The number one bugger for creationists: C

armed2010 · Sep 7, 2004

bevets said:
It saddens me that theistic evos insist on associating God with lies. The crux of the issue is 'What has greater weight: intrepretation of the Bible or interpretation of the physical evidence' Consistent biblical interpretation supports a young earth. I choose sound biblical interpreation over atheist mythology.

This is almost Orwellian. Ignore the man behind the curtain!

Nathan Poe · Sep 7, 2004

bevets said:
It saddens me that theistic evos insist on associating God with lies.

Poor reading comprehension skills sadden me. The post clearly associates YEC with a lying God, and rightly so.

The crux of the issue is 'What has greater weight: intrepretation of the Bible or interpretation of the physical evidence'

In matters of salvation and theology, the Bible.
In matters of physical science and geology, well, you connect the dots.

Consistent biblical interpretation supports a young earth. I choose sound biblical interpreation over atheist mythology.

Consistent studying of the Earth itself supports an old Earth. I choose sound science over Biblical mythology.

notto · Sep 7, 2004

bevets said:
It saddens me that theistic evos insist on associating God with lies. The crux of the issue is 'What has greater weight: intrepretation of the Bible or interpretation of the physical evidence' Consistent biblical interpretation supports a young earth. I choose sound biblical interpreation over atheist mythology.

It is creationists that are saying that God is deceiving us through 'mature universe that never existed' theology. I haven't seen a theistic evolutionist say that God is associated with lies, only that the YEC version of God would need to be a liar and that is why theistic evolutionists dont' accept it.

I don't accept that God is a liar. That is why I must look at a literal interpretation of Genesis as being the wrong intent because God's creation tells us a different story.

nyjbarnes · Sep 7, 2004

What is the greater purpose here?

Areoz, explain to me, when you prove to a weak Christian the the Earth is not 6000 years old...then what? When you prove to them that the Bible can't be trusted then what? When you prove to them that science is the only way to heaven or at least the only way to explain what the Bible apparently leaves to faith, then what?

Remember, it wasn't literal interpretations that came up with evolution...it was the absense of the will to have faith that did that. Siding with people that seek to invalidate the Bible is a risky business, since the Bible does command you not to cause another brother to fall. Tread lightly, God is a righteous God and is not mocked.

Sopharos · Sep 7, 2004

bevets said:
It saddens me that theistic evos insist on associating God with lies.

Your God maybe.

bevets said:
The crux of the issue is 'What has greater weight: intrepretation of the Bible or interpretation of the physical evidence' Consistent biblical interpretation supports a young earth.

Indeed, what has greater weight? Reality or reality filtered through fallible interpretation of the Bible?

bevets said:
I choose sound biblical interpreation over atheist mythology.

I choose reality over biblical mythology.

nyjbarnes · Sep 7, 2004

Areoz you are siding with a believer of this.

This is apparently out of context...I am removing the quote from Nathan Poe that said

Nice God you got there... real trustworthy, because it has been complained about being out of context. I disagree, but whatever.

Sopharos · Sep 7, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
Siding with people that seek to invalidate the Bible is a risky business, since the Bible does command you not to cause another brother to fall. Tread lightly, God is a righteous God and is not mocked.

Man, that's the second time I have to hear this anti-Science conspiracy gibberish from you.

Seriously, it is not the aim of Science to disprove the Bible. The aim of Science is to understand the universe around us, that's it. Science only deals with what is observable, and God is unobservable. Therefore, Science is forced to be agnostic (NOT atheist) to increase objectivity.

Sopharos · Sep 7, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
Areoz you are siding with a believer of this.

And this is the perfect example of out-of-context quote-mining.

notto · Sep 7, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
Remember, it wasn't literal interpretations that came up with evolution...it was the absense of the will to have faith that did that. Siding with people that seek to invalidate the Bible is a risky business, since the Bible does command you not to cause another brother to fall. Tread lightly, God is a righteous God and is not mocked.

This is simply a lie and a misrepresentation of history and those that study science.

Those that falsified the YEC model of the earth where Christian scientists who were doing what they did TO STUDY GOD'S CREATION. What did they find out? That their interpretation of scripture was wrong. It did nothing to their faith and does nothing to faithful Christians who still participate in science, biology, and geology.

These same scientists never came back and said that their evidence shows that there is no God. Their work does not cause others to fall, it is when others are told by YEC's that there is conflict with science, physical reality, and the bible, that they fall.

The only stumbling block being put in front of Chrstians by other Christians is when YEC's say that the truths of the bible must be false if some of the descriptions of the physical world in the bible are false. Just like you are doing now with another poster in this thread - you are putting up the stumbling block.

I will claim to anyone that even if the bible is wrong about the physical world that its truths are still truths with relation to God and salvation.

Will you do the same?

nyjbarnes · Sep 7, 2004

HRE said:
mhess, try this one:

Would God ask us not to use our minds to observe our surroundings and try to understand them? Would he make the universe look mature to laugh at the silly phycists who love finding out more about the world around them?

Why make the universe look mature and then give us the minds to try to understand it at the same time? Is he playing silly buggers with us?

HRE,

At the root of this, you have the ability to choose, nothing else. Your perception of understanding is a vagarie. You can't be sure you actually understand your own name. You were taught to decode words and letters...but what is this based on? You can't accept this understanding over any other. You can only choose to decode at the same standard for everything. So, given this, you can either accept the Bible using the same standard you use to understand your own name, and accept it, or you don't. God doesn't try to be confusing, natuarally we are limited in our capacity, scientists would have you believe that we have the power to understand anything....ask just one of them to replicate you....not your DNA...YOU, your personality, they way you look at things...your spirit...everyone will tell you they can't. God exists, he askes you to have faith that his son and he provides you a book with which to choose to have that faith.

nyjbarnes · Sep 7, 2004

Sopharos said:
And this is the perfect example of out-of-context quote-mining.

