What makes a creationist a creationist?

[MattLangley]

Wrong, the Bible was written by man from God. Mankind did not write down according to their own will. GOD inspired the word of GOD. Meaning they told him what to write down. Read my posts above, and in the Is creation plausible. Evolution cannot answer these questions.

And God came down and told you this himself did he? Happen to have a video of it on youtube or something?

Instead I'm assuming your are basing a testimony of it being infallibly from God by the words of man who say it is so (more appropriately interpreting words to mean that, but I'll play along), so you must first deem the words of man infallible that say it's the words of God (and naturally infallible).

No matter which way you approach it you are claiming the words of man as infallible... whether you deem the Bible as words of man or if you deem it as the words of God claimed to be so by man (which you must accept infallibly to then deem those words as infallibly from God).

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

And God came down and told you this himself did he? Happen to have a video of it on youtube or something?

Instead I'm assuming your are basing a testimony of it being infallibly from God by the words of man who say it is so (more appropriately interpreting words to mean that, but I'll play along), so you must first deem the words of man infallible that say it's the words of God (and naturally infallible).

No matter which way you approach it you are claiming the words of man as infallible... whether you deem the Bible as words of man or if you deem it as the words of God claimed to be so by man (which you must accept infallibly to then deem those words as infallibly from God).

Well, if this assertion is true then Why is their other written documentation about the Bible to declare its reliability? Why is it that all the prophecies within being fulfilled? Another question. If you are a "Theistic Evolutionist" why are you an "atheistic evolutionist?" Since in your words the Bible is just as fallible as man kind since God told them what to write. How arbitrary is that? Tell me how you presupposition is true? Because it seems as if your the only one making this assertion without any evidence for such a claim. Tell me how you know 100% that the Bible is Fallible, and that God did not happen to write the Bible? Again, these are not the words of "man" ... Scripture was written by man from GOD. Just like God made the Sabbath but He made it not for himself but for Mankind. How would there be evolution if there was no "creation?" The answer; There wouldn't be. Just because your presuppositions does match that of the Bible's standards does not mean the Bible is 'fallible.'

 

[Dark_Lite]

If man recorded the Bible through divine inspiration, God did not literally write the Bible. The Holy Spirit spoke to people and they wrote it down.

That is why cultural contexts and the like in the Bible must be respected.

 

[Darkness27]

See, you do not even have justification of how life came about because "evolution" cannot prove 100% where we came from,

Evolution has nothing to do with how life got here, only how it diversified after it got here. Second, no theory in science can be proven 100%. Thirdly what do you mean by "justification" in this sentence and all your other sentences?

I have justification of where life came from Jesus CREATED life.

Your missing the point, it isn't who, but how. Everyone on this thread is supposedly a Christian, so for all of us the who is already answered. The how is where we differ.

Basically your saying GOD used "man's methods" of the interpretations of the evidence is how 'life' came about? JESUS does everything according to Will of GOD, not mankind.

I have no idea what you're talking about. "Man's methods"? what methods? We have never created life, we don't create evolution, we just observe it. I think God used primarily naturalistic means to create life, I don't see how you translate that into the will of "mankind".

Yet again you have no Justification of how sin entered in the world but I have justification for that in the Creation view.

What do you mean by justification? What makes it justified? If I used the Buddhism view would that make it justifiable?

I see that 'evolution' leaves you with unanswered questions that are right before your eyes in the Creation worldview but you constantly reject and deny the Genesis account of Creation.

That isn't logical to persuade someone who doesn't already hold the Bible to be the literal word of God. I might as well say to you the Qur'an has the answer too if you read it literally, but unless you believe that it means nothing.

What do you believe about the 'last' Adam? That means there was a "first" Adam.

I am not familiar with the phase 'last' Adam. Is it the same as the 'second' Adam?

I am really surprised that you believe fallible man's evidence over God's infallible creation.

You are the one who believes because it is in a book, not because you see it in the creation. Meanwhile I see evolution in this "infallible creation". I'm confused as why you say "God's infallible creation". If it was truly infallible than there would be no fall which is central to a literal reading of Genesis.

What do you believe about the devil? The Bible says He fell from Heaven from "pride" ..In which means he was sinful but sin did not enter the world there. Now, how did "sin" enter the world, If GOD cannot create evil, but the only evil thing is the devil? What did the devil do to bring "sin" into the world?

Okay, first you say that God's creation is infallible. Next you state that God cannot create evil, than you state that the only evil came from the devil who was originally an angel. Correct me if I'm wrong but unless angels aren't part of God's creation your whole argument here falls apart. As far as I know angles are a part of God's creation.

Then Christ also referred to the end-time in the context of the beginning-times. "In those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be" (Mark 13:19).

The phrase is also used in Peter's very important prophecy concerning the scoffers of the end-times who will argue (in willful ignorance) that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (II Peter 3:3-4), thereby denying that there ever was a real creation or real Creator and thus rejecting Christ Himself. But He is also the "true witness" and the "Amen," and such denials will only be "unto their own destruction" (II Peter 3:16). -- ICR(Institute for Creation Research)

What can I say? I don't oppose anything here, it's a miracle. The only thing I would add is that no one knows when Jesus is coming back, and it is important to recognize that no matter the time period, there will always be people who oppose God and will hate on those who believe.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

It doesn't? Then why is there Abigenesis? We evolved from "abiogenesis" therefore it tells the origin of life. This cannot be as I will show later. Evolution cannot be proven 100% therefore, it cannot be called, "fact." Justification = You have no information backing up your beliefs that go along with you presupposition. Whenever I say Adam was Created not Evolved. That is a presupposition but my basis is justified by the Bible. You justification for anything is not viable.

God, did not use evolution for this would be a contradiction. The Bible says in "Genesis" that all will die because of Adam's sin. He could not have evolved because that would mean he would have evolved from previous creatures that have "died" whenever the curse of death was not in effect. Death is the wages of sin, and sin entered the world by Adam, so who sinned before the human being Adam if he is not a literal being but simply a mere symbolic picture? So, it is a question of 'who' and 'how.'

God did not use man's method of evolution to make the world and "life." I am sorry that is kind of absurd to say.

Psalm 119:160

160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever.

God's word is true FROM THE BEGINNING; Genesis.

John 1:1-4

1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him not any thing made that was made.
4 In Him was life : and the life was the light of men.

You see God refers to Genesis here. In the beginning is stated twice then he states his "creation" not his "evolution." All things were MADE by him. In which Cross References to;

Ephesians 3:9

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which is from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by JESUS CHRIST.

He again refers to the Genesis account of Creation here as reference to John 1:1-4. It says God, 'CREATED' all things (from the beginning of the world) not "evolved" all things. According to evolution, every creature here is simply a evolved creature that came from a single-celled organism that God did not create. This is again Cross Referenced to another verse of scripture.

Hebrews 1:2

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things by whom also he made the worlds...

Worlds = Universe, not the 'Big Bang' (it has nothing to do with evolution whenever it does but one cannot see it the way I do.)

Hebrews 3:4

4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

You see it said he "built" all things like a building has a 'builder.' He did not make anything evolved for if he did so we wouldn't have people taking from and adding to the Bible things that are important like "Genesis." The LORD JESUS created all things regardless of what "evolution" says im sorry.

Pslam 146:6

6 Which made the heaven and earth, the sea and all that therein is; which keepeth truth for ever..

(Cross Reference : Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 14:7) If Genesis is just a "symbolic picture" then all these verses of scripture must be false unless you say all of these are just symbolic pictures. If so what is symbolic about them that makes them symbolic and not literal? If they were not literal how was the Universe and Life formed whenever in John 1:3 says, "without him not anything that made that was made?" Obviously God created them not evolved them into being. Because in Genesis it says they reproduce after their own kind. Not evolve over millions of years of "death." That is not a lawful thing for God to do; make a universe with billions of years of death.

Psalm 148:1-5

1Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
2Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
3Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
4Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
5Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

You see here GOD SPOKE AND BY HIS COMMAND O LORD THEY WERE CREATED!!! HE SPOKE, AND """ IT WAS SO """ HE LOOKED AT ALL HE HATH "CREATED" AND SAID " IT WAS VERY GOOD " WE ARE NOT EVOLVED BEINGS!! BY HIS COMMAND WE WERE MADE! PRAISE GOD!! Verse 5, makes me want to cry for evolutionists like you who are being deceived by this horrible lie from the devil. (Romans 1:18-22, Romans 1:25, Romans 1:28, John 3:19) God has created all things according to Genesis.

Evolution cannot account for "sin" if Genesis was not illiterate.

1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 42-50

21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.




42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.



This is talking about physical and spiritual "life" .. But the "first" is Adam was made a living soul. The first man (Adam) is of the Earth. We as humans borne the image of the earthy (Adam). (Going to 21-23) "For by man came death..." This is talking about physical death. (Cross Reference; 2 Corinthians 5:1-8, Genesis 3:19, Hebrews 9:27)


Heb.9:27 - It is appointed unto all men to die.



V. 22 - "For as in Adam all die..." We all die a "physical" death because of Adam.



Adam was a contrasting type of Christ (vs. 45-47; Cf Romans 5:14-19) "The first man Adam was made a living soul" (Genesis 2:7), i.e. he derived life from another, that is God. "The last Adam was a life-giving spirit." So far from deriving life, He was himself the fountain of Life, and he gave that Life to others (John 1:4, vs. 21; 10:10, 12:24, 1 John 5:12) In the origin the first man was of the earth, earthy; these also are in contrast; in Adam all die; in Christ all will be made alive; the Adamic creation is "flesh"; the new creation, "spirit" (John 3:16).



You see without a literal Adam there would be no everlasting life. Because Adam's creation plays a key role, A symbolic picture does not mean nothing. How can the everlasting spirit be "literal" and not the contrasting thing of "spirit" which is "flesh" from Adam? Seems very illogical. In Revelation 22, it talks about the curse. How could there be a "curse" if Adam is just a symbolic creature that never existed? As I have shown, God Commanded it and IT WAS SO. Also v.45 in 1 Corinthians 15, Has a cross reference to Genesis 2:7 stating that Adam was "Created" he is not a symbolic figurative of speech.



For JESUS to be born, Adam had to be a "literal" being in "fact." If you take Luke 3:23-38 it lists the Genealogy of Mary, mother of Jesus.


23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


If Adam was nothing but a Symbolic picture, there would be a Gap in the genealogy list. By saying Adam was not literal, is to say that Abraham never lived since he came from a lineage who's beginning has a "gap." This cannot be possible. Adam is a literal being. Just like Abraham was a literal being who was a Man of God. Which continues on unto the LORD JESUS' BIRTH! So you see, Evolution cannot fit in with the Bible, My friend. That would mean Death before Adam and this is contradictory to itself which itself cannot be true. Adam was a "literal" being that made death come in by his Sin. If he was a Human at creation what does that say about evolution? It is false.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It doesn't? Then why is there Abigenesis? We evolved from "abiogenesis" therefore it tells the origin of life.

Although related, they are completely separate theories. The theory of abiogenesis describes the origination of life. The theory of evolution explains how (already extant) life diversified over time.

Evolution cannot be proven 100% therefore, it cannot be called, "fact."

But it can. So-called "micro-evolution" is observable and accepted by even the most ardent of creationists.

Justification = You have no information backing up your beliefs that go along with you presupposition. Whenever I say Adam was Created not Evolved. That is a presupposition but my basis is justified by the Bible. You justification for anything is not viable.

Evolution has plenty of evidence. Whether or not you agree with it is another story. To say there is no justification for evolution is a false argument. Fossils, genetics, etc are used to justify evolution. Whether you find that evidence acceptable or not is a different topic.

God, did not use evolution for this would be a contradiction. The Bible says in "Genesis" that all will die because of Adam's sin. He could not have evolved because that would mean he would have evolved from previous creatures that have "died" whenever the curse of death was not in effect. Death is the wages of sin, and sin entered the world by Adam, so who sinned before the human being Adam if he is not a literal being but simply a mere symbolic picture? So, it is a question of 'who' and 'how.'

As Jesus' conquering of death was spiritual, why couldn't the original curse of death be spiritual as well?

<Massive list of various quotations about God saying "created" and not "evolved.">

And what happens if the method of creation was evolution? It's still a creation.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Although related, they are completely separate theories. The theory of abiogenesis describes the origination of life. The theory of evolution explains how (already extant) life diversified over time.

But it can. So-called "micro-evolution" is observable and accepted by even the most ardent of creationists.

Evolution has plenty of evidence. Whether or not you agree with it is another story. To say there is no justification for evolution is a false argument. Fossils, genetics, etc are used to justify evolution. Whether you find that evidence acceptable or not is a different topic.

As Jesus' conquering of death was spiritual, why couldn't the original curse of death be spiritual as well?

And what happens if the method of creation was evolution? It's still a creation.

No man has observed the Animals passing from one species to the next. Just because mutations, genetic shifts, and the etc... Does not mean evolution is observable. Have you ever heard of why God may have used similarities in Dna to create us? If not, do your homework.

No, I believe I am quite right about Evolution has no justification for "the evidence." The only basis they have is their own fallible opinions.

The original curse of death is both Physical and Spiritual I never said it could not, but I am talking of the Physical death because if Adam was an illiterate being then where did death start when the Bible says Death came by sin from Adam? If he never existed then where did death come from? I already showed the genealogies of JESUS CHRIST whom you believe in and He came from the lineage of Adam. Without Adam, JESUS CHRIST would not be.

Creation is not evolution, nor will it ever be. If it were, we wouldn't have creation vs. evolution debate. If it was GOD would not have said, he created mankind from the dust of the ground. He would have said, I created a single-celled organism that evolved all things and created diversity. But he never has nor will he ever make a statement like that which will go against his own nature. JESUS CREATED IT ALL, PRAISE GOD!

 

[Dark_Lite]

No man has observed the Animals passing from one species to the next.

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because mutations, genetic shifts, and the etc... Does not mean evolution is observable.

evolution - Wiktionary
Check the second defintion.

No, I believe I am quite right about Evolution has no justification for "the evidence." The only basis they have is their own fallible opinions.

Creationists are always ready to jump on the "evolution is only a theory" bandwagon. Everything in science is a theory. Gravitation is a theory. Can I assert that I no longer believe in gravity? I could, but it wouldn't change the reality of things.

If you're going to go this route, asserting that "the only basis they have is their own fallible opinions," then once again it can be turned against you. The validity of your interpretation is based on your own fallible opinions as well. And that's not even considering the fact that you're basing the Bible's validity upon its own claim that it's valid (i.e. circular logic).

The original curse of death is both Physical and Spiritual I never said it could not, but I am talking of the Physical death because if Adam was an illiterate being then where did death start when the Bible says Death came by sin from Adam? If he never existed then where did death come from? I already showed the genealogies of JESUS CHRIST whom you believe in and He came from the lineage of Adam. Without Adam, JESUS CHRIST would not be.

What I am saying is what if death was always physical, but not always spiritual? Adam's sin caused spiritual death (i.e. the possibility of not being united with God on physical death) to enter the world. This is in greater parallel with Jesus' work anyway, because clearly humans still die a physical death.

As for your argument about the a literal Adam being the necessary start of the genealogy leading to Christ... Consider the Japanese imperial family. They're said to have descended from the Japanese sun goddess, Amaterasu. Is Amaterasu real? Not so sure. Could it be that that lineage is a culturally created identity and not necessarily literal? Seems likely.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



evolution - Wiktionary
Check the second defintion.



Creationists are always ready to jump on the "evolution is only a theory" bandwagon. Everything in science is a theory. Gravitation is a theory. Can I assert that I no longer believe in gravity? I could, but it wouldn't change the reality of things.

If you're going to go this route, asserting that "the only basis they have is their own fallible opinions," then once again it can be turned against you. The validity of your interpretation is based on your own fallible opinions as well. And that's not even considering the fact that you're basing the Bible's validity upon its own claim that it's valid (i.e. circular logic).



What I am saying is what if death was always physical, but not always spiritual? Adam's sin caused spiritual death (i.e. the possibility of not being united with God on physical death) to enter the world. This is in greater parallel with Jesus' work anyway, because clearly humans still die a physical death.

As for your argument about the a literal Adam being the necessary start of the genealogy leading to Christ... Consider the Japanese imperial family. They're said to have descended from the Japanese sun goddess, Amaterasu. Is Amaterasu real? Not so sure. Could it be that that lineage is a culturally created identity and not necessarily literal? Seems likely.

LOL, you arbitrary claims are hilarious. I am surprised you even believe the Bible. LOL.

I will in about a "week" post something about the faults with the "Big Bang" and the problem with "millions-of-years" (Darkness will be interested in this because it involves Star-light). I will show you things that will disprove the Big Bang, but you will probably deny it because we have supposedly determined truth like "gravitation." Again, gravitation is different than evolution. Gravitation has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. But just wait abuot a week or two, LOL. Why? Because I have been studying for about a month of being an Astrophysicist. You'll see through the LORD. =]

 

[MattLangley]

Well, if this assertion is true then Why is their other written documentation about the Bible to declare its reliability?

Because people believe in the writings. There are quite a few cult leaders in our modern day that have many writings and people that proclaim they are true, do you believe all of them just because someone else said it was reliable? A weak argument.

Why is it that all the prophecies within being fulfilled?

Fulfilled as defined by who? Ever thought that if they were so convincingly fulfilled that every atheist out there obsessed with logic would logically be inclined to believe the same as you, yet they don't, think about it... There are many religions that claim prophecies have been fulfilled, religions you don't believe in but others do, some of them even make more convincing arguments than Christianity. It's because you can make things fit a prophecy very easily. Most of them are arbitrary, don't define the details, and can be easily fit into many different explanations. Though if you want me to play along with that then I must assume all other religions or cults that have a prophecy and believe it was fulfilled are true as well, nothing exclusive to your specific beliefs here.

Another question. If you are a "Theistic Evolutionist" why are you an "atheistic evolutionist?"

You show your Christ like compassion in your understanding in me I am not an atheistic evolutionist, I expected it to take a little longer for you to jump to judging my own religious claims.

Matthew 7:2

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Let me return your measure then. Why are you not a believer in God? You are an idolater of the Bible, a book written by man. You should worship God not a book. Instead I will worship God

Since in your words the Bible is just as fallible as man kind since God told them what to write. How arbitrary is that?

That's not arbitrary, in fact it's a lack of arbitrariness. You instead arbitrarily put in "since God told them what to write." Again you are infallibly trust man's claim that what they wrote came directly from God. So you are first putting infallible trust in man before you are putting it in God. Like I said, unless God came down and told you himself that what is written came directly from him (and you better have a video to back that up) then you are undeniably putting your infallible trust in man to determine that it came from God.

Tell me how you presupposition is true? Because it seems as if your the only one making this assertion without any evidence for such a claim.

Umm... you want evidence that the Bible is fallible. I've already submitted that different modern translations don't all agree. Different branches of texts (Textus Receptus vs. Alexandrian) that build our modern translations don't say the exact same thing, there are parts where they clearly state something different. Albeit not hugely so, but that is enough to prove they can't be infallible, at least both, if either at all.

On the other hand I a have been challenging you to submit proof that they are infallible... You point to a claim they make within themselves, I am asking for proof from God since he is the only one who could prove that they came from him, yet you are not supplying it. So do I believe all of this based on the word of man, I'll pass.

Don't get me wrong, I value the Bible, as a work of man.

Tell me how you know 100% that the Bible is Fallible, and that God did not happen to write the Bible?

Well I already went there in my last comment, how our text branches don't agree, hence provable fallibility in the texts we have now. We don't even have the originals, so you can't claim those are infallible. Second it's a text. Written by man. Both facts, mankind wrote the words down. You simply believe God told people what to write, hence the texts are still written by man, a fallible person. So even in your belief you are inserting fallible man in there, yet you want to believe they are infallible. That's your choice, I on the other hand choose not to assume that.

Again, these are not the words of "man" ... Scripture was written by man from GOD.

Your claim is not proof. Another claim by man is not proof. Only a claim from God himself is proof.

Just like God made the Sabbath but He made it not for himself but for Mankind.

So are you suggesting God told man how to create the sabbath and man created it? If not then this analogy is pointless.

How would there be evolution if there was no "creation?" The answer; There wouldn't be. Just because your presuppositions does match that of the Bible's standards does not mean the Bible is 'fallible.'

Theistic evolutions believe God created everything, they simply don't believe God poofed people into existence via special creation. We believe God used natural causes. We believe God can work as much through a natural act as a supernatural and see no need to insert a supernatural in.

We also believe Genesis is a creation story (not an uncommon thing in ancient texts, in fact there's similarities to the one in Genesis and other belief systems) and not a scientific explanation. The fact that Genesis is from a third person perspective that isn't God and isn't man should be obvious enough to represent it's not a literal accounting of how things happened, but meant to pass on a concept and teaching of our relationship with God.

 

[MattLangley]

LOL, you arbitrary claims are hilarious. I am surprised you even believe the Bible. LOL.

I will in about a "week" post something about the faults with the "Big Bang" and the problem with "millions-of-years" (Darkness will be interested in this because it involves Star-light). I will show you things that will disprove the Big Bang, but you will probably deny it because we have supposedly determined truth like "gravitation." Again, gravitation is different than evolution. Gravitation has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. But just wait abuot a week or two, LOL. Why? Because I have been studying for about a month of being an Astrophysicist. You'll see through the LORD. =]

You do realize that the experts have been studying much longer than a month and pretty much none of them side with you.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

You do realize that the experts have been studying much longer than a month and pretty much none of them side with you.

You do realize I have studied a lot within a month from the experts right? Don't answer a matter before you know what it is. I understand quite well about the universe. Like how the Bang Bang cannot account for Anti-matter, monopoles, Population three stars in which they HAVE to be in order for the BB to be true.

I also understand quite well about how the earth cannot be millions of years old both scientifically and Biblically. In which I will state in about a week or two. So do not claim i do not know much just because I haven't studied as long as experts whenever I study from these experts.

 

[Dark_Lite]

LOL, you arbitrary claims are hilarious. I am surprised you even believe the Bible. LOL.

And here I thought you had gotten over your tendency to toss out accusations like that and instead address the points. Guess not.

I will show you things that will disprove the Big Bang, but you will probably deny it because we have supposedly determined truth like "gravitation." Again, gravitation is different than evolution. Gravitation has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

Of course it has nothing to do with evolution (just like morality and abiogenesis). But the point is that it is also a scientific theory. If you're going to keep using the line "evolution is only a theory," then why can't it apply to other theories as well?

 

[PT Calvinist]

As Jesus' conquering of death was spiritual, why couldn't the original curse of death be spiritual as well?

Forgive me for this, but an example text would be needed, I suppose we could use the one where Jesues tells the diciples that when Christ said "This is my Body......This is My Blood" He later stated: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."- John 6:63
So he told them that those things were spritual, I don't see indications to where Scripture speaks of "Creation" as being spiritual.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Forgive me for this, but an example text would be needed, I suppose we could use the one where Jesues tells the diciples that when Christ said "This is my Body......This is My Blood" He later stated: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."- John 6:63
So he told them that those things were spritual, I don't see indications to where Scripture speaks of "Creation" as being spiritual.

Never said creation was spiritual. We are obviously physical creatures (at least partially, soul and all that). I'm saying that the curse of death as brought into the world by Adam's first sin could possibly be spiritual death rather than actual physical death.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Never said creation was spiritual.

Ahh.. Ok.

I'm saying that the curse of death as brought into the world by Adam's first sin could possibly be spiritual death rather than actual physical death

What is the Catholic view on that interpretation....just curious.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

And here I thought you had gotten over your tendency to toss out accusations like that and instead address the points. Guess not.



Of course it has nothing to do with evolution (just like morality and abiogenesis). But the point is that it is also a scientific theory. If you're going to keep using the line "evolution is only a theory," then why can't it apply to other theories as well?

You talk about me not addressing points. Why should I have to address you according to your own folly, whenever you only addressed "one" of my points? I have made many many points but you only choose one to address?

Okay, "everything" has (in the evolutionary worldview) evolved from this "first" single-celled organism therefore Abiogenesis is evolution or a key factor. Do you know how fallible abiogenesis is by saying we are related to all things? We as humans are related to whales, fish, flies, flea's, horse's, dog's, and the etc. Because this "single-celled" organism is the Father and mother of all living that occurred over time (billions of years) which goes back to the Big Bang, which is totally faulty and a very weak argument whenever you take into consideration of the properties that the Big Bang must have in order to be true but does not have it.

What are the chemicals of the "first" single-celled organism made of ? And where did this organism come from? This "organism" has to have a force acting upon itself. What is this "blind" force acting upon it? And Why does it have to be blind? If the Big Bang were able to have came about (notice 'if') where are the population three stars that needs to be in space right now to prove it?

Do you even know where the philosophy of evolution 'mainly' came from ? If so, was he a Christian?

Evolution intrigues the Biblical account of creation and replaces God's creation as a falsified theory based upon the assumptions of scientists, like (for example) Charles Darwin. Replacing a fallible man belief system of the origins of life and universe for an explanation to explain why God couldn't have created the world is very fallacious according the presuppositions of the people involved over God infallible creation (note to self, not pertaining to the fall making it cursed, I'm talking about how he has created all things as infallible) is quite arbitrary and inconsistent within both worldviews.

 

[Dark_Lite]

You talk about me not addressing points. Why should I have to address you according to your own folly, whenever you only addressed "one" of my points? I have made many many points but you only choose one to address?

I didn't have time to address your entire post at that point in my day. I'm also talking about laying off the ad hominem attacks, and instead addressing the arguments in a post. Nothing to do with how many points you actually address.

Okay, "everything" has (in the evolutionary worldview) evolved from this "first" single-celled organism therefore

Your logic breaks down here. Evolution assumes this first organism or whatever it was was already extant. The theory of evolution ends there.

Abiogenesis is evolution or a key factor.

It is neither evolution nor is it a key factor to evolution itself. It is related, but it is an entirely separate theory.

Do you know how fallible abiogenesis is by saying we are related to all things? We as humans are related to whales, fish, flies, flea's, horse's, dog's, and the etc.

So?

Because this "single-celled" organism is the Father and mother of all living that occurred over time (billions of years) which goes back to the Big Bang, which is totally faulty and a very weak argument whenever you take into consideration of the properties that the Big Bang must have in order to be true but does not have it.

It does not go back to the Big Bang. It goes back to when life first appeared on Earth, which was long after the Earth was formed, which was long after the Big Bang.

What are the chemicals of the "first" single-celled organism made of ? And where did this organism come from?

What was it made of? Probably of the basic building blocks of organisms. Where did it come from? If abiogenesis is true, it came from reactions that formed basic building blocks for proteins and the like and eventually was built up to a functioning organism.

This "organism" has to have a force acting upon itself.

No force upon itself. Only the chemical forces of nature.

What is this "blind" force acting upon it? And Why does it have to be blind? If the Big Bang were able to have came about (notice 'if') where are the population three stars that needs to be in space right now to prove it?

Population III stars are 1) hypothetical and 2) can't exist in the modern universe due to the make up of it. They have yet to be observed directly. There is apparently some evidence for their existence in a gravitationally lensed galaxy on the edges of the observable universe. If we ever do find any of them, they will be extremely far away.

Do you even know where the philosophy of evolution 'mainly' came from ? If so, was he a Christian?

Why does that matter?

Evolution intrigues the Biblical account of creation and replaces God's creation as a falsified theory based upon the assumptions of scientists, like (for example) Charles Darwin.

No, it replaces an erroneous literal interpretation of the Genesis account with something that fits the evidence according to modern understanding.

Replacing a fallible man belief system of the origins of life and universe for an explanation to explain why God couldn't have created the world is very fallacious according the presuppositions of the people involved over God infallible creation (note to self, not pertaining to the fall making it cursed, I'm talking about how he has created all things as infallible) is quite arbitrary and inconsistent within both worldviews.

I'm not entirely sure what this even says, but from what I can tell it seems to be yet another philosophical application of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not equal atheism. Evolution has nothing to do with morality. It simply describes how life diversified. Nothing more.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I didn't have time to address your entire post at that point in my day. I'm also talking about laying off the ad hominem attacks, and instead addressing the arguments in a post. Nothing to do with how many points you actually address.

Your logic breaks down here. Evolution assumes this first organism or whatever it was was already extant. The theory of evolution ends there.

It is neither evolution nor is it a key factor to evolution itself. It is related, but it is an entirely separate theory.


So?

It does not go back to the Big Bang. It goes back to when life first appeared on Earth, which was long after the Earth was formed, which was long after the Big Bang.


What was it made of? Probably of the basic building blocks of organisms. Where did it come from? If abiogenesis is true, it came from reactions that formed basic building blocks for proteins and the like and eventually was built up to a functioning organism.

No force upon itself. Only the chemical forces of nature.

Population III stars are 1) hypothetical and 2) can't exist in the modern universe due to the make up of it. They have yet to be observed directly. There is apparently some evidence for their existence in a gravitationally lensed galaxy on the edges of the observable universe. If we ever do find any of them, they will be extremely far away.

Why does that matter?

No, it replaces an erroneous literal interpretation of the Genesis account with something that fits the evidence according to modern understanding.

I'm not entirely sure what this even says, but from what I can tell it seems to be yet another philosophical application of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not equal atheism. Evolution has nothing to do with morality. It simply describes how life diversified. Nothing more.

I am not committing the ad homineim fallacy. I mean 'you' can take it offensive because you know the Bible and evolution do not go hand in hand. For if they did why is there controversy over evolution vs. creation?

You see you said, "Evolution assumes." For one evolution cannot assume anything.(Fallacy of reification.) The evolutionist can assume this but this is a presupposition that cannot be proven.

LOL, "So." HAHA. How conversing.

So you are already "assuming" the Big Bang happened without proof of it actually happening. Arbitrary? The earth was not BANG and it came to be. If this was so and we came from this random chance processes how can we substitute this theory for the randomness that it knew we needed Melanin?

////////What was it made of? Probably of the basic building blocks of organisms. Where did it come from? If abiogenesis is true, it came from reactions that formed basic building blocks for proteins and the like and eventually was built up to a functioning organism./////////

"Probably" Evolutionists have made a theory that they do not know what the substance they come from is made of ? What does that say to the probability of it actually being true? This shows me you do not know what it was made from because one cannot know because he/she was not there to see it and witness it and have empirical evidence for it. (Note; NO ONE) "If" it is true, there is doubt here, you do not know if it happened or not. "Basic building blocks for proteins and the like", Proof that evolutionists know this?

The Big Bang has to have these stars for it to be true, and among other things in which I will post later on this such a faulty assumption based on the belief of an "expert." LOL.

You know I do not see how come people would actually take the time and change the Bible to make it say what they want it to say just so it can fit their own presuppositions. I let the word of GOD speak to me, not me interpret what GOD means in Genesis, like you have done.

LOL, It doesn't ?? Hmmm, Here let me quote an Evolutionist from Cornell University.

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear...There are no gods, no purposes, no good-directed forces of any kind...There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.
--Dr. William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences

If there are no purposes, no good-directed forces, or any purpose for life then why do we as humans view killing someone as murder? I mean, in "today's" world, a person can kill someone and be sentenced 20 years in prison but get out at 10 years in because of 'Good behavior.' But yeah killing is murder. Millions of abortions each year, but it is okay it is not wrong, the baby does not know anything anyway. Besides there is no point in life, why not right? Not only in this quotation is this visible, I can use many others too if you want. If were are on the evolutionary scale classified as Homo-Sapiens, and we have evolved from previous life forms and are related to all other animals. Why is it okay for a bird to kill a small rodent? They are animals just like we are. Why can we kill other animals and not get jailed for it, like Cows? Pigs? They mind their own business and after all I can look at the cow and rub its side and say, we are related did you know that. LOL! HAHA. Sad, but it is true in the evolutionary worldview. Since we "humans" have decided what has happened in the past. Where is the scientific findings of the previous life forms of billions of years? How do we know they were even knowledge of anything like humans? Email, Answers In Genesis. And they will tell you how you are wrong. I mean it is simple to see but yet to willingly unable to because of the deep roots of ignorance planted in the evolutionist people. Very sad.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I am not committing the ad homineim fallacy. I mean 'you' can take it offensive because you know the Bible and evolution do not go hand in hand. For if they did why is there controversy over evolution vs. creation?

Almost all of your posts have some insinuation that those who subscribe to evolutionary theory are not Christians, don't know what they are talking about, are ignorant, or any number of other things. That is ad hominem. But, I digress.

You see you said, "Evolution assumes." For one evolution cannot assume anything.(Fallacy of reification.) The evolutionist can assume this but this is a presupposition that cannot be proven.

That's not reification. It doesn't even have anything to do with reification. Anyway, the "assume" isn't even an assumption. Life exists. Therefore, a theory which describes the diversity of life need not concern itself with where the life originated.

So you are already "assuming" the Big Bang happened without proof of it actually happening. Arbitrary? The earth was not BANG and it came to be. If this was so and we came from this random chance processes how can we substitute this theory for the randomness that it knew we needed Melanin?

Cosmic background radiation. Red shift, blue shift. Look them up. I'm sure you'll brush it all aside anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence is there. Also, the Big Bang wasn't a bang. It was an expansion from an infinitely small point. Thre is a difference. Also, the Earth was formed billions of years after the Big Bang.

////////What was it made of? Probably of the basic building blocks of organisms. Where did it come from? If abiogenesis is true, it came from reactions that formed basic building blocks for proteins and the like and eventually was built up to a functioning organism./////////

"Probably" Evolutionists have made a theory that they do not know what the substance they come from is made of ? What does that say to the probability of it actually being true? This shows me you do not know what it was made from because one cannot know because he/she was not there to see it and witness it and have empirical evidence for it. (Note; NO ONE) "If" it is true, there is doubt here, you do not know if it happened or not. "Basic building blocks for proteins and the like", Proof that evolutionists know this?

What is with you and this insistence that everything must be 100% a priori provable for it to be true? Everything, and I do mean everything in science that isn't pure math (i.e. 99.9999% of it) is not fully provable. That's why there are very few "scientific laws," but plenty of theories. The only one you're rejecting is the one that causes a crisis with your belief system, because your Christianity is so tied to there being a literal Adam.

You know I do not see how come people would actually take the time and change the Bible to make it say what they want it to say just so it can fit their own presuppositions. I let the word of GOD speak to me, not me interpret what GOD means in Genesis, like you have done.

No, you interpret as well. There's no way around it. If you read it, you interpret it. It's how the mind works.

LOL, It doesn't ?? Hmmm, Here let me quote an Evolutionist from Cornell University.

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear...There are no gods, no purposes, no good-directed forces of any kind...There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.
--Dr. William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences

<snip>

Hey look, a militant atheist who applies the same wrong philosophy derived from a theory that has nothing to do with anything like that. I looked up the quote, and it was in some creation vs evolution debate. Also, note the "my views" part.