Removing the Stumbling Block

[herev]

No fellowship possible between light and darkness.

so you have decided then? We TE's are the darkness? I didn't get the memo, sorry.

 

[Vance]

Herev, you are catching on. The YEC back-up position, which they alway have to resort to eventually, is that everyone *except* YEC is not good of a Christian as they are. We *must* be letting worldly influences in, we must not be led by the Spirit, we must . . .

All very presumptuous. Of course, when you can't debate the issues, just attack the person.

 

[herev]

Herev, you are catching on. The YEC back-up position, which they alway have to resort to eventually, is that everyone *except* YEC is not good of a Christian as they are. We *must* be letting worldly influences in, we must not be led by the Spirit, we must . . .

All very presumptuous. Of course, when you can't debate the issues, just attack the person.

, isn't it?

 

[jazzbird]

Wow. I don't often venture into this forum....now I remember why. I'm not trying to be melodramatic, but it sure is heartbreaking the way fellow brothers and sisters in Christ name call and sling mud at each other over an issue that has nothing to do with the salvation of one's soul or the quality of your walk with the Lord. (Not that we should be name calling over any issue, but you get my drift).

Maybe you should discuss the meat of the OP's post, rather than making all this useless chatter.

*Good Grief*

 

[Vance]

Ah, but Jazzbird, it is SO much easier to simply call others "compromisers" and question the validity of their Christian belief than to address the issues.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So, Micaiah, I'm a liar who believes his own lies eh?

Let me tell you something sunshine. I've seen a lot of lies in this field.

Every one of them told be creationists.

I've seen creationists claim women have more ribs than men
I've seen creationists claim the sun is shrinking 5' a year
I've seen creationists claim that the moon dust should be hundreds of feet deep
I've seen creationists claim there is no evidence for evolution
I've seen creationists claim that human cytochrome C is more similar to other animals than to that of chimpanzees.
I've seen creationists claim that evolution is atheism.

Every one of these is a lie. I've yet to see an evolutionist use falsehoods to press their point. So I suggest you take your accusation of lying and stick it where the sun don't shine, you toxic little accuser.

 

[Underdog77]

Every one of these is a lie. I've yet to see an evolutionist use falsehoods to press their point.

You've got to be kidding! That was a joke post, right?!

I'm not saying that creationists are right when they use misinformation or even lie, but evolutionists do it all the time. I want play a 'you're worse than I am' game but I also want let you get all holy in your belief. Not only do I see it in forums, but lies are used in school textbooks as well. You could probably pick up any textbook that concerns our origins and find a lie in it (and if you can't find it, I would be more than happy to point it/them out to you).

Again, what I know to be true is that both sides (or all sides...there's more than two) has lies. Sometimes they are purposeful and sometimes they survive because not all are updated with new info. Nevertheless, all views have lies and for evolutionists to say they don't lie is a really BIG lie itself.

 

[Underdog77]

Herev, you are catching on. The YEC back-up position, which they alway have to resort to eventually, is that everyone *except* YEC is not good of a Christian as they are. We *must* be letting worldly influences in, we must not be led by the Spirit, we must . . .

I didn't say you weren't as good but what I meant was your doctrine is faulty.

All very presumptuous. Of course, when you can't debate the issues, just attack the person.

Bring it on. Pick a topic, give me a couple days so we can set a time and lets have a debate. I believe science sits well with the Bible and that most 'conflicts' can be explained.

 

[Vance]

No, you might find mistakes in the presentation of the evidence of evolution or (more likely) a presentation of evidence which has been shown to be false with new evidence, but lying involves a specific intent to deceive. While there have been a few well-publicized hoaxes in evolution (as in Creationism), it is the evolutionist community itself which spots it, proves it false and tells the world about it.

You do not find evolutionary biologists routinely presenting evidence they know is false, an event which very likely happens with great regularity with Creationist presenters (who have videos, books and cassettes to sell). True, most Creationists are just ignorantly passing on the incorrect information they have been fed, and I would not call that lying, it is very different for the "professional" Creationists who know better.

