So tell me where was a figurative interpretation of the day of creation condemned as heresy in the early church? People denied the deity of Christ and it was labelled heresy. People denied Christ came in a physical body and it was labelled heresy. Why wasn't a figurative interpretation of the Genesis days labelled heresy when it came up?

they follow the same rules and principles--that does not make them independent.

It does if they can disagree with each other. But as I said before your argument leaves you with no independent witnesses to the bible or resurrection. Besides the fundamental principle in scientific research is a biblical one. Test everything. Hold on to what is good.

happens all the time.

Such as? And how does you non scientist check out his discovery with doing some science?

go to the jungles of south america--you will find many built with out aid of science and which last longer than scientific ones.

The oldest suspension bridge in the world Union Bridge over the River Tweed. it was built in 1820. Inca rope bridges have to be replaced every year because the ropes sag. The longest suspension bridge is the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge in Japan which is 3909m with a central span of 1998m. It is a six lane motorway. The longest rope bridge is across the Apurimac Canyon north of Cuzco. It is 67m long and I would not drive anything bigger than a llama across.

yes. they also built a computer.

No it was a mechanical astrolabe. Describing it as a 'computer' at least in any modern sense is a bit of hype. Put it this way, the only RAM it had was were it was marked with the zodiac sign Aries.

yes.

Evidence?

there is also a load of stuff that modern science does not understand--how did the egyptians build the pyramids without cranse and still be so exact?

You are confusing history with science. Knowing how the precise techniques the Egyptians used to built the pyramids is a very different question from being able to build things more precisely that they could. Modern science can take individual atoms and arrange them in a line.

how to cure the common cold, cancer, almheizers and so on. which do you think would be more beneficial--science sending a satillite into orbit or discoverying a cure for a disease?

Why it is a competition? The ancient Egyptians could do neither?

why should the ancients worry about space when they had a high mortality rate? your argument is baseless and redundent.

You are the one claiming they were as scientifically advanced as we are. Are you saying they did not explore space because they just weren't interested? LOL.

no, if anything, they and i get it from your remarks, and superiority complex. as i mentioned before, the ancient greeks built a computer which demonstrates they (and other ancients) had the same intelligence given to them by God as modern man has.

to state otherwise would be insulting to God and saying God lied when He gave all people talents and gifts.

Goodness, what a strange thought process.
You are just repeating yourself. Look at my answer the last time you made this claim. Intelligence is not the same as scientific development. And the Antikythera mechanism is not the same as a modern computer.

And what has translation got to do with it?

if you have to ask, then you know very little about he rules of translation. having done some in my time, one cannot just do what they want.

So you claim. Now answer the question. What has translation got to do with it?

i did a scriptural search for follow not a word search and i didn't use it to example it as a synonym for 'creation' please try to represent what i write correctly.

When I pointed out that not one of the verses you pasted said anything about creationism, you ranted on so you do not believe in synonyms either i see. do they ruin your theory by equalling the word 'created'??

Assyrian: Except not one of the verses said anything about creationism. That seems a regular feature of the verse lists you post and your public service cut and pastes

Archie: the former: there is a verse but somehow you miraculously decided it was metaphorical. (i will refrain from asking for your credentials as a translator or an expert in english language)

the latter: so you do not believe in synonyms either i see. do they ruin your theory by equalling the word 'created'??

Why did you bring synonyms up? Why accuse me of not believing in them? You pasted two lists, one a word search for 'create', that you claimed showed Jesus and Paul treating Genesis literally, the other a word search for 'follow', which you pasted when you were trying to prove God was not speaking metaphorically. Instead of show how God did not speak metaphorically from scripture you treated us to a word search saying we should follow the Lord.

Presumable by that you meant follow God by not taking his words metaphorically, even though you had not been able to show that from scripture.

It is in this context that you throw in the accusation of me not believing in synonyms for the word create. Which list was supposed to contain synonyms for create? The word search for create? You said synonyms. Or the list of verses with 'follow'? Where are the synonyms for create there?

unless you can show the exact biblical teaching on this then you are just wrong. there was nothing disrespectful that i did. i pointed out the many verses where both God and Jesus explicitly stated to follow them. not one verse states to follow any alternative. if you follow an alternative then you are not following God.

plain and simple.

We are told to honour God. Plastering a discussion with verse lists that have nothing to do with the quesion and claiming them as support is not honouring God or his word.

nor can you dismiss them as allegorical and metaphorical and make the claims and accusations you are making. God certainly did not say metaphorically to follow Him anyone who reads it as such, is looking for an excuse to ignore God's word and follow their own desires.

Where did I dismiss your verses lists as allegorical? What I said was:

Assyrian: Oh dear, I saw a list of bible quotes and I thought, great, some scripture we can get our teeth into. But no, just a bunch of irrelevant texts that say nothing about whether God was speaking metaphorically or not. Well you say we should follow Jesus, but Jesus never preached six day creationism. Why do you?

if you seek to follow God, how are His verses irrelevent to this debate? are you saying that God's word is irrelevent and only science is germane??

Because they say something we agree about. We all seek to follow Christ. You were trying to show us that following God means reading his words literally instead of metaphorically. How is a verse list on 'follow' supposed to be relevant in this debate?

 

[archaeologist]

was the one who provided the text of Barr's letter you gave a cut and paste from.

excuse me, i don't recall saying i cut and pasted, false accusations are ot christian. My comment wasn't a claim, it is a well known fact plus you failed to provide a link to support your statement. you rarely do, as many theistic evolutionists do, post any link to support your arguments. in scholarly circles you would be discarded and dismissed as non-credible and as not knowing what you are talking about.

The first quote is a strawman, I certainly don't know any TE in this forum who views Darwin that way. He was a Unitarian rather than a biblical Christian and he struggled with his faith because of the death of his daughter Annie.

so, that makes it and them right? sounds like manipulating the truth to me:

Like several scientists before him, Darwin believed all the life on earth evolved (developed gradually) over millions of years from a few common ancestors.

http://www.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html[/QUOT

does this sound like a man who believes in God? or followed His words?

your faith is misplaced.

Now deal with the fact that your whole claim is irrelevant in the first place.

not at all. that is not giving credit to God but a generic being incapable of having power to create what he wanted but is subject the option he thought would work.

a Being

quite clear that he did not know God nor attributed his thinking to God or gave Him credit. deists do not believe in God either.

if you look at what the Bible says: 'in the beginning God...' you will see that there is no generic reference but a very specific title so one has no doubt, when reading the passage WHO did it all.

evolution is not of God.

i will answer your to other posts later, if i am still allowed to post here.

 

[archaeologist]

assyrian:

No science is not infallible, no one ever claimed it was infallible. No one ever claimed it is on a par with God.

here is one quote taken from this forum:

we feel that science is revealing of God in an equal nature to the Bible,

http://www.christianforums.com/t5398551-how-do-tes-read-the-bible.html

that is wrong and not what God or the Bible teaches us. we do not need science to tell us anything about God. if that were so, then all missionaries would be trained scientists and the gospel an after thought.

notice the word 'we' in that quote.

You mean you don't understand what the prophecy about the seed crushing the serpent's head meant? And you lecture us on the meaning of Genesis

assumption and readinginto an answer what one wants.

Yet he uses the same word to describe his rest as are used to describe weary labourers

he rested, so what. are you invalidating scriptures and the establishment of the sabbath because you think God cannot rest for one day and do no work?

The off topic word search for 'follow'

it isn't off topic because it provides one reason why creation is out of reach of secular science--they do not follow God.

So I can only have a sensible discussion with you if I accept your unsupported view about evolution first?

where in scripture do you see evolution taught? it is not an unsupoorted view. believers are to go to God first, not secular science.

So what? It does not say there were six days

now who is reading into the text. are you saying that God picked 6 independent and non-consistent days to do His creative work/ please support that contention with scriptural teaching. secular science can't help you here as they do not know.

also we have the prrof that it was 6 consecutive days by the establishment of the week and the sabbath.

Check out Lev 23:32 the Sabbath runs from evening to evening.

read any commentary and word lexicon and you will see those words, evening and morning are in line with 24 hour days.

I know what he wrote in Psalm 90.