I am sorry, did Nathan Poe not make the statement? Did I put words in his mouth?

If his statement can't stand on it's own merits for validation why can't I used it for invalidation?

nyjbarnes · Sep 7, 2004

notto said:
I will claim to anyone that even if the bible is wrong about the physical world that its truths are still truths with relation to God and salvation.

Will you do the same?

How can you claim falsehood and veracity in the same document? The Bible and the writers claim it to be inerrant, so who's right? The scientists? You? The authors? God?

nyjbarnes · Sep 7, 2004

Sopharos said:
And this is the perfect example of out-of-context quote-mining.

I think you have used your allotment of hyphens for today!

w81minit · Sep 7, 2004

Ishmael Borg said:
But now we leave the jurisdiction of science. It has nothing to say about the supernatural.

I am reading this thread from the beginning yet felt compelled to respond to this post.

It seems that every time I read a comment about science it says the same thing: If you want to talk science leave God out of it. Please don't respond with the same Evolution doesn't equal Atheist and Science doesn't equal atheist etc. I am not indicating that at all.

Clearly God intended for us to observe the world around us and learn from it what we could about him. It seems to me though, that the more we study the more we really just push him out of it.

I understand those of you in this forum who are proclaimed atheists while some of you may not have left out the possibility of God altogether may yet not care about this detail, but for those Theistic Evolutionists, how do you marry those two seemingly incongruous ideas?

Sopharos · Sep 7, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
I am sorry, did Nathan Poe not make the statement? Did I put words in his mouth?

If his statement can't stand on it's own merits for validation why can't I used it for invalidation?

He did say it, but you ripped it out of the context of discussion to make it sounds like he thinks God is untrustworthy. Rather, if you read the previous posts and take this into context, what you will see is that what he meant was that the God according to YECs is untrustworthy, which he is right.

nyjbarnes · Sep 7, 2004

Sopharos said:
Man, that's the second time I have to hear this anti-Science conspiracy gibberish from you.

Seriously, it is not the aim of Science to disprove the Bible. The aim of Science is to understand the universe around us, that's it. Science only deals with what is observable, and God is unobservable. Therefore, Science is forced to be agnostic (NOT atheist) to increase objectivity.

So tell me, if science invalidates creationism and the Bibles account of it, how then can it stand in the face of Christianity and say that's it's purpose (whether originally intended or not) is not to disprove God?

I am sorry, I don't buy the evolution does not equal atheism.

notto · Sep 7, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
How can you claim falsehood and veracity in the same document? The Bible and the writers claim it to be inerrant, so who's right? The scientists? You? The authors? God?

Inerrant with relation to truth is not the same as literal interpretation.

As for who's right, I guess a little bit of all of them. God is right in his revelation in the bible of the truths of salvation, the authors got that interpretation right. Scientists are right as they study God's creation and show us that a literal interpretation of the bible is wrong. God's creation CAN'T LIE - only mans interpretation of the intent of the bible can be wrong. YEC's have it wrong because we can see the reality of creation by studying it.

Sopharos · Sep 7, 2004

w81minit said:
Clearly God intended for us to observe the world around us and learn from it what we could about him. It seems to me though, that the more we study the more we really just push him out of it.

Again, please if you see anyone doing so, give MY regards (that is, me, a non-believer) to the person and smack him/her in the face. Science is agnostic, and will always be until we can find a way to directly observe God (or lack of God).

w81minit said:
I understand those of you in this forum who are proclaimed atheists while some of you may not have left out the possibility of God altogether may yet not care about this detail, but for those Theistic Evolutionists, how do you marry those two seemingly incongruous ideas?

Science is agnostic. What you make of what science says is up to you. Interpretations of Science, however, can be atheistic, theistic, Raelian, whatever. Scientists does not care.

nyjbarnes · Sep 7, 2004

Sopharos said:
He did say it, but you ripped it out of the context of discussion to make it sounds like he thinks God is untrustworthy. Rather, if you read the previous posts and take this into context, what you will see is that what he meant was that the God according to YECs is untrustworthy, which he is right.

regardless of context the statement edifies no one. It serves to debase a whole faith in God and the believer who originally posted.

notto · Sep 7, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
So tell me, if science invalidates creationism and the Bibles account of it, how then can it stand in the face of Christianity and say that's it's purpose (whether originally intended or not) is not to disprove God?

I am sorry, I don't buy the evolution does not equal atheism.

Science studies God's creation, how can that disprove God?

You are confusing God with your interpretation of the bible. Your interpretation can be falsified (just like geocentrism was), God can not be.

Geocentists felt the same way you did and used the same arguments. Are you sure your arguments are valid considering how that turned out? If you arguments would have been successful in the past, then there would be a lot fewer Christians and Galileo would be accused of trying to disprove God.

Was Galileo trying to disprove God?

The number one bugger for creationists: C

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

My big fat tongue in my plump pink cheek

Well-Known Member

My big fat tongue in my plump pink cheek

My big fat tongue in my plump pink cheek

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

My big fat tongue in my plump pink cheek

Well-Known Member

Legend

My big fat tongue in my plump pink cheek

Well-Known Member

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency