The number one bugger for creationists: C

GodSaves · Sep 10, 2004

polycarp1, it isn't just the YEC saying this to the TE's, it is the reverse as well. There is as much of this said to the TE's as there is to the YEC. TE's are not the victims, and neither are the YEC. The true victims are the ones who don't believe in Christ and read the arguements and put downs by those who claim to be Christians to others who claim to be Christians.

The Church was created to be ONE Church, not thousands. The problem with almost all of us is that we don't lean on God's understanding, we lean on our understanding. Not just in one area but in many area's. I would dare say that almost all of us do not know what it means to be humble and loving, as Christ and the Apostles taught. I am so guilty of this that it is sickening. It is not 'my' or 'your' interpretation of the God's Word, it should be the Holy Spirits interpretation and teaching of God's Word. We tend to rely on ourselves to understand, to interpret, instead of God. If one believes this is wrong then one should ask themselves, are they living as Christ did, are they living how the Apostles did. Are they tending to their Father's business or their own plans/todo lists/schedule/business? If we have not truly submitted ourselves and our life to Christ, then do we really have the Holy Spirit in us?

Thank you to all those who pointed to where I can learn more about the dating methods.

God Bless you all!

notto · Sep 10, 2004

GodSaves said:
polycarp1, it isn't just the YEC saying this to the TE's, it is the reverse as well. There is as much of this said to the TE's as there is to the YEC. TE's are not the victims, and neither are the YEC. The true victims are the ones who don't believe in Christ and read the arguements and put downs by those who claim to be Christians to others who claim to be Christians.

The Church was created to be ONE Church, not thousands. The problem with almost all of us is that we don't lean on God's understanding, we lean on our understanding. Not just in one area but in many area's. I would dare say that almost all of us do not know what it means to be humble and loving, as Christ and the Apostles taught. I am so guilty of this that it is sickening. It is not 'my' or 'your' interpretation of the God's Word, it should be the Holy Spirits interpretation and teaching of God's Word. We tend to rely on ourselves to understand, to interpret, instead of God. If one believes this is wrong then one should ask themselves, are they living as Christ did, are they living how the Apostles did. Are they tending to their Father's business or their own plans/todo lists/schedule/business? If we have not truly submitted ourselves and our life to Christ, then do we really have the Holy Spirit in us?

Thank you to all those who pointed to where I can learn more about the dating methods.

God Bless you all!

There are some great point in here. As a TE, I can say that I have never doubted a Creationists belief in God but I can't say that the reverse is true. I have been accused of being an atheist, siding with atheists, even kicked out of Christian only forums here because I was not considered a 'Christian'. I am a Christian and have as much faith and belief in God as any Creationist.

I question the theology and especially the science of creationism (after all, it is falsified). I do not question the faith of Creationists. Until the reverse is apparent, we can not be one in Christ.

Look how many times on this board we need to repeat the mantra that evolution is not equal to atheism. Look how many times evolution is called anti-Christian. Can you find a similar number of instances of theistic evolutionists calling creationists anti-Christian or atheists (unless it is simply to express a particular point in a debate)?

Expressions of Evolution being a conspiracy of atheists based on satanic pagan rituals that fueled Hitler get a little old and are not condusive to the type of discusssion and oneness you wish to see. They are a stumbling block in the discussion and lack any intellectual honesty with regards to the issue.

Philosoft · Sep 10, 2004

GodSaves said:
The Church was created to be ONE Church, not thousands. The problem with almost all of us is that we don't lean on God's understanding, we lean on our understanding.

And the problem with this is that you don't have direct access to God's understanding. You can't simply circumvent your own understanding when it's convenient - everything you absorb via senses is part of your own understanding.

w81minit · Sep 10, 2004

Jet Black said:
... If you don't think that something looking like it isn't really isn't a deception, then I have some nice "Rolex" watches that I would like to sell you, a snip at $50 a piece.

By that definition, there are a lot of women and men these days that are walking deceptions. Botox, make-up, rogaine, tummy-tucks, and implants are just a few evidences of the evolutionary deceptions neatly hidden in the homosapien. And based on how some of these deceptions play out, I think they are fairly widely accepted and appreciated.

john crawford · Sep 10, 2004

No one knows how far away the stars are since know one knows how fast light travelled 10,000 years ago.

Philosoft · Sep 10, 2004

john crawford said:
No one knows how far away the stars are since know one knows how fast light travelled 10,000 years ago.

Maybe that explains what happened to the Genesis probe. It might've hit another star on the way back to Earth.

Logic · Sep 10, 2004

john crawford said:
No one knows how far away the stars are since know one knows how fast light travelled 10,000 years ago.

Since c has always remained a constant, it's a safe assumption, untill disproven, that it has remained a constant under our laws of physics. Why not just take the "god created light on it's way" cop out?

Arikay · Sep 10, 2004

But we do know Mr. Crawford didn't read the thread.
Since the idea that c was faster in the past has already been refuted I believe.

Polycarp1 · Sep 10, 2004

Well, yeah, there are a lot of things we don't know for sure. The "cosmological conjecture" is a working point -- presume, subject to disproof, that things are the same here and now as they were there and then, subject to the appropriate and evident differences. In other words, if there was a volcano erupting, there was molten rock instead of a forest, but the physical laws governing how things interacted were the same.

Sure, we don't know that C wasn't a much higher speed in the past -- but if it were, a lot of other "constants" that are actually founded on C would have been quite different, and produced different consequences than those observed. Likewise, we don't know that little green Martians didn't kill the dinosaurs or bring the first plants to Earth, or that Cthulhu doesn't lie sleeping in the South Pacific until he decides it's time to wake up and consume the world.

Neither religion nor science takes either of these hypotheses seriously -- because religion founds its understanding on revelation and what can be reasoned from that, and science founds its understanding on observed phenomena and what can be reasoned from them. That last definition is important: epistemologically, YEC is not out of the question, since an omnipotent God could have done everything precisely as six-day theorists say. The point is that the god who would have done such an act, with the evidence we have for the age of the world and the petrified skeletons of animals that surely look descended from one another through evolutionary processes, and evidence of evolution and speciation going on in the world today, would not be the Father of Jesus Christ, but a deity who is out to confuse people and lead them astray through false evidence. Such a god would not be worthy of our love and respect.

Arikay · Sep 10, 2004

Lets not forget the double think that Jet pointed out.

Argument 1:
All the constants of the universe (Including c) must be intelligently designed because if they were even slightly different we wouldn't exist.

Argument 2:
c could have been much different in the past, and must have been to make it appear that stars are really far away, when infact the constant of c was much different then.

w81minit · Sep 10, 2004

Polycarp1 said:
Neither religion nor science takes either of these hypotheses seriously -- because religion founds its understanding on revelation and what can be reasoned from that, and science founds its understanding on observed phenomena and what can be reasoned from them. That last definition is important: epistemologically, YEC is not out of the question, since an omnipotent God could have done everything precisely as six-day theorists say. The point is that the god who would have done such an act, with the evidence we have for the age of the world and the petrified skeletons of animals that surely look descended from one another through evolutionary processes, and evidence of evolution and speciation going on in the world today, would not be the Father of Jesus Christ, but a deity who is out to confuse people and lead them astray through false evidence. Such a god would not be worthy of our love and respect.

Astray to what? To what end and to where are you being led? Are you not given the same opportunity to follow any path you choose as any one else is? No, it is because you want it to mean that God is deceptive if He does other than you understand that you say this. Why does God have to operate on your level? I think the scripture is replete with references to the fact that God's ways are unsearchable. Was God being deceptive when Jesus died for us? He didn't die for the angels. As David pointed out in the Psalms (paraphrased) Why have you bothered with us? We are petty and insignificant? Can you understand why He did this? Because you can't does that mean that God is deceiving you for showing something to you that doesn't make sense to you?

I think not. Men choose what they will believe. Evidence or no.

Ishmael Borg · Sep 10, 2004

w81minit said:
By that definition, there are a lot of women and men these days that are walking deceptions.

Not really. If you get liposuction, you really aren't as fat anymore. Are you saying that an amputee is an example of deceit? You need better analogies.

Botox, make-up, rogaine, tummy-tucks, and implants are just a few evidences of the evolutionary deceptions neatly hidden in the homosapien.

In my opinion, this is the stupidest statement I've ever read. I'm not hyperbolizing here. Are you truly telling every poster on this forum that you believe that Rogaine is evidence falsifying evolution? To be honest with you, Rogaine is used to FIGHT evolution.

And based on how some of these deceptions play out, I think they are fairly widely accepted and appreciated.

Except that these deceptions are all carried out to COUNTER evolution. Think about it.

Polycarp1 · Sep 10, 2004

Okay, you believe in a god who produces a world that suggests strongly to the best of human investigations and analytical capacities something other than what you think to be the truth based on your interpretation of what Genesis 1-11 have to say, and I'll believe in a God who loves the world enough to have sent His only begotten Son to save us, and who is the Author of Truth, and not the Father of Lies. But one question -- if God be the one who "recently" created a world with dinosaur skeletons and light seemingly coming from enormous disstances, how can we trust His word in Scripture. If He is planting all this false evidence as a test of us, what gives you to think that He told the truth in the Bible and not in the world at large?

