Questions Evolutionists can't answer

[ivebeenshown]

I've been wrote:
Why is that more unsettling to you than the presence of a book showing the earth going around the sun, or of a spherical earth in a Sunday School? I never said it should be the only or even the main book, and as such does not disagree with your statement. Febble's account includes God in a way that is also in agreement with reality. Is that not exactly the kind of stuff that should be in a sunday school?

I have answered that question, and have been waiting since post #54 for your reply. I'm sorry you missed that.

Papias wrote, in post #54:
Papias

It is unsettling to me because the bible does not state 'the earth is flat'. Also, I am not so entirely sure the earth does go around the sun, to be honest with you. I loved dinosaurs and astronomy from my childhood on upwards and I've recently realized that I don't have any reason to believe most of what man teaches.

I'm sorry I missed that reply as well! :o

But yes, if God did indeed design it that way, it would be a good design. He made it as he saw fit and for his own purposes.

 

[gluadys]

Also, I am not so entirely sure the earth does go around the sun, to be honest with you. .

Really???

What would it take to convince you? A personal view from a space station?

Or do you think your personal interpretation of scripture vetoes your own observations as well?

That, I believe, is what YECism eventually comes down to.

It certainly poisons the well against any science whatsoever.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Really???

What would it take to convince you? A personal view from a space station?

Or do you think your personal interpretation of scripture vetoes your own observations as well?

That, I believe, is what YECism eventually comes down to.

It certainly poisons the well against any science whatsoever.

It would take an elapsed footage of the big bang and formation of the earth and life on it to get me to believe the earth is really super-old.

But as for Geocentrism, it is all about viewpoint. I choose to believe that the earth in the central viewpoint of the universe because God gave us dominion over the earth, not the heavens. From this viewpoint, everything works out just fine. All of the matter in the universe has to be interacting together and not separately, so I will choose to look at it from the fixed-earth viewpoint.

Until they can fully explain the concepts of 'dark matter and black holes' (why not just call it darkness and forget about it?) and detail the supposed 'orbit' of the earth down to the exact trail of atoms (and protons, and quarks, etc ad inf.), there is no absolute truth in what there is to be said about it -- they keep working down and down to 11-Dimensional M-Theory String theories, where everything is made of tiny vibrating strings... but what are THEY made of?

But God's word is absolute... and here is a lovely metaphor for all of this 'dark energy, dark matter, black holes', etc.:

Job 38:9When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

It may be 'arrogant on cosmic scale' (like I'm supposed to worry about offending inanimate celestial bodies or non-existent aliens or something) but I am perfectly fine with boasting in Christ, who is THE absolute truth.

 

[Mallon]

Awesome.

Are you going to the geocentrism conference, ivebeenshown?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Awesome.

Are you going to the geocentrism conference, ivebeenshown?

I really wish I could I live in Kansas and I can't travel so far. Also, don't see a point in paying $50 for it, lol.

 

[gluadys]

There is the grammatically controversial third person singular use of 'they', which seems particularly appropriate for God.

I've never thought of using it for God. But I have taken to using it as the pronoun of choice to refer to concepts like "anybody", "everyone" etc. That is actually a revival of an older English practice vetoed by 17th century grammarians.

But a Trinity is just as much "they" as "he/she".

 

[gluadys]

It would take an elapsed footage of the big bang and formation of the earth and life on it to get me to believe the earth is really super-old.

But as for Geocentrism, it is all about viewpoint. I choose to believe that the earth in the central viewpoint of the universe because God gave us dominion over the earth, not the heavens. From this viewpoint, everything works out just fine. All of the matter in the universe has to be interacting together and not separately, so I will choose to look at it from the fixed-earth viewpoint.

I can understand using the earth as a fixed reference point, but what does that have to do with whether the earth orbits the sun?

I also find the references to big bang, black holes, etc. irrelevant on this matter. After all, we established the structure of the solar system long before we had any of those concepts.

I don't think we need to know the whole history of the cosmos to know that the earth is orbiting the sun right now.

 

[Papias]

I've been wrote:

I'm sorry I missed that reply as well!

No problem, we all miss stuff from time to time. Sorry if I sounded harsh.

Also, I am not so entirely sure the earth does go around the sun, to be honest with you. I loved dinosaurs and astronomy from my childhood on upwards and I've recently realized that I don't have any reason to believe most of what man teaches.

So you don't have any reason to believe most of what man teaches? Was it not men that taught you that the United States was founded about 200 years ago and that people have certain rights, like freedom of speech, ownership, and such?

Was it not men (humans) who told you that your mom is more than 10 years older than you, and that she wasn't poofed into existance just before your birth?

Was it not men that taught you to read, and to read a Bible? Was it not men that taught you to believe it, and specifically to interpret it literally?

Was it not men that taught you to ignore the Catholic Bible, the Ethiopian Bible, the Syriac Bible, and the many other Bibles out there beyond the one type you use? Why should you think that the one Bible that men told you to use is somehow better?

Was it not men that taught you that the Bibles were divine, and not written solely by humans? Was it not men that taught you that these Bibles are older than 30 years old?

Was it not men that taught you that Jesus even existed?

Was it not men that taught you that the Qu'ran is not from God, nor are the Upanishads, the book of Mormon, the Tao, the Analects, nor the Gita?

The path of "I don't have any reason to believe most of what man teaches." leads to nihilism and ennui. It leaves you as a hermit with little more knowledge (nor future) than a beast of the wilderness, and certainly without your Christianity intact. You don't want to go there, and you certainly don't have to do so.

But yes, if God did indeed design it that way, it would be a good design. He made it as he saw fit and for his own purposes.

That too is mental suicide. So then is hurricane Katrina a good design? Is polio? How about cancer? At least those are real. The mantisplosion is not real, and simply a ridiculous thing for anyone to plan, like the idea of vegetarian T-rexes or magic water that sorts bodies to make a false evolutionary history.

The idea that we are abandon all rational thought and instead call what is obviously an unworkable or harmful design "good" out of fear of our own ability leaves all of humankind impotent to improve our lives. Most of your life is ahead of you to seize, yet this kind of thinking simply throws that all away, leaving you with a destitute and useless mind.

Papias

 

[Cabal]

It would take an elapsed footage of the big bang and formation of the earth and life on it to get me to believe the earth is really super-old.

Curious.

So you reject the convictions of criminals based on forensic evidence?

 

[ivebeenshown]

The idea that we are abandon all rational thought and instead call what is obviously an unworkable or harmful design "good" out of fear of our own ability leaves all of humankind impotent to improve our lives. Most of your life is ahead of you to seize, yet this kind of thinking simply throws that all away, leaving you with a destitute and useless mind.

Papias

Many an atheist will argue the same thing. God designed man to be able to sin and somehow that was "good"? Yes, his initial design of the world was "very good" because he said it was.

And excuse me? If one can help other people and be friendly, that would not be destitute and useless. That is a very inconsiderate and unthoughtful thing for you to have posted.

In fact, all our ability is supposed to go toward Christ and here I am blabbing online when I should be working. And there they are wasting unimaginable amounts of wealth on space exploration instead of helping people feed themselves and get on the right track. We're all guilty. That is why Christ died for us but we are still so undeserving.

 

[Papias]

I've been wrote:

God designed man to be able to sin and somehow that was "good"? Yes, his initial design of the world was "very good" because he said it was.

No, God said his creation was good. You said that the mantisplosion - an obviously stupid and non-functional design - was a good design. The mantisposion is not God's creation, because God said his creation was good, and so it couldn't haven included an obviously stupid and non-functional design, right?

And excuse me? If one can help other people and be friendly, that would not be destitute and useless. That is a very inconsiderate and unthoughtful thing for you to have posted.

No, because if you reject all information from humans, than you reject the plea for help, because that is information from humans (how do you know the beggar isn't a rich conman, like eddie murphy in trading places?). So my point is that if you reject all information from humans, you are indeed all that I said. Plus, you didn't answer my earlier questions. Did you not first hear of Jesus from a human?

Papias

 

[ivebeenshown]

I've been wrote:


No, God said his creation was good. You said that the mantisplosion - an obviously stupid and non-functional design - was a good design. The mantisposion is not God's creation, because God said his creation was good, and so it couldn't haven included an obviously stupid and non-functional design, right?

The mantisplosion did not happen, I am aware of this. I meant that if that is what God had intended, it would be good because that's what he saw fit for his own purpose. God made Adam and Eve, one couple. It was perfectly functional. What do you think?

Isaiah 11
6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

There is a distinction between suckling/weaned children here, and young animals. The young animals are safe around the once vicious leopards and wolves and lions, which will eat straw. Is that stupid? Is that non-functional?

No, because if you reject all information from humans, than you reject the plea for help, because that is information from humans (how do you know the beggar isn't a rich conman, like eddie murphy in trading places?). So my point is that if you reject all information from humans, you are indeed all that I said. Plus, you didn't answer my earlier questions. Did you not first hear of Jesus from a human?

