Twisted Thinking

[Freedom777]

Twisted Thinking


First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 15(2):3, March-May 1993
N September 1992, a Scientific American article called 'Mind and Brain' said that human brain is . . .





'the most complex structure in the known universe, complex enough to coordinate the fingers of a concert pianist or to create a three-dimensional landscape from light that falls on a two-dimensional retina' A few lines further on, the author said that 'the current version [of the brain] is the result of millions of years of evolution. It is difficult to understand the brain because, unlike a computer, it was nor built with specific purposes or principles of design in mind. Natural selection, the engine of evolution, is responsible.' (Emphasis added).

This is the stark reality of what evolutionary science is teaching our generation-even the most complex structure in the universe is said to have no plan, no purpose, in defiance of all ordinary logic. Trying to explain design without a designer-in other words, justifying atheism, is what evolution has always been all about, despite the attempts by 'theistic evolutionism' to disguise the obvious.

(Source: Gerald D. Fischbach, 'Mind and Brain', Scientific American, (Vol. 267. No. 3) September 1992, p.24)

'Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools' (Romans 1:22).

 

[wblastyn]

You're arguing atheism, take it to the apologetics forum.

You think you should know by now that evolution does not equal atheism.

I don't know what the guy is talking about when he says "evolution has always been about justifying atheism" since Darwin himself was not an atheist, hence he refered to "the Creator" in "The Origin of the Species". 

What is wrong in believing God used Natural Selection as a way to get design?  It's a pretty impressive process if it can come up with the human mind.  In fact, Darwin and others believe natural selection and other laws of nature have to be controlled by "an intelligence", IOW GOD.

 

[Freedom777]

Quote:
What is wrong in believing God used Natural Selection as a way to get design? It's a pretty impressive process if it can come up with the human mind. In fact, Darwin and others believe natural selection and other laws of nature have to be controlled by "an intelligence", IOW GOD.

Because the bible does not teach that.

 

[wblastyn]

Because the bible does not teach that.

If you take Genesis literally then you're right.

Do you also believe the earth is flat, sits on pillars, does not move, is a circle with corners, etc, because that is what a literal interpretation of scripture teaches.

 

[Freedom777]

Do you also believe the earth is flat, sits on pillars, does not move, is a circle with corners, etc, because that is what a literal interpretation of scripture teaches.


No it does not, read the bible

 

[Freedom777]

If you take Genesis literally then you're right

even if you dont,are you saying that He never created them according to their kinds.Are you saying man was not created at the begining,Because if you are than why believe anything else the bible teaches ,considering God lied about these.No GOD did it just the way he said he did not the way man said happened.Believe God or believe man,its your God given choice.

 

[wblastyn]

No it does not, read the bible

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Here Isaiah says the earth is a circle (not a sphere), which is flat, and is covered by the dome of the universe described as "like a tent."

The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth." (Daniel 4:11

For something to be visible to the ends of the earth, the earth would have to be flat.

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." (Psalm 104:5)

"The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (Psalm 93:1)

"Say among the nations, 'The Lord reigns.' The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (Psalm 96:10)

"Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

If the earth cannot move then it is not revolving around the sun, so the church believed in geocentricism.

"The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke." (Job 26:11)

"When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm." (Psalm 75:3)

"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world upon them." (1 Samuel 2:8)

Here the earth is said to sit on pillars.

See, the church used to believe in a flat earth and geocentricism (see Galileo) because of these verses. Then science proved them wrong and they relunctantly changed their interpretation and now no one (except for maybe the Flat Earth Society)takes thoses verses literally. The point is you are making the same mistake the church made all those years ago - you use the Bible, a theological document, to interpret creation instead of using creation to interpret scripture.

even if you dont,are you saying that He never created them according to their kinds.Are you saying man was not created at the begining,Because if you are than why believe anything else the bible teaches ,considering God lied about these.No GOD did it just the way he said he did not the way man said happened.Believe God or believe man,its your God given choice.

Jesus told parables, was he lying because they may not actually have happened?

We know 2 things: Creation contradicts a literal Genesis, and God does not lie. So we can conclude that a literal Genesis is wrong and it was never supposed to have been taken literally.  God gave you a brain, so why don't you use it.

 

[lucaspa]

14th April 2003 at 01:19 AM Freedom777 said this in Post #6

even if you dont,are you saying that He never created them according to their kinds.Are you saying man was not created at the begining,Because if you are than why believe anything else the bible teaches ,considering God lied about these.No GOD did it just the way he said he did not the way man said happened.Believe God or believe man,its your God given choice.

This is the slippery slope argument or "all the Bible is true or none of it is true".  Of course, the unsaid premise behind it is that we are dealing with a literal intepretation.

Freedom, in this emphasis on "God's Word", you are forgetting that God created.  That means that Ceation -- the universe -- is just as much, or more, God's "word" as the Bible.

God didn't lie.  You misunderstand what Genesis 1 and 2 is all about.  You have to, because if you take both literally, they contradict and God has to lie in one of them.  They both can't be literally true.

What you are doing is what you tell us not to: believe man.  Because it is a man-made interpretation. 

So, to keep God from lying between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, or between the Bible and His Creation, it must be your interpretation of Genesis that is in error.

Now, would you like to discuss alternative interpretations?

 

[Crusadar]

Slippery slope my fat behind! It is what scripture tells us. If you believe otherwise you believe not in God but your own erroneous interpretation of what it does not say.

 

[wblastyn]

Slippery slope my fat behind! It is what scripture tells us. If you believe otherwise you believe not in God but your own erroneous interpretation of what it does not say.

But literal Genesis is your interpretation lol. We use creation to help us interpret God's Word, you rely on what you want God's Word to say, everyone keeps trying to tell you that, but you don't listen. Hmmm maybe your head is too stuck up your "fat behind" for you to hear

 

[Crusadar]

blasty,

As I have said so many times, it is not an interpretation, it is acceptance. When we read anything that is historical we do not interpret, we read and accept. Why would God's word be any different, after all we are hearing it from God Himself - who was there from the beginning. How dare we humans tell God that He did not create as He has told us so in His Book!

Satan is very pleased that there are individuals as yourself that give him the time to listen and believe. Continue to mock the truth of God if it pleases you for you mock not me but the One whose Word I stand on.

 

[sfs]

blasty,

As I have said so many times, it is not an interpretation, it is acceptance. When we read anything that is historical we do not interpret, we read and accept.

No. Every act of reading is an act of interpretation -- that's what reading is. The way that you read something historical is very different than the way someone a thousand years ago would have read something historical, and both are different than the way someone two thousand years ago would have read the same thing. What you consider a straightforward, natural reading seems pretty silly to me, and would have seemed silly to, say, Origen as well -- but for completely different reasons. You're free to read it that way, of course, but you have no authority at all to declare your kind of reading to have the divine stamp of approval.

 

[notto]

blasty,

As I have said so many times, it is not an interpretation, it is acceptance. When we read anything that is historical we do not interpret, we read and accept. Why would God's word be any different, after all we are hearing it from God Himself - who was there from the beginning. How dare we humans tell God that He did not create as He has told us so in His Book!

Satan is very pleased that there are individuals as yourself that give him the time to listen and believe. Continue to mock the truth of God if it pleases you for you mock not me but the One whose Word I stand on.

How dare we humans tell God that he did not create as his creation shows us through our observation of it. Continue to mock the creation and discredit its wonder for you mock not me but the One who created it.

Satan is very pleased that there are individuals as yourself that lead people away from the truth of God by convincing them that God did not create the world as he has shown us with his handiwork. By claiming that the creation as we observe it does not match the literal creation description in the bible and therefore either our understanding of the creation is flawed (God has decieved us) or the literal interpretation of the bible is wrong (God has decieved us) and therefore the bible is wrong, only leads people to doubt that the bible has anything of value to say (God has deceived us). This is the danger of literal, biblical interpretation, it leads to God being falsifyable through evidence.

Teaching young earth creationism (God has deceived us) leads to doubt when people realize that it is simply bad science and bad theology that is promoted through bad science and misleading biblical and historical understanding about how the bible came to be and what the writers intended and described when they were writing it.

Adhering to a literal interpretation of the bible tells us that God either deceived us through the writings, or God is deceiving us by covering up the evidence of his creative power by providing evidence in his creation that points away from a literal interpreation of the creation account and flood account in the bible.

I refuse to believe that God would decieve us this way. I choose to accept the bible as a book on theology instead of one of science. It was written 2000 year ago and has components of "scientific" understandings of that time and the worldview of the writers at the time. Although our understanding of creation and the "how" of God's creation has changed, the why remains the same as well as other theological truths conveyed in the bible.

 

[Crusadar]

notto: How dare we humans tell God that he did not create as his creation shows us through our observation of it. Continue to mock the creation and discredit its wonder for you mock not me but the One who created it.

Originality often helps, but in this case it becomes the absurd.

Satan is very pleased that there are individuals as yourself that lead people away from the truth of God by convincing them that God did not create the world as he has shown us with his handiwork. By claiming that the creation as we observe it does not match the literal creation description in the bible and therefore either our understanding of the creation is flawed (God has decieved us) or the literal interpretation of the bible is wrong (God has decieved us) and therefore the bible is wrong, only leads people to doubt that the bible has anything of value to say (God has deceived us). This is the danger of literal, biblical interpretation, it leads to God being falsifyable through evidence.

Ah, one believer with a backward faith is worth much more to Satan than ten atheists on the street, as the atheists can be converted, but not the former as he believes himself to be already a convert - when in actuallity he is not. Tell me how am I leading anyone astray by standing on the word of God? Is it not obvious that I put forth more trust in God's word than what you are doing? Is it not you who doubt God's word more than I? If God is God then how can what He said be falsified? Is God falsified before man or before God Himself? You only you think so because you make no solid stand on His word for you read it as a mere book of moral tales and therefore are not sure anymore what is truth.

Teaching young earth creationism (God has deceived us) leads to doubt when people realize that it is simply bad science and bad theology that is promoted through bad science and misleading biblical and historical understanding about how the bible came to be and what the writers intended and described when they were writing it.

Listening to an evolutionist rant is like listening to a long winded person tell a fairytale. I see myself getting a good laugh out of it every time. Wait a minute, I don't have horns!

Adhering to a literal interpretation of the bible tells us that God either deceived us through the writings, or God is deceiving us by covering up the evidence of his creative power by providing evidence in his creation that points away from a literal interpreation of the creation account and flood account in the bible.

He did no deceive us, it is a test to see who are the true followers of Christ - as whether or not we believe in God and His revelation as it is written or in man's interpretations of what scripture does not say - believe in the truth and YOU WILL BE FREE.

I refuse to believe that God would decieve us this way. I choose to accept the bible as a book on theology instead of one of science. It was written 2000 year ago and has components of "scientific" understandings of that time and the worldview of the writers at the time. Although our understanding of creation and the "how" of God's creation has changed, the why remains the same as well as other theological truths conveyed in the bible.

And so you refuse also to listen to God and continue to deny God as the almighty Creator for His truth cries out to you only be accepted and speaks to you in plain words but you listen not to what He says.

 

[wblastyn]

notto:
Originality often helps, but in this case it becomes the absurd.

Explain why it is wrong to look to God's creation to see how He created?

 

[Crusadar]

No. Every act of reading is an act of interpretation -- that's what reading is. The way that you read something historical is very different than the way someone a thousand years ago would have read something historical, and both are different than the way someone two thousand years ago would have read the same thing. What you consider a straightforward, natural reading seems pretty silly to me, and would have seemed silly to, say, Origen as well -- but for completely different reasons. You're free to read it that way, of course, but you have no authority at all to declare your kind of reading to have the divine stamp of approval.

Realize first of course that not every act of reading requires the Holy Spirit to open our hearts and minds to the truth - or have you forgotten that. For as Martin Luther (a silly person?) puts it best:

“I have often said that whoever would study the Holy Scripture should be sure to see to it that he stays with the simple words as long as he can and by no means departs from them unless an article of faith compels him to understand them differently. For of this we can be certain: no simpler speech has been heard on Earth than what God has spoken.”

 

[wblastyn]

Realize first of course that not every act of reading requires the Holy Spirit to open our hearts and minds to the truth - or have you forgotten that. For as Martin Luther (a silly person?) puts it best:

“I have often said that whoever would study the Holy Scripture should be sure to see to it that he stays with the simple words as long as he can and by no means departs from them unless an article of faith compels him to understand them differently. For of this we can be certain: no simpler speech has been heard on Earth than what God has spoken.”

Wasn't this the reasoning that caused Martin Luther to accuse Galileo of being a heretic for his heliocentric solar system because when using "simple words" the Bible says the earth does not move, therefore it could not orbit the sun, but the sun had to orbit the earth?

 

[sfs]

Realize first of course that not every act of reading requires the Holy Spirit to open our hearts and minds to the truth - or have you forgotten that.

So you're saying that it's not the "obvious" interpretation that matters, but the spiritual truth that God reveals in the Bible? The letter kills, but the spirit gives life? Great -- that's exactly our point.

Unless you're claiming that you are the Holy Spirit, that is. If you are, we should pay attention to your interpretation. Otherwise, not -- unless you'd like to offer an actual argument in favor of it, rather than just denouncing everyone who disagrees with it as Satanic. I'm not holding my breath, however.

For as Martin Luther (a silly person?) puts it best:

“I have often said that whoever would study the Holy Scripture should be sure to see to it that he stays with the simple words as long as he can and by no means departs from them unless an article of faith compels him to understand them differently. For of this we can be certain: no simpler speech has been heard on Earth than what God has spoken.”

A quotation that contradicts the argument you made above, since it claims that there is a rule for understanding the Bible. It also contradicts the actual practice of New Testament writers, who often adopt readings that are anything but literal. But since you accept Luther as an authority on how to interpret scripture, I do trust that you follow him (and this rule) consistently, so that when you read about Jesus saying, "This is my body", for example, you accept the simple words as Luther did to mean that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus.

 

[notto]

And so you refuse also to listen to God and continue to deny God as the almighty Creator for His truth cries out to you only be accepted and speaks to you in plain words but you listen not to what He says.

Please indicate how I have denied God as the almighty Creator.

God's truth cries out to us through the creation. Remember, it was Christian geologist and scientists that first determined that the earth was old and that special creation was false when they went out to study God's creation to understand it better. This did not cause them to deny God as the almighty creator and their early writtings are littered with references to God and Creator as they describe the creation, it only gave them a better understanding of the bible and the creation.

The science and evidence that YEC's ignore was brought about by Christians. It is interesting that YEC's often claim that science was created by Christians and that early scientists were Christians yet they ignore the very methods and observations these early scientists used.

YEC was THE prominent scientific theory but when the Christians scientists went out looking for evidence to support it, they couldn't find it and they had to do what good scientists do, follow the evidence. The YEC model was falsified by those that wanted to find support for it. Unlike YEC's of today who do not approach science through its methods of looking for falsifying evidence, and instead only look at supporting evidence, these early Christian scientists actually did science!

You suggest that this is a "test" by God. I would see that as deceptive. Why would God not let us understand and learn about the truth of his creation by observing it? This seems like bad theology to me.

 

[The Barbarian]

Realize first of course that not every act of reading requires the Holy Spirit to open our hearts and minds to the truth - or have you forgotten that. For as Martin Luther (a silly person?) puts it best:

“I have often said that whoever would study the Holy Scripture should be sure to see to it that he stays with the simple words as long as he can and by no means departs from them unless an article of faith compels him to understand them differently. For of this we can be certain: no simpler speech has been heard on Earth than what God has spoken.”

Of course, Luther also pointed out that a literal reading of Scripture requires that one believe that the Sun goes arouind the Earth.