 

[Vance]

As for a debate, this is a debate forum. We debate all the time. If you want to pick a topic, say evidene which proves the earth is less than 10,000 year old, go right ahead and start a new thread and someone will then reply, etc, etc.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

No, Underdog, it is no joke.

I have documented in my post several lies that creationists routinely tell.

Document some told by evolutionists, rather than just claiming that evolutionists lie, or concede that it is only the creationists who lie routinely and as a means of debating. It's one or the other.

 

[Underdog77]

No, Underdog, it is no joke.

I have documented in my post several lies that creationists routinely tell.

Document some told by evolutionists, rather than just claiming that evolutionists lie, or concede that it is only the creationists who lie routinely and as a means of debating. It's one or the other.

Alright, and I'll list everywhere I've found them. Creationists are not the only ones who lie, evolutionists do too. I thought the contender for sanity would be sane enough to realize that.

 

[Vance]

Remember a lie is not saying something that is not true, but saying something that you KNOW is not true.

 

[Underdog77]

Remember a lie is not saying something that is not true, but saying something that you KNOW is not true.

yes, I understand the definition of a lie. The problem is, how do you know that someone knows they aren't telling the truth? hmmm? For the most part you have to consider their extent of knowledge on the subject and look at their past posts to determine if they are just babbling stuff they've heard or if they are truly spreading lies just for their view's sake.

Besides, if Karl is right, I won't find any. ha ha ha

 

[Micaiah]

So, Micaiah, I'm a liar who believes his own lies eh?

Let me tell you something sunshine. I've seen a lot of lies in this field.

Every one of them told be creationists.

I've seen creationists claim women have more ribs than men
I've seen creationists claim the sun is shrinking 5' a year
I've seen creationists claim that the moon dust should be hundreds of feet deep
I've seen creationists claim there is no evidence for evolution
I've seen creationists claim that human cytochrome C is more similar to other animals than to that of chimpanzees.
I've seen creationists claim that evolution is atheism.

Every one of these is a lie. I've yet to see an evolutionist use falsehoods to press their point. So I suggest you take your accusation of lying and stick it where the sun don't shine, you toxic little accuser.

Karl, the self confessed backslider, it appears the comments made have irritated you.

I have made some sharp comments about a mode of interpretation, or lack of it, and its source. I do not resile from those comments for a moment. It is entirely appropriate that such error is dealt with in that manner.

At the same time, I have avoided bitter personal attacks, something which you have plainly resorted to, unless I am to understand such comments purely as allegory or legend. I hope that is the case.

I am humoured that you consider the scientific commentary of your TE friends to be impeccable. Concerning your claims regarding comments made by YEC's, I have no doubt that from time to time the scientific perspecacity of some of my colleagues has wavered, and has not reached your own lofty heights. I apologise for them and myself on such occasions.

Making an error of fact regarding a scientific process shows a degree of intellectual slovenliness which we should all seek to avoid.

However, portraying the history of Creation provide in Genesis as a legend, whose historical and scientific facts cannot be trusted is a serious sin that undermine the trustworthiness of Scripture. I oppose such a notion, and support those who have the courage to stand on this matter.

 

[Vance]

"portraying the history of Creation provide in Genesis as a legend, whose historical and scientific facts cannot be trusted is a serious sin that undermine the trustworthiness of Scripture"

For an example, I would not call this a lie, just an untruth.

First, it misstates what most TE's say about Genesis (they would not call it a legend, but a statement of Truth inspired by God to be written in poetical and allegorical form).

Second, viewing Genesis 1and 2 as an allegorical presentation of Truth by God does not undermine the trustworthiness of Scripture in the least. And this can easily be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt: The millions of Christians (actually the majority of Christians worldwide) who DO read the Creation account that way, but still find Scripture ENTIRELY trustworthy. So, now that you know that it does NOT undermine the trustworthiness of Scripture, it would now be a lie for you to say otherwise.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Micaiah - regarding my screen name, do you have an irony meter?

