The number one bugger for creationists: C

[Nathan Poe]

He said utterly...

Mooooo!

Ask questions that have fewer words, most of the pages are torn out of my thesaurus. Hey man, when you need the TP, you need the TP.

Here's a question I could probably handle,

What?

Not even a very good dodge. Perhaps you need to be in a less challenging forum?

You know nathan I wrote an entire post apologizing to you and the readers for quote mining, conceding that I may have done that.

Which would have been a sign of honor and integrity.

But then I thought, no, if he made the statement, it needs to stand on it's own merits.

It did stand on its own merits, which is why you couldn't post the whole thing.

I can think of not a single instance where it would not be blasphemous to compare my God to a liar...no matter the context, fecetious or not.

There's no such thing as your God. If there is a God, He/She/It/They belong to everyone. Agreed?

Your idea of God comes off as a liar. Deal with it, and deal with it honestly.

If you can't handle that you made a mistake that's your issue... sorry, no offense intended, this is just my view.

Which you couldn't even attempt to express with an entire quote.

Thou shalt . . . bear false witness.

Hey, this is fun!

 

[w81minit]

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England



Orthodox Christian doctrine maintains that the Bible is Reality and man is fallible.

I have to smile at this:
I know of no fundementalist Christian that Believes in Evolution - definately makes it untrue.
Almost as funny as someone indicating that they found on the internet...

I don't mean any offense. It is just that my sense of humor immediately kicked in. I apologize if I offended.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What are you the Borg?

You're not even trying anymore, are you?

 

[Sopharos]

(irrelevent humor gloves on)

No!!! We are not the Borg!!! The Bible is the Borg!!! And Heaven is a Borg Cube!!! Here's the proof!: http://www.nobeliefs.com/heaven.htm



(irrelevent humor gloves off)

 

[w81minit]

So would you agree that God could be deceiving creationists as well and that what we see in the physical universe is reality related to its history?

God is not a deceiver. The message conveyed in my post is that God (as it says in Ecclesiastes:
...God is in Heaven you are on Earth therefore let your words be few.

We are doing a great job in this this mental act of self stimulation, especially when we try and put God in a box by saying, if he did thus and such, then he is a liar. Because as we see it - it has to be that way.

I find it shameful that there is not more consideration of the logic.
Do we understand all of God's ways? The whole purpose of the book of Job is to tell us that God is sovereign, and that he does as he pleases. Just because we don't understand, doesn't make him unjust or a liar.

 

[aeroz19]

What is the greater purpose here?

The greater point is to figure out where I stand and then to convince others of whatever is the truth. It isn't our business to base the faith of other Christians on something that is incorrect and something which God never intended. Faith could be dashed into pieces in this manner.

Areoz, explain to me, when you prove to a weak Christian the the Earth is not 6000 years old...then what?

Well, if it isn't, then they deserve to know the truth.

When you prove to them that the Bible can't be trusted then what?

The Bible can be trusted. Our feeble attempts at understanding it cannot.

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?

The
Bible
does
not
leave
everything
to
blind
faith!

Remember, it wasn't literal interpretations that came up with evolution...it was the absense of the will to have faith that did that.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand lemme guess!

All humans are utterly wicked and flawed and helpless without God. This does not only apply to salvation. Even if we are saved, but not in the will of God, our lives are destined for utter failure and destruction, and cannot be used for good. Everthing we do will be in selfishness and therefore will be harmful to others and the world.

This doctrine, however, does not match up with the real world. Look at all the people who contributed to the world and made it a better place to live in, and they were NOT in God's will (many being atheists, agnostics or other faiths).

Good things can come from those who are faithless. This is a lesson all should learn.

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.

Right, so if the Bible doesn't teach YEC what business have we to say that it does? We will be causing many to fall if YEC is not true.

Tread lightly, God is a righteous God and is not mocked.

That's right; He allows humankind to figure out the truth eventually.

 

[w81minit]

I thought science was Agnostic? How can it study God's creation? That would be accepting that God exists. How then accepting God exists do you put science in between you and God and let that govern your faith in God?

Off the Lamp Post, off the Car, off the Backboard, nuttin but net.

 

[nyjbarnes]

You originally said, to which I was accused of quote mining the bold.

God raised a man (several men) from the dead for a noble purpose.

God created a young universe that looks mature to decieve us.

Nice God you got there... real trustworthy.[/QUOTE]

Then you followed-up with more of the same...only repackaged.

It's not a question of "ridiculous" (Argument from incredulity) but of honesty.

If we can't trust God to create a universe that is as old as He made it look, then His promises of salvation in the Bible aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Lie once, and your credibility is questionable.
Build an entire universe on a lie, and your credibility is shot.

But hey, He's your God, I'm sure you trust what He says, not what He does.

How is what I said quote mining again? You can't handle that you are wrong. Don't treat me like an idiot because you can't even remember what you say...I was pointing out to aeroz that she was siding with you a declared non-believer and your interest was not in faith rather the disproving of God's existance. You are being blasphemous. It's offensive, but hey you get the choice to put emnity between you and Christ.

 

[bevets]

Evolution is not the same as athesim. Evolution is mythology that has been based on atheistic assumptions. The primary assumption is that our Creator is irrelevant when studying creation.

