What proof would you need?

[Davian]

What do you mean, 'What is the significance of this passage?'

I mean, is it of significance? How so? Why? Can you provide support for what it claims?

For example, if I said "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", would I not be expected to be able to support that statement in some way?

I expect the same from you. If you like, we can take this to the Exploring Christianity forum.

You said someone else "made it up" -- someone else didn't 'make it up' -- God said it.

God said "For this cause also thank we God"? Are you trying to set me up?

May I ask what an ignostic is?

Yes.

 

[Aeneas]

Why can Creationists never talk science and always fall back on trying to proselytize? It's quite embaressing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why can Creationists never talk science and always fall back on trying to proselytize? It's quite embaressing.

It's called the Great Commission.

 

[Split Rock]

It's called the Great Commission.

How well do you think you and your fellow creationists here are doing with the Great Commission here? Noah-like?

 

[AV1611VET]

How well do you think you and your fellow creationists here are doing with the Great Commission here?

100%

 

[Astridhere]

I reckon 150 years of evolutionary stability would likely alter my creationist views, as opposed to 150 years of instability, where the only stable evolutionary claim made is 'It all evolved".

Examples of change and instability.....
New Tree Of Life Divides All Lower Metazoans From Higher Animals, Molecular Research Confirms
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Human endogenous retroviruses and AIDS research: confusion, consensus, or science? - Free Online Library


Alternatively, if a naturalistic abiogenesis was demonstrated under laboratory conditions that would also go a long way to demonstrate that God is not the only possible creator of life. I am not talking about adding genetic material to an already living cell. For now the Creation of life belongs to God, as even in controlled laboratory conditions this Holy grail elludes naturalists.

The above is aside from the fact that all the observed evidence and data supports creationism and biblical credibility, while non plausible scenarios and problematic simplistic algorithms are used to support evolution.


In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Life Sciences
Evidence from Science
101 Scientifc Facts & Foreknowledge - New Life
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route
Genetic algorithms—do they show that evolution works?

 

[Tinker Grey]

100%

100% what?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

100% what?

100% ineffective.

 

[Loudmouth]

I reckon 150 years of evolutionary stability would likely alter my creationist views,

Then I am really baffled as to why you accept creationism. Some creationists say that the Earth is 6,000 years old while others say that it is 4.55 billion years old. Some creationists claim that there are created kinds, while others accept common ancestry. Some creationists claim that there was a recent global flood, while others say that it was a local flood. So please explain why you accept creationism with all of this instability.

 

[Loudmouth]

Everyone's just blind & stupid, huh? I think the readership can both see, and believe what they've seen. Now the latter part they may ...well who would want to believe you exist? But folks know denial's for losers.

Besides, God has a purpose for everything. If you're curious, repent and find out.

Again, you are all bluster. You still have not addressed the ERV evidence that I posted earlier. All you can do is mock science. You refuse to engage it.

 

[Cabal]

100% ineffective.

100% Great Commission Fail

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Again, you are all bluster. You still have not addressed the ERV evidence that I posted earlier. All you can do is mock science. You refuse to engage it.

Reminds me of Darwin's quote:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

 

[AV1611VET]

How well do you think you and your fellow creationists here are doing with the Great Commission here? Noah-like?

100%

100% what?

100% ineffective.

100% Great Commission Fail

Do any of you guys know what the Great Commission is, and where my obligation to it stops?

It says "go & teach" -- the effectiveness comes from the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
1 Corinthians 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

 

[Aeneas]

Do any of you guys know what the Great Commission is, and where my obligation to it stops?

Your obligation ends when you are being literally counterproductive and actively repulsing people from Christianity by your efforts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your obligation ends when you are being literally counterproductive and actively repulsing people from Christianity by your efforts.

-- What did I do? say Jesus walked on water?

 

[Cabal]

Do any of you guys know what the Great Commission is, and where my obligation to it stops?

I would have thought constantly failing to convince anyone would at least give you pause for thought.

It says "go & teach" -- the effectiveness comes from the Holy Spirit.

So your ineffectiveness implies something rather unfortunate then.

 

[Loudmouth]

It says "go & teach" -- the effectiveness comes from the Holy Spirit.

The effectiveness is based on the same thing that all door-to-door sales are based on: the gullibility of the mark.

Also, is the effectiveness of Mormon missionaries due to the fact that they are filled with the Holy Spirit?

 

[AV1611VET]

The effectiveness is based on the same thing that all door-to-door sales are based on: the gullibility of the mark.

Wrong.

In door-to-door sales, only two parties are involved.

In the Great Commission, there is a Third Party involved:

Matthew 28:20b ... and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

Also, is the effectiveness of Mormon missionaries due to the fact that they are filled with the Holy Spirit?

No comment.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wrong.

In door-to-door sales, only two parties are involved.

In the Great Commission, there is a Third Party involved:

Matthew 28:20b ... and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

That would be the claim. Now we need to see the evidence.

No comment.

So even if a religion is successful in garnering followers it does not necessarily indicate that the religion is based on the "Truth"?

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be the claim. Now we need to see the evidence.

Forget it -- you need to walk by faith, not sight, to see that kind of evidence.