At the same time, I have avoided bitter personal attacks, something which you have plainly resorted to, unless I am to understand such comments purely as allegory or legend. I hope that is the case.

No. You have posted a toxic accusation with your "tell lies often enough that you believe them" slur against us. "Personal attack" does not just mean statements that "Fred is a pillock", you know. I'm not so stupid as to not see what you're saying, unless you want to retract that statement? Or is it about a mythical "them", not anyone on this board.

Your post totally fails to answer the accusations I make of creationist dishonesty. When you say:

I oppose such a notion, and support those who have the courage to stand on this matter.

does that mean "even when they bend the truth"?

You say you are amused that I have a high regard for the honesty of mainstream science. Why? Can you provide a list of claims made repeatedly by creationists, like the ones I highlight, that have been shown to be demonstrably wrong umpteen times? Of course you can't, because what you forget (or rather stubbornly refuse to acknowledge) is that mainstream scientists are not part of some evil atheistic plot, but in the main are honest seekers after the truth. There is, indeed, sometimes scientific fraud. But it always outs in the end. Why? Because fraudulent, false, results do not mesh with the rest of the corpus of scientific knowledge.

Take Piltdown man. You know that this was not part of mainstream theories about the course of human evolution for years before it was exposed as a hoax (and not a hoax by evolutionary biologists, it should be pointed out, but rather one perpetrated on them)? And why? Because it was anomalous. It didn't fit in. We could make a perfectly good theory without it, but it didn't fit in. It was a relief to find it was a hoax, because it shouldn't have existed. That it, in fact, didn't, was in itself evidence for the theories of evolutionary biologists.

Back to the point. I have demonstrated examples of popular creationist misinformation. If you can provide a similar list of evolutionist misinformation, then I shall be intrigued. But you can't, because it is good, honest, science.

 

[In Christ Forever]

Has anyone ever looked at this verse in revelation closely? Since the NT and OT are to be used to reconcile difficult passages, I of course read thru revelation studying for possible understanding of what the meaning of a new "heaven and earth" represent. So what did the old "heaven and earth" represent?

Only 2 places are 150 days mentioned in the Whole Bible as shown here: The Flood of Noah!!!

gen 7:12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

This appears to represent extreme famine to me, as these "locust" or invading army appear to keep people FROM the food not destroying it [as in a type of siege maybe].

reve 9:5 And they were not given [authority] to kill them, but to torment them [for] five months. Their torment [was] like the torment of a scorpion when it strikes a man.

exodus 14:12 "[Is] this not the word that we told you in Egypt, saying, 'Let us alone that we may serve the Egyptians?' For [it would have been] better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should die in the wilderness." 13 And Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. Stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which He will accomplish for you today. For the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall see again no more forever. 14 "The LORD will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace."


romans 13:10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love [is] the fulfillment of the law. 11 And [do] this, knowing the time, that now [it is] high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation [is] nearer than when we [first] believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light.

 

[PotLuck]

Truth has always been a stumbling block.
If in a culture evolution is not the accepted opinion then evangelizing with evolution as true would be a stumbling block.
So we fit the culture's accepted opinion into what it is we evangelize?
Would preaching evolution as true be a stumbling block in India or any other third world culture? I think it would be a huge stumbling block in those countries.

Again, the majority of the population of the world never heard of evolution or Darwin.

/edit
I would think God wants to reach as many as He can. He wants ALL to believe Him and love him.
Evolution can not "reach" the uneducated.

 

[gluadys]

Would preaching evolution as true be a stumbling block in India or any other third world culture? I think it would be a huge stumbling block in those countries.

Again, the majority of the population of the world never heard of evolution or Darwin.

I would think God wants to reach as many as He can. He wants ALL to believe Him and love him.
Evolution can not "reach" the uneducated.

There would be no point in raising the matter of evolution with those who have never heard of it (just as it was not raised in scripture for that very reason).

At the same time, to take advantage of their lack of scientific education to ingrain the notion that evolution is not true or is incompatible with scripture is to set them up for a crisis of faith when they do have an opportunity to discover the scientific facts.