The God I believe in does not lie. But He does tell parables and stories. I choose to think that the early chapters of Genesis are some of the stories he told, rather than historical accounts, because that way He is not lying in either capacity -- as Creator of the Universe or as Inspirer of Scripture.

Ishmael Borg · Sep 10, 2004

Polycarp1 said:
Okay, you believe in a god who produces a world that suggests strongly to the best of human investigations and analytical capacities something other than what you think to be the truth based on your interpretation of what Genesis 1-11 have to say, and I'll believe in a God who loves the world enough to have sent His only begotten Son to save us, and who is the Author of Truth, and not the Father of Lies. But one question -- if God be the one who "recently" created a world with dinosaur skeletons and light seemingly coming from enormous disstances, how can we trust His word in Scripture. If He is planting all this false evidence as a test of us, what gives you to think that He told the truth in the Bible and not in the world at large?

The God I believe in does not lie. But He does tell parables and stories. I choose to think that the early chapters of Genesis are some of the stories he told, rather than historical accounts, because that way He is not lying in either capacity -- as Creator of the Universe or as Inspirer of Scripture.

I hate to stray into apologetics, but your post prompted a thought. If Jesus IS God, and Jesus used parables, why couldn't God have used parables when he inspired the writing of the Old Testament? I'm no Gospels expert, but I've read them (and enjoyed them, if you can believe it), but I don't remember Jesus prefacing a story with anything resembling *parable alert*.

john crawford · Sep 10, 2004

Logic said:
Since c has always remained a constant, it's a safe assumption, untill disproven, that it has remained a constant under our laws of physics. Why not just take the "god created light on it's way" cop out?

The only human constant in the Universe is the human calendar.

Beyond that, all is human speculation and scientific fantasy.

Ishmael Borg · Sep 10, 2004

Clarification:

Polycarp1: My previous post quoted your excellent post, but my question wasn't really directed at you.

w81minit · Sep 10, 2004

Ishmael Borg said:
Not really. If you get liposuction, you really aren't as fat anymore. Are you saying that an amputee is an example of deceit? You need better analogies.

<shaking head> Truely an example of metnal bankruptcy. The notion was put forth that (in the positive) something that looks other than it is - is a deception. Someone altering themselves using cosmetics is something that looks other than it is.

Ishmael Borg said:
In my opinion, this is the stupidest statement I've ever read...

Evidence you do not proofread your posts.

Ishmael Borg said:
I'm not hyperbolizing here. Are you truly telling every poster on this forum that you believe that Rogaine is evidence falsifying evolution? To be honest with you, Rogaine is used to FIGHT evolution.

Nor do you read for comprehension. It was in direct correlation with the notion that things that appear as they aren't is a deception. Incidently I think the Borg are just such a people who need just such a home remedy so as to fight off evolution. The one exception is 7 of 9. But that is ... ,William Shatner's voice> Space....The final frontier...
Resistance is Futile, you will be assimilated.

Ishmael Borg said:
Except that these deceptions are all carried out to COUNTER evolution. Think about it.

I've thought about it....Now I'm hungry.

Ishmael Borg · Sep 10, 2004

john crawford said:
The only human constant in the Universe is the human calendar.

Beyond that, all is human speculation and scientific fantasy.

I don't usually respond with single emoticons, but:

john crawford · Sep 10, 2004

Ishmael Borg said:
I don't usually respond with single emoticons, but:

Single emoticons are acceptable provided no other emotional or intellectual response exists.

w81minit · Sep 10, 2004

Ishmael Borg said:
I hate to stray into apologetics, but your post prompted a thought. If Jesus IS God, and Jesus used parables, why couldn't God have used parables when he inspired the writing of the Old Testament? I'm no Gospels expert, but I've read them (and enjoyed them, if you can believe it), but I don't remember Jesus prefacing a story with anything resembling *parable alert*.

If God started the Genesis account with, 'now a certain man...' It could easily be thought of as a parable. This one; however was much more distinct, "In the beginning God..."
Believe it or not there were lots of clues to alert someone as to the parables.

The number one bugger for creationists: C

Well-Known Member

Legend

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

Well-Known Member

HI

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

HI

Active Member

Ishmael Borg

Guest

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Ishmael Borg

Guest

Well-Known Member

Ishmael Borg

Guest

Active Member

Ishmael Borg

Guest

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency