To all athiests out there: bring it on

[Smilin]

Originally posted by lucaspa
This one is pretty good. And you get support from none other than Answers in Genesis.

 

Okay,,, I'm not gonna go with my initial instincts.  For the record, I've NEVER been to the AIG site.  (wanna check my computer internet history record?)  I get answers to my science questions from those professionals I work with, from my college textbooks, from more recent science text books, from scientific publications, and from research on the internet.  I don't look to Genesis for any scientific answers.

On the other hand, I look to my faith and scriptural doctrine for matters concerning spirituality, morals, code of conduct, and to seek a closure relationship with God.

IMO, seekin scientific answers from any theology is a huge mistake.  Just as seeking answers to theological matters from a scientific text book is a huge mistake. 

Originally posted by lucaspa
So creationists, in fact, do invoke evolution to explain the origin of different species of animals since the Flood.

You're attempts to divide everyone, neatly, into two different categories: Creationists or Evolutionists fails.  Some of us don't fit into these 'labels' so neatly.

I'm not a biologist...because I didn't major in Biology

I'm not a creationist....because I didn't major in Creationism, I don't think it's currently accepted as a science, if it's taught at any college, and if you can indeed major in it.  (however I do personally believe in a Creator)

I'm not an evolutionist.... I didn't major in Evolution.  Evolution is a science, but I'm not sure if you can major in it.  (however I can repeat several experiements that do indeed prove that species evolve)

and yes, It is my assertion that only Evolutionary Science offers any credibility to the biblical account of Noah's ark.

Many Regards,

Smilin 

p.s.... for the record.. you could classify me as a 'hybrid'... I don't like being termed 'creationist' or 'evolutionist'... they're categories invented by those who don't know/ don't care/ refuse to search for the truth.

We have nothing to fear... but fear itself.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Preciousmyheart
[GLOW=blue]I just wanted to add my thoughts to this discussion.[/GLOW]

John 1:3 all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Greetings and welcome to the forum PMH,  new thoughts are always welcomed.  I hope you enjoy your stay here.

Now, how do you interpret that scripture?  Are you going to maintain that God created all 100,000(+) animal species estimated to inhabit our world today?  Did God create the 77,000(+) plant hybrids that exist today?

Just interested in your thoughts...

Many Regards,

Smilin

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Preciousmyheart
smilin

It also states in the Bible that you can handle serpents and drink poison without being harmed...do you believe that (literally) as well...and if so...would you demonstrate?

Did you not hear the report NBC did about french fries causing cancer?

Every day that we drive, walk, eat, sleep, or breathe the environment that we are in, it is proof of our faith in God whether or not we acknowledge that same God. Every time science says one thing and realizes it is wrong and changes it (think capillaries) science itself proves that there is a God.
Rom. 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
If a person has decided that there is a God but not all of the Bible is true then no one can make that person believe otherwise. I would love it if everyone had had the experiences with him I have (and I have medical proof) but everyone hasn't and I also know that you can't find God by searching, but He has to reveal Himself to you. We really need to believe everything He left us in His Word because we are responsible for all of it.

Okay... by your last line you believe that passage literally? Am I correct?  I'd have you as a guest here in the mountains and flush out an Eastern Diamondback rattlesnake if you believe such.  I've hiked with many who harvest snake venom for their livelihoods.  From my observations, it is not a matter of faith in God that determines how to handle a poisonous viper.  It's a matter of knowing what you're doing, knowing the particular snake, and the proper methods....

Many Regards,

Smilin

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Thanks. I'd really appreciate it if you'd e-mail me and tell me how you did that.

me too Jerry, or poste the links... very interesting.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Outspoken
[BAgreed, but from a theological perspective, evolution is wrong according to the text as well. [/B]

I find nothing in theology that disputes evolutionary science.  I do find passages that dispute other Can you prove this?  Or do you simply believe it (as I once did) because you were taught it?

Seek and ye shall find.......

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Only if you take the text as 100% literal. Which doesn't make sense, given the contradictory real-world evidence.

okay Pete.. your turn... hehehehheheh

If I did indeed take the Bible 100% literally, how would it convince me Evolution is false?

This argument always stumps me...

HELLLLPPPPPP

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"Only if you take the text as 100% literal. Which doesn't make sense, given the contradictory real-world evidence."

Nope, not at all, if you want to twist the scripture around, then yes you can take it at nonliteral. There is NOTHING in the passage that indicates its nonliteral and EVERYTHING that indicates it is.

You take all scripture literally?

You're telling me then that:

1. You can 'literally' take up serpents and drink poison without being harmed?  I'd like a demonstration.

2.  You're telling me we should 'literally' chop off our hands or poke out our eyes if they 'offend'. ?????  

And those are just two from the New Testament.  Should we 'literally' kill witches, abandon fatherless babies as well? (Old Testament)

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Is there a context hint you can identify in Isaiah 11:12 that indicates any part of that passage is non-literal? Or must we conclude that the earth has four literal corners? Do you want to take the whole passage that this appears in non-literally for the sake of non-literal corners?

Scripture 'literally' used as proof the Earth was flat.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
You claim the whole context of the Bible is non-fiction, but I've yet to see any context specifiers within the Bible that says, "This is 100% the way it happened, no ifs, ands, buts or maybes.

And research into the history associated with the translation of the Bible will open many more questions as well.

(stay tuned for a future thread... )

 

[Outspoken]

"It has been fun (honest!) chatting."

Have a great night Prax, or hope you did anyway.

 

[Outspoken]

"This doesn't look like it was forced on you."

It was while I was in that class. I wasn't allowed to question, talk out or do anything to express my thoughts about the matter.

"However, you also do not have evidence within the text that explicitly states it is 100% literal."

Yes, I do, it states so as much by context of the text, unless you think Judism thinks God is a myth, which they don't. The text is to be read as literal until you see otherwise in context. In genesis you don't see this, thus it is a full literal passage.

"My belief that Genesis is non-literal is based on rationalizing the real-world evidence with the passages in Genesis"

IE you inserting YOUR THOUGHTS onto the text instead of letting it speak for itself. That's the first wrong step in translation and interpretation.

"Why is it so important to you that Genesis has to be a literal account for you to accept it?"

1. I accept it regardless
2. I thought it was nonliteral until I studied it thanks.

 

[Outspoken]

"You take all scripture literally?"

This is another case of selective reading. I take it literally unless the context says otherwise. Genesis is a literal account and creation happened in a literal 7 days because that's what the context dictates.

"Scripture 'literally' used as proof the Earth was flat."

Another case of selective reading.

 

[Live4Jesus]

There appears to be numerous and mounting SCIENTIFIC evidence against Darwin's theories of evolution. Most of it isn't being heard, being quenched by the good 'ol US govt especially, but you can search various scientific journals for it.

For instance scientists would like very much to know where do a certain bacteria, known as 'flagellum' (hope I spelled that right) fit in? Fact is, they don't. Amazing little things, flagellum, with little outboard motors attached...

In China, scientists digging in fossil beds have uncovered an astounding array of cambrian fossilized matter. After years of research, they are saying Darwin had it backwards, that there were more lifeforms than there are now, as they put it, Darwin's tree of life should be turned upside down. The species have been refined and some gone into extinction rather than the idea of one life form or species begetting others.

There is very little fossilized matter available prior to the cambrain age, that's why it's called the Cambrian explosion. Many scientists say it's like life suddenly appeared, yes, in one day. Of course Darwin's theories don't allow for this and thus neither do most current textbooks. I think the guy's name was Heggel that made those drawings we still see in textbooks today, the comparitive embryo drawings, also a fabrication.

One should wonder at the current hush hush censorship of new scienctific studies, studies done with electronic microscopes revealing worlds that were unavailable to the scientists of darwin's age.

Give it a few more years, it's a flood of information and the dam surely cannot hold. Darwin's theories are hampering all of science at this point. They will have to go if progress is to be made.

A good place to start looking would be the fossil digs of China, and likewise microbiology.

More interesting material on the existence of God himself comes to light in the field of yep, physics... but been a few years since i read there so you will have to do that resaearch yourself because mine is not current.


Never forgetting a day with Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years a day...

Y'know the Catholic church is the one that instituted religion upon christianity.... you can blame her for ideas like the earth is flat but it has absolutely nothing to do with my or any REAL faith, which is in Jesus Christ and no church whatsoever. They would have burned me at the stake have no doubt because my faith is real and even I hate their 'religion' which is so full of lies.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Live4Jesus
There appears to be numerous and mounting SCIENTIFIC evidence against Darwin's theories of evolution. Most of it isn't being heard, being quenched by the good 'ol US govt especially, but you can search various scientific journals for it.

Creationists have been trying to say this for over a hundred years. It wasn't accurate then. It's not accurate now.

For instance scientists would like very much to know where do a certain bacteria, known as 'flagellum' (hope I spelled that right) fit in? Fact is, they don't. Amazing little things, flagellum, with little outboard motors attached...

Flagellum is not a bacterium. It is an organelle. Here is some information of cillia and flagella. Flagella are not at all a quandry for evolution, as can be seen here.

In China, scientists digging in fossil beds have uncovered an astounding array of cambrian fossilized matter. After years of research, they are saying Darwin had it backwards, that there were more lifeforms than there are now, as they put it, Darwin's tree of life should be turned upside down. The species have been refined and some gone into extinction rather than the idea of one life form or species begetting others.

Reference please. If you actually look at cambrian fossils what you realize is that none of them are of modern organisms and in fact are quite distinct from modern forms of life. Hard to reconcile with biblical creationism isn't it.

There is very little fossilized matter available prior to the cambrain age, that's why it's called the Cambrian explosion. Many scientists say it's like life suddenly appeared, yes, in one day. Of course Darwin's theories don't allow for this and thus neither do most current textbooks.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the cambrian explosion. Life did not suddenly spring up there. There is lots of evidence of life before the cambrian. Read this if you want to find more about transitional fossils and the Cambrian.

I think the guy's name was Heggel that made those drawings we still see in textbooks today, the comparitive embryo drawings, also a fabrication.

When was the last time you looked at a textbook with those drawings? Every one I have ever see puts it in as a matter of history and discusses why Haeckel's ideas were wrong.

One should wonder at the current hush hush censorship of new scienctific studies, studies done with electronic microscopes revealing worlds that were unavailable to the scientists of darwin's age.

Electron microscopes have been around for at least eighty years. The modern synthesis of evolutionary biology was developed until the '40s and '50s well after the microscopes would have had their revolutionary overthrow of darwin. If the research is being censored, how do you know about it?

Give it a few more years, it's a flood of information and the dam surely cannot hold. Darwin's theories are hampering all of science at this point. They will have to go if progress is to be made.

That's what the evolution-deniers said over a hundred years ago. We're still waiting for this prophesized flood of evidence that is supposed to overturn evolution. In fact, evolution has only been strengthened by each new biological field that has arose in the last hundred years.

A good place to start looking would be the fossil digs of China, and likewise microbiology.

Well I guess you have a lot of work cut out for you.

More interesting material on the existence of God himself comes to light in the field of yep, physics... but been a few years since i read there so you will have to do that resaearch yourself because mine is not current.

We will not do your home work for you.

 

[seebs]

I think a lot of it comes down to frog-in-boiling-water. When there wasn't that much evidence, people threw it out because there wasn't that much. Then, every time a new result comes in, it's taken *alone* - without reference to the previous evidence - and thrown out as "also not enough". If you look at all the evidence at once, the testimony is undeniable; if you split it up into little bits and pieces, you can ignore them all.

 

[Live4Jesus]

Well bacteria or whatever does it really Matter? Your page there (rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/ribozone/resource/transport/Ian%20Musgrave_flagella.htm) is all theory and cannot be proven either. What Darwinian evolution does presuppose is that life evolves one part from another so how did this all happen? Many times, the smaller you go, the more complex things become, the more questions need to be answered, not vice versa. take DNA for instance and the amount of information it contains. without the information of DNA a life form cannot assemble itself. How does a fish begin to suddenly generate the DNA for an elephant? Alien invasion? Darwin's finches, also nonsense. Drought and rain affect beaks, not any ''evolution'.

They had clips of the digs in China on a video we saw called 'Unlocking the Mysteries of Life'. But I should read up some more on it it is real interesting.

The evidence is there, it is most definitely being suppressed. And it is coming out slow but sure so I guess they were right a hundred years ago.

C'mon admit it, they teach evolution in schools because we all agree on it right? Wrong, we don't all agree and that includes some of the science teachers. When someone wants to teach about new discoveries they cry 'Religious agenda!' Honestly get over it, not all scientsists are Christians and even they don't all agree with Darwin. So why is the classroom censored?

I do my homework, time you did yours.

You make my point exactly though... it's hard to reconcile cambrian fossils with modern lifeforms. they are extinct. Darwin's tree of life should be turned upside down. Yes there are layers below with a few fossils, but it is called the Cambrian explosion for a reason that evolution cannot explain a whit. Not hard to reconcile with creation at all, considering a flood...

 

[Live4Jesus]

Even scientists working with viruses and stuff have a problem because of Darwin. Stuff just doesn't evolve on it's own. You get weaker strains, resistant strains, and every variation in between, but whenever things get back to normal the species reverts to original condition. How does evolution explain it?

 

[Live4Jesus]

4 winged fruitflies anyone?

 

[Live4Jesus]

Well as usual no one wants the poor 4 winged fruitfly, no not even it's mother and it will die alone in the isolation of the laboratory.

By God's grace, even an atom bomb could not change the gene pool of the japanese people. Pretty amazing story of human survival isn't it? After a few generations mutations die off and life resumes as normal.

Isn't it amazing that man with all his science cannot create a seed? He can only dabble with what already exists.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Live4Jesus,

You've got a lot of rhetoric there, but where is the evidence? What is the one piece of evidence that you find most damaging to evolution and supportive of biblical creation? If evolution is so false, then surely you can provide at least one bit of evidence that contradicts it. Of course, this all hinders on you actually understanding what evolution is and what it claims. I suggest that before you answer you look at the section of a biology textbook (H.S. or college) that deals with evolution. Failure to education yourself about that which you are trying to refute will only result in your failure, not evolution's.

Now how about it? What is your evidence?