The number one bugger for creationists: C

[nyjbarnes]

*biting lip, tongue, and swallowing hard.*

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.

Dodged. Answer the question. What is the greater purpose? Aren't you concerned that in your search for truth you could cause others to fall? You state "whatever the truth is" Do you know? You claim to have been a YEC, and now it would seem you are an OEC and moving close to theistic evolution. I didn't intend for you to believe that you were to base your faith on other Christians, though it would seem you are doing the same with scientists.

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

They deserve to know that the Bible is a literal interpretation of God's word. Less than that the Bible is false or at least cannot be counted a fully truthful, which begs the question? Who can claim which parts of the Bible are true and reliable.

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

Wait one second...so now we can't understand the Bible? Where exactly did you learn about Jesus? Somehow I am to understand certain portions of the Bible are interpretable but others aren't...some are reliable, others aren't? Who decides this? Science? If science is deciding your faith decicions, I guess that would be proof that evolution does equal atheism.

The
Bible
does
not
leave
everything
to
blind
faith!

You're right, and taken as a literal interpretation you have all you need not only to understand God's intention for you in this world but also how to attain salvation.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand lemme guess!

All humans are utterly wicked and flawed and helpless without God.

uhhhh yes.

For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of 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.

So are you telling me that if you sin just before the rapture you aren't going to heaven? Or that you can't be used by God? ever heard of Aiken?

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).

Amazing, you mean some people are real nice but they won't end up in heaven? Wow! Doesn't change their fate.

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

Define good. Are you telling me that you would put faith in a sin ridden world because it's called science instead of the Bible when it's called God?

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.

The Bible teaches that all things were created in 6 days...how much younger can you get?

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

Not always.

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.

But not a lie that He tells Himself...
I read them, now it's your turn.
Read this:

Romans 1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

And this:

1 Corinthians 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


What does this tell us?

1: God created everything, and we can learn about Him from His creation.
2: God's not out to trick us.

This doesn't fit well with a universe that is young but looks old, now does it?

 

[Arikay]

Anyone else notice that so far (still going through the thread) creationists can't scientifically backup claims that the earth is very young?

Lots of "god did it" and hand waving when its mentioned that not only is that not scientific, it turns god into a liar. And then off topic stuff.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Anyone else notice that so far (still going through the thread) creationists can't scientifically backup claims that the earth is very young?

Lots of "god did it" and hand waving when its mentioned that not only is that not scientific, it turns god into a liar. And then off topic stuff.

Indeed, first they make their God into a liar, then they get insulted by it!

Even I have more respect for God, and I don't even believe in Him...

 

[w81minit]

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

What does this mean?

Macro evolution is not observable.

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.

From Doooowwwwnn Tooowwnn! Swish!!! Got my Basketball theme working t'nite.
Ooops, I purposely mispelled it. Does that make me a deceiver?

 

[nyjbarnes]

Even I have more respect for God, and I don't even believe in Him...

WHAT?! How does that make any sense? How can you have respect for something that you don't believe in?

 

[w81minit]

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?

The one has nothing to do with the other.
Your idea that God is deceiving us invalidates YEC is at issue. This scripture points out very well that Ahab chose a lie over God. God is willing to let all who desire it, to believe a lie. Whether you wish to believe it or not. God is God, we are not. Not that I want to be captain obvious or anything.

 

[w81minit]

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.

Not to compare myself with him, but so was Martin Luther.
Read the scripture, come to your conclusion - observe, hypothesize, validate.

In this case you must read the scripture and compare passage with passage for accurate translation - after all context is everything.

 

[Lonnie]

"God never lies. But God created a Universe that appears for several reasons (sedimentary rock sequences, radioactive breakdowns, measurable parallaxes, red shift, etc.) to be far older than the date of 4000 BC that can be painstakingly calculated as the approximate date of Creation from the Biblical standards."


Let Me make something CLEAR too you.

Evolutionists think the universe appears to be millions and millions of years old.


You guys said that God would then have decieved you if he made the world look old, NOT ME(so dont blame me, you brought such things about yourself)

 

[Sopharos]

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

Looks like they were referring this quote:

"Whilst on board the Beagle (October 1836-January 1839) I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." p.85

Darwin was still a Christian, he just didn't believe in literalism.

What does this mean?

It means agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Macro evolution is not observable.

Has been.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462
http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

 

[Lonnie]

"Anyone else notice that so far (still going through the thread) creationists can't scientifically backup claims that the earth is very young? "

Anyone else noticed that so far(still going through the thread) evolutonists can't scientifically prove that God did not create the world with fossils, stars that are vissible to earth, ect about 6,000 years ago?



"Lots of "god did it" and hand waving when its mentioned that not only is that not scientific, it turns god into a liar. And then off topic stuff."

As I said, YOU guys made God the liar.

 

[w81minit]

But not a lie that He tells Himself...
I read them, now it's your turn.
Read this:

Romans 1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

And this:

1 Corinthians 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


What does this tell us?

1: God created everything, and we can learn about Him from His creation.
2: God's not out to trick us.

This doesn't fit well with a universe that is young but looks old, now does it?

This in no way invalidates that God will let you believe a lie.
That God has shown himself in his handiwork should be obvious. Every author has his style, every guitar player, every painter, unique penmanship among peers.
As for God not being the author of confusion, well said, but it doesn't change that God hardened Pharoh's heart, That God chose a lying spirit to deceive Ahab, that Christ spoke in parables to prevent the 'learned' from understanding. Remember it was the legalistic pharasees that chose Man's tradition over God's law. It was the worship of their own righteousness.

Why didn't Christ mention evolution when he asked the question: can a leapord change his spots?

hmmm....

 

[w81minit]

Anyone else notice that so far (still going through the thread) creationists can't scientifically backup claims that the earth is very young?

Lots of "god did it" and hand waving when its mentioned that not only is that not scientific, it turns god into a liar. And then off topic stuff.

If you read the thread from the beginning you would read that God is not a liar just cause you would prefer evolution over creation.

Just to keep you on your toes. Please read all the posts.

 

[w81minit]

Indeed, first they make their God into a liar, then they get insulted by it!

Even I have more respect for God, and I don't even believe in Him...

Nathan,
I have built up enough respect for you to not snipe back - but I think I made my case and counter argument. Don't just pile on. Arikay - while I thought a post today was very good, rarely (as far as I've seen) offers insight into the argument aside from saying - yeah, what he said, and why don't creationsits use science like we do?
No offense Arikay.
I think this discourse can be polite and have merit.

Nuff said.

 

[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.

Not irrelevent, just neither excluded nor included.

What does this mean?

It means agnosticism

Is God relevant or not irrelevant? included or excluded?

My position is that our Creator is relevant to creation events. Would you say that my position is right or wrong? How do you know?

 

[aeroz19]

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.

At that point you ask, was the Genesis account Creation meant to be taken literally or allegorically?

I am still asking these questions and searching for answers myself.

 

[aeroz19]

And what you don't take into account or don't want to accept is that God could have created light and strata with the appearance of age. He certainly did it for the organisms of the earth, why not the earth itself?

Are you saying that God put fossils there in the strata? God made fossils?

 

[Sopharos]

Is God relevant or not irrelevant? included or excluded?

Neither. Just not taken into direct consideration when interpreting evidence. When it comes to interpreting Science, it's a whole different matter. Science itself is agnostic. It's process of interpretation is strictly agnostic in nature. However interpretations of Science can be agnostic, atheist, theistic, whatever.

My position is that our Creator is relevant to creation events. Would you say that my position is right or wrong? How do you know?

Neither right nor wrong, just your opinion. As I am discussing this from a scientific point of view, I cannot go beyond what is observable.

 

[bevets]

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

At that point you ask, was the Genesis account Creation meant to be taken literally or allegorically?

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

Does this help?

 

[aeroz19]

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

That's right; your interpretation of the Bible could be wrong, because you are fallible!