NOT PROOF

That the witnesses to the resurrection are not independent because they are all Christians?

no they weren't. 1. you forget that roman soldiers who were guarding the tomb. 2. you forget that the sanhedrian paid them off and did not doubt what they reported. 3. you forget that not one comment in opposition was made to the ressurrection until long after the last disciple died.

Are you saying the atheists are right when they claim the bible does not provide independent witnesses, because the writers all believe in God?

so your own question back at you--are they right?

If Jesus taught bible interpretations

you have a mis-understanding of the verse here and what jesus did. if jesus only taught 'a' interpretation, thenwe would be free to interpret the Bible any way we want to. lookat it again and you willsee he is teaching them the one true meaning.

teaching them 'a' interpretation would mean that Jesus was just a normal man looking to justify His beliefs and would not be preaching the truth.

don't add evolution to God's word. It doesn't mention it just like it doesn't mention a round earth, heliocentrism, gravitation, of the double helix of DNA. But they are all part of the heaven and earth the bible does say God created

you keep coming back to this, this must be the third or fourth time you have mentiooned these examples--asked and answered--move on.

by the way you do add evolution into God's word because you want to study and follow science not God.

My watch is digital and the last computer to be made of clockwork was by Babbage. You were talking about clockwork computers weren't you? You do know we have progressed a bit since Babbage's Difference Engine

i read your answer in the other thread, haven't got backto it to thankyou. what you said basically is that they just chnaged the mechanism so clockworks still run under the old-fashioned principle that there are 60 seconds ina minute, 60 minutes ina day and so on.
no biggy. i thought you meant that there was more divisions, amore accurate way of telling time.

You try to use Ecclesiates to support some weird view about ancient technology and when I point out the obvious flaws in your interpretation you tell me to take it up with Solomon

not at all. that was the starting point for a couple years of study which proved that verse true.

How does this 'prove' creation

everything goes as God ordained it. no evolution.

So perhaps you could hold back on making claims about what the bible says until you have studied what it says

not at all. i would just be looking for details, not change creation.

Science does not deal in proofs, it deals in evidence and the evidence supports evolution. Its source is scientists

you really don't see it do you?

And none of it depends on the scientists being Christians

yes it does, if you want the truth.

None of it depend on the scientist realising God created it all.

yes it does,if you do not want to be deceived.

As for the timeframe, the young earth interpretation was shown to be wrong by Christan geologists long before Darwin arrived on the scene. And this was confirmed as more and more scientific discipline began to calculate the age of the earth an the universe.

now you claim christians are right and did not make a mistake when they support your side. maybe those christians did not have enough evidence as you claim other christians did not have.

now who is not being honest.

The science has show us the age off the earth

the problem is, secular science is not of God and they didn't get it right. they do not know how old the earth is because no one knows when the beginning took place. they are guessing based upon insruments which no one can verify the accuracy

And what has believing in the devil got to do with anything

if yo do not know or have figured out the roleof the devil and cling to secular scence then you are lost.

Where does the bible say the natural man cannot understand the natural world

i believe i quoted the verses before 'they are being decieved and are deceiving' (paraphrase i believe it was in th ebooks of timothy)

How is it wrong to learn about God's handiwork in 'a secular way' when God appoints the sky to proclaim his handiwork throughout the world before he gave them the bible?

how do you know you are hearing them correctly when the secular way is of the devil?

I have provided the full text of the letter which clearly makes a very different claim to the AiG extract. It flatly contradicts their whole point. You could not find any way to justify their twisting of Barr's letter, so you hid behind a claim everybody is deceitful.

i am not going to waste time here. i saw nothing wrong with leaving that sentence out. it is a practice done throughout acadamia.

Why wasn't a figurative interpretation of the Genesis days labelled heresy when it came up?

prove it wasn't.

The oldest suspension bridge in the world Union Bridge over the River Tweed. i

so stronger materials were used, you can still do that without science.

Modern science can take individual atoms and arrange them in a line.

wow!!! and that is more impressive than building all the ancient structures without use of modern equipment or technology.

You are confusing history with scienc

that is a crock.

Why it is a competition? The ancient Egyptians could do neither

i wouldn't be too sure of that. they had plastic surgery back then. you would be surprised at all they could do.

You are the one claiming they were as scientifically advanced as we are

No, you mis-represent what i said-- i said they weren't dumb.

We are told to honour God. Plastering a discussion with verse lists that have nothing to do with the quesion and claiming them as support is not honouring God or his word.

i wasn't plastering anything, stop mis-representing what i do. scriptures is the word of God, and standing on it is what we are supposed to do.

Because they say something we agree about. We all seek to follow Christ

you missed the point. if you are using secular science, its thinking, methods, conclusions, then you are not following Christ. you are following that which is not of God.

How is a verse list on 'follow' supposed to be relevant in this debate?

they tell believers what to do --follow God not the world. you accept and follow the worldly science thenyou are not following God. that is why they are relevant.

God doesn't say you can't use science, He wants you to follow Him when you do, not the thinking of the world. the two are not compatible nor have the same purpose.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

So, Archie, again I pose the question: when you are ill, do you go to hospital to get well?

Or do you stay at home and hope?

I ask merely because you seem to hate science, scientists and all things scientific.

If you knew the root of the word "science" you would feel ignorant.

But then teachers of English often write poor English, don't you agree?

 

[archaeologist]

this hucker guy is not staying on topic and is derailing threads, will the mods do something about this guy.

 

[Deamiter]

this hucker guy is not staying on topic and is derailing threads, will the mods do something about this guy.

You can use the little report button under every post to draw the mods' attention to the post. It helps if you don't respond to the post in question.

 

[Assyrian]

excuse me, i don't recall saying i cut and pasted, false accusations are ot christian.

What false accusation?

• AiG got a letter from Barr and they printed part of it on their website with the claim that it said something the bit they removed made clear wasn't he wasn't saying. The claim spread around creationist circles along with a cut and paste of the letter extract.
• It was picked up by ChristianAnswers who pasted the letter along with an introductory paragraph making the same claim AiG made.
• Someone cut and pasted the introductory paragraph along with the letter extract and passed it along.
• You got a copy and which you cut and pasted here.

Do you mean you typed it out instead of using the cut and paste buttons? What difference does that make?

Are you saying I am accusing you of cutting out parts of his letter? My point all along it that AiG edited the letter and claimed it said something it didn't. You simply believed the claim and repeated it.

My comment wasn't a claim, it is a well known fact plus you failed to provide a link to support your statement. you rarely do, as many theistic evolutionists do, post any link to support your arguments. in scholarly circles you would be discarded and dismissed as non-credible and as not knowing what you are talking about.

I provided the full text of Barr's letter and gave you a link to it http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35939272&postcount=195
Sorry Archie there is really very little point in carry on this conversation when you just make stuff like this up.

You accused me of dismissing your verse list as allegorical and metaphorical, which you made up as well, but when I pointed out what I said you ignore it.

You accused me of 'not believing of synonyms'. I question you about the accusation and you claimed I was misrepresenting you. When I show you what we actually said you ignore it.

 

[archaeologist]

Sorry Archie there is really very little point in carry on this conversation when you just make stuff like this up.

i don't make stuff up, thatwould be lying and i am not allowed to lie. i thinkyou are looking for an excuse to opt out of a conversation which challenges your viewpoint.

What false accusation?

you said i cut and pasted. ididn't dothat, i tookthe whole quote thatwas offered tome. in fact i justcame across the exact same quote in the book, Creation and Change.

how can i cut and paste when i posted the exact same amount of words that i have?

I provided the full text of Barr's letter and gave you a link to it

wow. one link to support one thing you said out of all the other statements you made. in academia one has to be ready to provide sources and evidence to back up what they are saying, unless it is totally originial but you never indicated that either so it is hard to tell.

but those issues canbe dropped as they are side issues leading away from the topic of this thread.

i would like to hear your responses to the quotes i posted many, many pages back, from a secular scientist, which proves my point and the topic of this thread.

do you have any rebuttal for these remarks, {and not that they were takenout of context as thatis an excuse for not coming up with a defense of your position.} posted below:

maybe the following will bring home what i have been saying and bring this back to the topic. taken from the book, Origins: 14 Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by neil DeGrasse Tyson & Donald Goldsmith,

pg.129-30-- "Since astrophysicists have no way to see back to the universe's first 0.0000000000000000000000000001 of a second, the do the next best thing, and use scientific logic to connect this early epoch to times they can observe..."
(yet what they observe is the present and not the past and do not base their conclusions on fact but scientific logic--no truth there)

pg.183-- "In our attempts to uncover the history of the cosmos, we have continually discovered that the segments most deeply shrouded in mystery are those that deal with origins."
(certainly looks like creation is out of reach of science)

pg. 183-4-- "This in turn implies that we must rely, to an uneasily largeextent, on our theories of how matter ought to behave, with relatively few points at which we can check these theories against observational data."
(not resorting to facts, but theories)

pg. 184-- "When we turn to the origin of planets, the mystery deepen. We lack not only observations of the crucial, initial stages of planetary formation but also successful theories of how the planets began to form."
(again, creation is shown to be out of reach of science)

pg. 184-- "Astrophysicists may now have more data, but they have no better answers than before. Indeed, the discovery of exosolar planets many of which move in orbits far different from those of the sun's planets, has in many ways confused the issue,leaving the story of the planet formation no closer to closure."
(science again proven to be limited and not able toanswer any questions)

pg. 185-- "and the second that 'the most secure prediction about planet formation is that it can't happen' " (science says it can't happen yet the Bible says it did, proved by the fact that we and they are here)

pg. 189-- "becasue astronomers have noway to prove that the instabilities needed for the model to work actually did occur.
(another example of the limitedness of science and that creation is outside of its scope)

pg. 235-- "the origin of life on earth remains locked inmurky uncertainty. Our ignorance about life's beginnings stems in large part from the fact that whatever events made inanimate matter come alive occurred billions of years ago and left no traces behind"
(quite convenient way to get out of saying they can't prove evolution true.)

pg. 235-- "Their conclusion reies on a reasonable supposition about primitive organisms."
(not fact, not evidence, not truth but 'reasonable suppositions...not enough to stake one's soul on)

pg. 240-1-- "wqe do not know whether life already existed 4 billion years ago, having survived the early impact storm or whether life arose on earth only after relative tranquility began."
(in other words science fails again to pinpoint/find an alternative to gen. 1)

pg. 241-- In either case, the crucial question of how life actually began on earth, either once or many times over, has no good answer though speculation on the subject has acquired a long and intriguing history."
(science can't provide the answer and can only resort to speculation and not fact. speculation is not truth, fact or evidence. in short creation is outside the scope of science)

pg. 245-- "The key question still remains: How does a collection of molecules, evenone primed for life to appear, ever generate itself."
(they are looking in the wrong places, they need to look to Gen.1)

pg. 249-- "What a hopeful, even prescient fairy tale this may prove to be. Life, far from being rare and precious, may be almost as common as planets themselves. All that remains is for us to go find it"
(science again shows it has no answers,no facts, no proof. all they have to do is turn to Gen. 1 and believe and they will get their answers---God created in the beginning, in 6 days)

this could go on but i think this presents a fine case for what i have talked about, secular science cannot find the answers and needs to be shunned by all those who say they believe in God.

it also shows that creation is well out of the scope/reach of science.

 

[KokoTheGorilla]

Archie should making youtube videos and Koko can teaching!


Another topic is Koko want own avatar because not Panda, but very cute and Koko friendly with Pandas.

Koko needing only 194 more blessings so everybody please blessing Koko!

 

[ExpatChristian]

Reading this discussion, it looks to me like archaeologist can't tolerate the views of other Christians. Tolerance is a big part of being an authentic Christian. God speaks through those truly touched by the holy spirit. There have been many people falsely speaking for Christ through the ages and we must be ever vigilant for them today.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Reading this discussion, it looks to me like archaeologist can't tolerate the views of other Christians. Tolerance is a big part of being an authentic Christian. God speaks through those truly touched by the holy spirit. There have been many people falsely speaking for Christ through the ages and we must be ever vigilant for them today.

An excellent point EC. Without tolerance between Christians - and other believers - we might as well drift right back to the inquisitions.

Perhaps we are lucky that for now intolerance is not institutionalised and torture and the death penalty are all but extinct in the developed countries.

 

[Assyrian]

i don't make stuff up, thatwould be lying and i am not allowed to lie. i thinkyou are looking for an excuse to opt out of a conversation which challenges your viewpoint.

I am certainly getting pretty tired of you unique cocktail of unsupported claims, scripture verses that don't come near to what you say, and personal attack.

I know you are not allowed lie. If you believe making stuff up is lying why do you make stuff up?

you said i cut and pasted. ididn't dothat, i tookthe whole quote thatwas offered tome. in fact i justcame across the exact same quote in the book, Creation and Change.

Did I ever say you did anything else? I have said all along that you simply copied what you were given and that it was AiG who edited the letter.

how can i cut and paste when i posted the exact same amount of words that i have?

Technically you probably used the copy and paste buttons, but the phrase cut and paste refers to both.

wow. one link to support one thing you said out of all the other statements you made.

No. We were talking about Barr and you said: it is a well known fact plus you failed to provide a link to support your statement. Clearly I did provide a link to support it. Clearly your accusation is wrong.

in academia one has to be ready to provide sources and evidence to back up what they are saying, unless it is totally originial but you never indicated that either so it is hard to tell.

but those issues canbe dropped as they are side issues leading away from the topic of this thread.

i would like to hear your responses to the quotes i posted many, many pages back, from a secular scientist, which proves my point and the topic of this thread.

do you have any rebuttal for these remarks, {and not that they were takenout of context as thatis an excuse for not coming up with a defense of your position.} posted below:

A lot of things are difficult for science to say with certainly because there is so little data available to study it. That does not mean we cannot be certain about other areas where there is plenty of data, the last 10 billion years of the age of the universe even if measuring the the first few billion has problems, the age of our solar system, certainly of the rocks that make up the planets and meteorites. The moment of the big bang will probably be forever out of our reach which means creation is outside science's scope. What happened after is not. It all depend on how much data can be found.

 

[archaeologist]

I am certainly getting pretty tired of you unique cocktail of unsupported claims, scripture verses that don't come near to what you say, and personal attack.

i have used scripture, theological texts, scholarly quotes so this is an unwarranted charge.

know you are not allowed lie. If you believe making stuff up is lying why do you make stuff up?

i don't make stuff up but i see you took the easy route and made the accusation and did not provide any evidence.

No. We were talking about Barr and you said: it is a well known fact plus you failed to provide a link to support your statement. Clearly I did provide a link to support it. Clearly your accusation is wrong

i don't have the exact link as i have it copied to floppy disk. pretty hard to provide a link when i do not have one. but i did give you a book title i found it in recently.

A lot of things are difficult for science to say with certainly because there is so little data available to study it.

that has been one of my points all along and the question remains, why look to secular science when God has all the information?

That does not mean we cannot be certain about other areas where there is plenty of data, the last 10 billion years of the age of the universe even if measuring the the first few billion has problems, the age of our solar system, certainly of the rocks that make up the planets and meteorites.

why accept secular science over God's word? they can't prove anything they claim (that has been said over and over by your own side.) if they can't prove their claims why listen to them? that is just wrong. no judge would listen to a lawyer who can't prove his case so why are christians listening to secular science?

The moment of the big bang will probably be forever out of our reach which means creation is outside science's scope. What happened after is not. It all depend on how much data can be found.

are you even sure there was a big bang? please prove that scripturally. besides the big bang theory states that there was something in existence (other than God, as it is a secular model for the origin of the universe) which all that we see came from. that is in direct contrast to Hebrews 11, so why accept it? why christianize it?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

i have used scripture, theological texts, scholarly quotes so this is an unwarranted charge.

...

Literalists of the Archie ilk can easily dig themselves into a hole.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....

why accept secular science over God's word? they can't prove anything they claim (that has been said over and over by your own side.) if they can't prove their claims why listen to them? that is just wrong. no judge would listen to a lawyer who can't prove his case so why are christians listening to secular science?

....

Well, one reason might be when lying in hospital wiating for a life-saving operation made possible by science.