Papias

Did I not say most, and not all, of what man teaches? What am I taught by man wherever I turn? Pre-marital sex is ok. Just use condoms. Watch television, because we can delight in the sins of fictional characters and it's alright. All religions lead up the same path. Evolution happened over millions of years. Buy buy buy. You need health insurance. You need car insurance. You need to vote, and become part of a system that judges and condemns and enslaves rather than forgives. Women, you need to wear make-up and diamonds. And keep up with the fashion. Your children need to play with gadgets and toys to learn their ABC's.

It's about discernment, not shunning everything you hear. I never said I can't trust man on any account. That being said I do not trust what the secular or liberal man has to say about Adam and Eve. Genesis 2 is "the generations of", an historical account, of the beginning. The Genesis.

Let God be true and every man a liar. This requires discernment of whether or not what a man says is of God. If it is of God it is true.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...

Let God be true and every man a liar. This requires discernment of whether or not what a man says is of God. If it is of God it is true.

So are you a liar?
If so, why should we believe you?

 

[ivebeenshown]

So are you a liar?
If so, why should we believe you?

True and false are black and white. If I say something that contradicts scripture, let it be false, but if what I say is in agreement with the law and the prophets and the apostles, let it be true: for scripture is God-breathed and true.

As I said in the very post you quoted: discernment.

 

[Steve Petersen]

True and false are black and white. If I say something that contradicts scripture, let it be false, but if what I say is in agreement with the law and the prophets and the apostles, let it be true: for scripture is God-breathed and true.

As I said in the very post you quoted: discernment.

There is still the small problem of interpretation and what we read into the text.

The existence of hundreds of Protestant denominations illustrates the point.

 

[ivebeenshown]

There is still the small problem of interpretation and what we read into the text.

The existence of hundreds of Protestant denominations illustrates the point.

Indeed. That is why I do not wish to subscribe to any name other than the name of Christ: not Luther, nor Calvin, nor Benedict (Rome), nor White, nor Smith.

I do believe that reading the formation of stars before the formation of plant life on earth does contradict Genesis 1. Every parable or metaphor, especially those spoken by Christ, are chronologically correct in their allusions to the events they depict.

 

[pgp_protector]

True and false are black and white. If I say something that contradicts scripture, let it be false, but if what I say is in agreement with the law and the prophets and the apostles, let it be true: for scripture is God-breathed and true.

As I said in the very post you quoted: discernment.

So it's not Every Man A Liar like you stated,

Let God be true and every man a liar

but only some times under some conditions may a man be a liar ?

 

[ivebeenshown]

So it's not Every Man A Liar like you stated,

but only some times under some conditions may a man be a liar ?

Sure. I'm not going to look at a can of whipped cream and then go shake a water well, if you know what I'm saying.

It means we have to be very cautious of what we accept as truth -- prove all things and hold fast that which is good.

I am very cautious of those who identify in Christ but believe Genesis 1 is chronologically incorrect, simply because I have not seen a single parable in the bible that does not accurately represent the subject matter in terms of the order of events. I view Genesis 1 as more truthful than a contrived big bang theory which involves 'quantum fluctuations' which is a big word for 'we don't know.'

The Holy Spirit could have easily guided the author of Genesis to write that the stars were created before the garden of Eden, but He didn't. Why? Is it MAYBE because they can't actually prove a big bang?

But more important: how come a literal reading of Genesis 1 all of a sudden leads everyone to act as if I assume every word in the bible is to be taken at face value? I know Jesus is not a lion or a branch -- I know what a figure of speech is!

 

[Assyrian]

Isaiah 11
6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

There is a distinction between suckling/weaned children here, and young animals. The young animals are safe around the once vicious leopards and wolves and lions, which will eat straw. Is that stupid? Is that non-functional?

Is that even literal?

Isaiah 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
It is a wildly metaphorical context for such a popular creationist quotation.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Is that even literal?

Isaiah 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
It is a wildly metaphorical context for such a popular creationist quotation.

Good point, Assyrian.

I am glad to have this board, because people in person around where I live don't seem to know or care or even question anything or study. But with folks like you, Papias, Mallon, and others I can test and strengthen myself and 'burn the chaff' so to speak.

I need to pull together a grand list of reasons that shouldn't be used for defending a literal Genesis 1/2. (And I am still not convinced that Genesis 2 can't contain pluperfects but I'm looking into other ways it resolves.)