Is there any evidence for Creationism?

[GodSaves]

And it's funny how you blindly follow them too!

Mind letting me know who it is I am following? I thought it was Christ.

 

[GodSaves]

Cweb255, can you explain why in your profile it says your origin view is atheistic evolution?

 

[jbarcher]

I don't deny anything you said there, but let me explain something about epistemological force.

It is created by using agreed premises to bring others to a conclusion other than what they hold. Socrates, I hear, used this approach--he would get opinions from people, then ask questions to expose contradictions or something along those lines.

But, if evolutionists think that their view more widely and more fully explains the facts than a creationist view, even a handful of decent arguments will not move them greatly--it may move them a notch, but not greatly, because there is such a wide range of subjects to win over before they can be compelled to reject evolution.

For example, one who is skeptical about the possibility of miracles may tell me that miracles go 'contrary' to known laws of nature. This to him is compelling, as he probably holds in theory that you don't accept anything unless you can experiment with it. This to me is not at all compelling for a number of reasons, one of them being that the definition of miracles leaves them an untestable but not unverifiable event. But, in this example, I will have to defeat his hold on that kind of epistemology before anything.

 

[cweb255]

What does the Bible really say, GodSaves? Now compare that to what God says.

And if you wish to talk about the origins of the world, start a new thread on it.

 

[GodSaves]

The Bible is what God says. Its origins are in God, and God moved the authors to write the Bible. You will notice in the Bible multiple references to the authors being moved by the Spirit and that what is written didn't come from men, even though men wrote it. You will also notice in the NT that the Greek word for moved is the same word used to describe a boat moving in the Bible. They weren't just inspired.

And this thread has to do with origins, hence creationism. I asked you why do you support atheistic evolution if you have the Christian symbol. Atheists believe that there is no God and Christians believe there is a God. How can you support both?

 

[1denomination]

Sweet

So are we agreeing to dis agree. Because truthfully the whole Epistomolgy thing has me lost. hehe

 

[cweb255]

The Bible is what God says. Its origins are in God, and God moved the authors to write the Bible. You will notice in the Bible multiple references to the authors being moved by the Spirit and that what is written didn't come from men, even though men wrote it. You will also notice in the NT that the Greek word for moved is the same word used to describe a boat moving in the Bible. They weren't just inspired.

And this thread has to do with origins, hence creationism. I asked you why do you support atheistic evolution if you have the Christian symbol. Atheists believe that there is no God and Christians believe there is a God. How can you support both?

Atheistic evolution means that God didn't design evolution. Obviously, from the 99% species lost, it wasn't a very intelligent design, now was it? But it has no bearing on whether there is a God or not.

And as for being "moved", God inspired me to write this post saying that "Genesis is not literal." Believe me?

 

[GodSaves]

Atheistic evolution means that God didn't design evolution. Obviously, from the 99% species lost, it wasn't a very intelligent design, now was it? But it has no bearing on whether there is a God or not.

And as for being "moved", God inspired me to write this post saying that "Genesis is not literal." Believe me?

Interesting. So if evolution was the way everything happened, who designed it? So if God didn't design evolution, then it really is a random chance happening that is unguided as thousands of scientists have stated?

God is well aware of all things and instructs His people accordingly when He choses.

Is there anyway I can be of help to you to learn more about God?

God Bless

 

[artybloke]

The Bible is what God says.

No it isn't. The Bible is what human beings wrote of their experiences of what God had told them. It's a human book, written by human a couple of thousand years ago, humans who knew noting of modern science.

Anything else is putting the Bible in the place of God and making it into an idol.

 

[1denomination]

No it isn't. The Bible is what human beings wrote of their experiences of what God had told them. It's a human book, written by human a couple of thousand years ago, humans who knew noting of modern science.

Anything else is putting the Bible in the place of God and making it into an idol.

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

My friend the bible is the word of God

1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Maybe you just havent received it properly. Considering you take the word of men over it. Lets please not lean upon our own understanding, but rather seek gods face. God bless

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

My friend the bible is the word of God

So it was the Bible that became man and walked amongst us, was it? John 1 is about Christ, not about the Bible! Nowhere does John's gospel identify the Logos as being the Bible; indeed, it is quite clear that the Logos was that person who was God, and with God, and became incarnate in Christ.

1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Maybe you just havent received it properly. Considering you take the word of men over it. Lets please not lean upon our own understanding, but rather seek gods face. God bless

Again, there is no identification here of the "word of God" with the Bible. In context, since the Bible as we have it now didn't exist when the Thessalonians received the "word of God", I would suggest that the phrase "word of God" in this passage means the gospel message preached by Paul.

But thanks for the Bible study demonstrating that the equivocation of "word of God" with the Bible is erroneous.

 

[1denomination]

So it was the Bible that became man and walked amongst us, was it? John 1 is about Christ, not about the Bible! Nowhere does John's gospel identify the Logos as being the Bible; indeed, it is quite clear that the Logos was that person who was God, and with God, and became incarnate in Christ..

Nowhere in Genesis does it say we are decendant from monkeys either but somehow you interpret it as that, so do you mind if i also take non-literal approach to interpreting the bible or is it not acceptable if it doesnt someway prove the bible to be erroneus.

Again, there is no identification here of the "word of God" with the Bible. In context, since the Bible as we have it now didn't exist when the Thessalonians received the "word of God", I would suggest that the phrase "word of God" in this passage means the gospel message preached by Paul.

But thanks for the Bible study demonstrating that the equivocation of "word of God" with the Bible is erroneous.

Thank you for showing me that you dont aggree with non-literal interpretation if it is used to show the bible as gods divinely inspired word.

 

[cweb255]

Interesting. So if evolution was the way everything happened, who designed it? So if God didn't design evolution, then it really is a random chance happening that is unguided as thousands of scientists have stated?

Yes, I think you're getting the idea now!

God is well aware of all things and instructs His people accordingly when He choses.

This is non-sequitur and has nothing to do with evolution.

Is there anyway I can be of help to you to learn more about God?

No, but if you actually had something worthy to say, I might listen. All you have done is make a general statement about God's tendency to instruct people which is irrelevant to origins.

 

[cweb255]

Nowhere in Genesis does it say we are decendant from monkeys either but somehow you interpret it as that, so do you mind if i also take non-literal approach to interpreting the bible or is it not acceptable if it doesnt someway prove the bible to be erroneus.

The problem with your accusation is that K- LB isn't taking evolution from the Bible. He just rejects parts of the Bible that he thinks is metaphorical. You, on the other hand, take it as another literal.

Thank you for showing me that you dont aggree with non-literal interpretation if it is used to show the bible as gods divinely inspired word.

But the way you interpret it is still literal.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Nowhere in Genesis does it say we are decendant from monkeys either but somehow you interpret it as that

Lets be clear. We didn't descend from any of the species alive today that we call monkeys.

However, a long time ago, we, and all the other apes, and the old world monkeys, shared a common ancestor that would, were it alive today, be considered a monkey.

Good to have that clear. You are aware of the difference between monkeys and apes, aren't you? You're not one of these people who think they can criticise evolution but also think that gorillas are monkeys?*

Moving on, no, I don't interpret the Bible to mean we descended from monkeys. I don't look to the Bible for science, for the same sort of reasons that I don't change plugs using a tuning fork. Or, to put it another way, the verses that teach common descent are between the ones on car maintenance and quantum physics.

so do you mind if i also take non-literal approach to interpreting the bible or is it not acceptable if it doesnt someway prove the bible to be erroneus.

There's nothing specifically "non-literal" about your interpretation. "Begging the question" is a phrase that more accurately characterises it. "Making it say something there is no reason to suppose it means" is another. Moreover, it is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 that woud prove the Bible erroneous, because the literal interpretation gives a natural history that is plain and simply wrong. Non-literal interpretations allow the Bible to remain true. You have it backside** about face.

Thank you for showing me that you dont aggree with non-literal interpretation if it is used to show the bible as gods divinely inspired word.

It's not the non-literality that bothers me about your interpretation. It's the complete groundlessness of it. It's a simple fallacy of begging the question. Only the assumed premise that 'word of God'='Bible' supports the conclusion that 'word of God'='Bible'. In other words, your conclusion from these verses depends upon a premise that is your conclusion! This is begging the question. Circular reasoning as well.

*Cladistically, of course, they are, in the same way that they are, cladistically, fish.
**yes, I know, but I can't use the right word on CF

 

[GodSaves]

Do you really think the Bible is not from God? Do you really think God did not tell the human authors what to write?

II Timothy 3:16

There was no New Testament at the time of this writing.

2 Peter 1:16

Concerns all the is said that now comprises the New Testament.

2 Peter 1:19-21

Concerns the Old Testament.

2 Peter would be a good book for all who dispute the Bible being the Word of God to read. For your teaching that the Bible is not the Word of God is heresy.

 

[GodSaves]

Yes, I think you're getting the idea now!

Thank you for sharing that evolution is truly a random happenstance that is completely unguided. This really clears up the issue that this was not the way God created.

This is non-sequitur and has nothing to do with evolution.

No, but if you actually had something worthy to say, I might listen. All you have done is make a general statement about God's tendency to instruct people which is irrelevant to origins.

I have nothing worthy to say, but God does. I could help share with you what God has to say about life and eternity.

 

[1denomination]

Do you really think the Bible is not from God? Do you really think God did not tell the human authors what to write?

II Timothy 3:16

There was no New Testament at the time of this writing.

2 Peter 1:16

Concerns all the is said that now comprises the New Testament.

2 Peter 1:19-21

Concerns the Old Testament.

2 Peter would be a good book for all who dispute the Bible being the Word of God to read. For your teaching that the Bible is not the Word of God is heresy.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

For your teaching that the Bible is not the Word of God is heresy.

No, it isn't. You're making up your own version of Christianity again, where everyone who disagrees with GodSavesism is a heretic. I've told you before you don't get to do that.

Find me a single ecumentical council that describes my beliefs about the nature of Scripture heresy. Just one. There are none. You're trying to make heresy accusations on your own authority; unfortunately you have none.

To put it another way - heretic, schmeretic. Yah boo sucks to you matey.

 

[cweb255]

Thank you for sharing that evolution is truly a random happenstance that is completely unguided. This really clears up the issue that this was not the way God created.

I have nothing worthy to say, but God does. I could help share with you what God has to say about life and eternity.

Fortunately for me, I know what God says. It is you who have trouble with his word and nature.