Then that's ironic then, since Darwin was a Christian at the time of writing Origins

It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist). ~ Ernst Mayr

(Darwins's notebooks) include many statements showing that he espoused but feared to expose something he perceived as far more heretical than evolution itself: philosophical materialism -- the postulate that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

Not irrelevent, just neither excluded nor included.

What does this mean?

Like I've said many times before, Science deals ONLY with what is observable, and God is unobservable.

Macro evolution is not observable.

Bevets, can you explain to me how so many people can accept evolution and other mainstream sciences while all the time being faithful, believing Christians at the same time if what you say is true?

Christians are fallible. I have already explained that theistic evolutionists prefer atheist mythology over sound biblical interpretation.

Please explain how well trained scientists reject evolution.

 

[w81minit]

This single sentence is bursting with wisdom. It is, in fact, partly arrogance that causes many to be willfully ignorant for fear of what they might find out if they search open mindedly for answers.

Read 1 Kings 22:20-23
Let God be righteous forever - Amen.

 

[aeroz19]

Areoz you are siding with a believer of this.

I do not agree with Nathan Poe's conclusion about religion and what it says about science. Notice his religious affiliation, and mine.

 

[w81minit]

Yet you constantly claim that theistic evolutionists positions demand they reject the bible or that evolution = atheism even though you have theistic evolutionist and scientists telling you this isn't true.

Where's that pot-kettle-black image when we need it.

Find in one of my posts where I say that and I'll Rep you all day long.
I have repeatedly (even in this thread) indicated that is not what I am saying.
Methinks thou doest protest too much!

 

[challenger]

It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist). ~ Ernst Mayr

Evidence and relevance, please

 

[w81minit]

Yes, the master of all creation can do as he pleases but the bible would seem to point to a master of all creation that would have the integrity to do it in a way that is not deceptive. Showing people visions of an exploding star that never existing would cause me to question this integrity. I'm not defining God, I'm using God's own definition to understand the creation. God would not lie to me so YEC must be incorrect.

Read Mark 4:12 and 1 Kings 22:20-23

Please do not respond again until you do. I have quoted them in this thread for easy reading. They both indicate that God is more than willing to let you believe a lie.

Look at the account of Baalam and the talking donkey.

Which (talking Donkey's) by the way were actually extinct within a decade after the Cretacious period - invalidating scripture yet again. CHtongueEEK.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You originally said, to which I was accused of quote mining the bold.

You posted part of the quote as if it were the whole. You're more than accused; you've just confessed.

How is what I said quote mining again? You can't handle that you are wrong. Don't treat me like an idiot because you can't even remember what you say...

I was debunking the "mature universe/appearance of age" argument.
If it is so, then God is a liar.

Since we both agree that God is not a liar, then the "mature universe/appearance of age" argument must be false.

Even you could have figured that out... if you were trying to.

I was pointing out to aeroz that she was siding with you a declared non-believer and your interest was not in faith rather the disproving of God's existance.

And where did I say I was setting out to do that? My arguments here have been against biblical literalism, which you have once again mistaken for God.

You are being blasphemous. It's offensive, but hey you get the choice to put emnity between you and Christ.

Fine, between me and Christ. And I'm willing to bet that he'd find Biblical literalism every bit as hilarious as I do.

Of course, he'd be a lot more forgiving about it, I'm sure.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I do not agree with Nathan Poe's conclusion about religion and what it says about science. Notice his religious affiliation, and mine.

Nor would I ask you to. But can we both agree that reading Genesis 1-2 as straight historical fact is a bad idea for both scientific and theological reasons?

 

[aeroz19]

Read 1 Kings 22:20-23
Let God be righteous forever - Amen.

That isn't reason enough to think that God would cause all the evolutionists and non-Godly scientists to be totally deceived. If you recall, a lot of the scientists who challenged and disproved the Church's fallicious doctrines were Christians. Remember when the Catholic Church thought that the Bible said the sun orbits the earth? Guess all those people were also being deceived too, eh?

 

[w81minit]

Does that mean that God is a deceiver?


Indeed, some people just don't see the forest for the trees. Something can be right in front of you and you won't get it.



Certainly they are not, but who is "above" the physicist to mock their work?

At the circus, the audience laughs at the clown; who does the clown laugh at?


You need to read some Mark Twain for that kind of consideration; I recommend Huckleberry Finn or The Mysterious Stranger.

God is not a deceiver, he allows circumstances in life to prevail for righteous judgement. It us we who deceive ourselves when we think we know God, yet haven't (as is in Timothy) 'stud(ied) to show thyself approved.'
We then insert words in God's mouth, and confuse his actions and motives.
That is why it seriously irks me to hear the notion that if God did thus and such, he must be a deceiver. It is as grating as Evolution=Atheism.

I loved Huck Finn.

I recently visited the Mark Twain Museum and Caves. The very cave where Tom Sawyer hid from Injun Joe.

Levity is always good.

 

[bevets]

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.

The Bible can be trusted. Our feeble attempts at understanding it cannot.

Would you say the same about physical evidence?

The greater point is to figure out where I stand and then to convince others of whatever is the truth. It isn't our business to base the faith of other Christians on something that is incorrect and something which God never intended.

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England

 

[Tachocline]

Well you are at odds with many theologians over the last 200 years where the 'God is a deceiver' excuse (er philosophy) is an anathema. Bad philosopy & bad theology.