Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[BNR32FAN]

You really are shameless. I challenge you to quote me from anyplace whatever that I have rejected the miracles performed by God.

The conversation was about rejecting the validity of God’s miracles ever since you started defending it.

Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

 

[ottawak]

So you're saying I'm right and they're wrong?

Or, as I suspect, are we both wrong in your eyes?

And if we're both wrong in your eyes, what is it you're harping about?

I don't know if you are wrong or not; you have proposed your miraculous clean-up as an unfalsifiable proposition, which means it is impossible to disprove.
But I also think that scientists have given us their honest opinion about the flood, right or wrong, and I don't think they're lying to us about it.

And that is what is intolerable about creationists and why I keep harping on it. For instance, I have recently given as my opinion that it is possible for Genesis to be divinely inspired even if it is not literal. One of our colleagues has asserted that not only is my opinion wrong, but further, that I am lying about what my opinion actually is.

As long as that kind of thing continues, I will continue harping about it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Now you have two options:
1. The clean-up was done in a miraculous way such that scientists cannot detect it.
2. Scientists have detected it but are lying about it as part of worldwide satanic conspiracy to deny Christ.

The second, of course, is the Creationist position.

No there’s a third option

“Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3:3-7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The scoffers and mockers will deny the flood.

 

[ottawak]

The conversation was about rejecting the validity of God’s miracles ever since you started defending it.

Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

I fail to find any post in this thread in which I have denied the reality of God's miracles. I don't think you can find one either.

 

[ottawak]

No there’s a third option

“Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3:3-7‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The scoffers and mockers will deny the flood.

And, if the Flood story is not a 100% accurate literal account of the Flood itself, then of course it never happened. Is that your line?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I fail to find any post in this thread in which I have denied the reality of God's miracles. I don't think you kind find one either.

What’s “the difference between real people and events and stories about them in a book?” What was the point of that statement in response to my statement?

We’re not talking about interpretation here we’re talking about believing the miracles that took place.

I pointed out that I’m not talking about interpretation I’m talking about rejecting the miracles God performed and your response what’s the difference between real people and events and stories in a book. So your position was that the miracles are stories in a book which is an indication that you don’t believe them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And, if the Flood story is not a 100% accurate literal account of the Flood itself, then of course it never happened. Is that your line?

Oh my goodness did you already forget what the context of your post was that I made that reply to?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know if you are wrong or not;

You see, ottawak ... it's this kind of bologna that makes it very hard to have an honest discussion.

In your eyes, which of the three applies?

1. They're right and I'm wrong.
2. They're wrong and I'm right.
3. We're both wrong.

And if you don't know if I'm wrong ... as you're now claiming ... then you have to admit you don't know if they're right.

Yet you made this doosey of a statement:

Now you have two options:
1. The clean-up was done in a miraculous way such that scientists cannot detect it.
2. Scientists have detected it but are lying about it as part of worldwide satanic conspiracy to deny Christ.

The second, of course, is the Creationist position.

I'm going to do you a favor and give you credit for being confused.

That way, you don't look so bad.

You're welcome.

 

[ottawak]

What’s “the difference between real people and events and stories about them in a book?” What was the point of that statement in response to my statement?

That a story in the Bible about a person or an event doesn't have to be literal and inerrant for the person to be real or for the event to have happened. You have your causality turned around. Stories in the Bible don't give rise to persons and events; persons and events give rise to the stories.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That a story in the Bible about a person or an event doesn't have to be literal and inerrant for the person to be real or for the event to have happened. You have your causality turned around. Stories in the Bible don't give rise to persons and events; persons and events give rise to the stories.

What do you mean by stories are you speaking of historical facts or fictional stories?

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you mean by stories are you speaking of historical facts or fictional stories?

They don't know the difference, and they're trying to make it look like we don't either.

 

[ottawak]

You see, ottawak ... it's this kind of bologna that makes it very hard to have an honest discussion.

In your eyes, which of the three applies?

1. They're right and I'm wrong.
2. They're wrong and I'm right.
3. We're both wrong.

And if you don't know if I'm wrong ... as you're now claiming ... then you have to admit you don't know if they're right.

Yet you made this doosey of a statement:

Now you have two options:
1. The clean-up was done in a miraculous way such that scientists cannot detect it.
2. Scientists have detected it but are lying about it as part of worldwide satanic conspiracy to deny Christ.

The second, of course, is the Creationist position.

I'm going to do you a favor and give you credit for being confused.

That way, you don't look so bad.

You're welcome.

I'm not confused. My point was that the scientists could be wrong without being liars.

 

[BNR32FAN]

They don't know the difference, and they're trying to make it look like we don't either.

He’s trying to crawfish his way out of his original position in the discussion by deflecting.

 

[ottawak]

They don't know the difference, and they're trying to make it look like we don't either.

Do you know what a false dichotomy is?

 

[ottawak]

He’s trying to crawfish his way out of his original position in the discussion by deflecting.

No, just trying to show you that your assertion that I denied the the reality of God's miracles is a despicable, bald-faced lie. I don't know what it is you are trying to defend here, but it is most certainly not the Gospel of Christ.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You see, ottawak ... it's this kind of bologna that makes it very hard to have an honest discussion.

In your eyes, which of the three applies?

1. They're right and I'm wrong.
2. They're wrong and I'm right.
3. We're both wrong.

And if you don't know if I'm wrong ... as you're now claiming ... then you have to admit you don't know if they're right.

Yet you made this doosey of a statement:

Now you have two options:
1. The clean-up was done in a miraculous way such that scientists cannot detect it.
2. Scientists have detected it but are lying about it as part of worldwide satanic conspiracy to deny Christ.

The second, of course, is the Creationist position.

I'm going to do you a favor and give you credit for being confused.

That way, you don't look so bad.

You're welcome.

Good grief, Charlie Brown! There's actually at least FOUR options, maybe even FIVE or SIX, depending on whether or not our view of Eschatology plays into how we charge our emotions for the Hermeneutical choices we each make about Genesis and the endeavors of modern science (such as are seen in the ToE).

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not confused. My point was that the scientists could be wrong without being liars.

"Could be"?

You can't tell, can you?

Yes, you're right.

Scientists can be wrong without being liars.

I'll give you that.

That's why they didn't lie about Thalidomide, the Titanic, the Challenger, the Deepwater Horizon, or L'Aquila; just to name a few.

But wrong? most definitely.

 

[BNR32FAN]

They don't know the difference, and they're trying to make it look like we don't either.

The way I see it there’s only two sides to the debate. You either believe the Bible or you believe science. You can’t have it both ways because the two are completely polar opposites. The Bible is a spiritual supernatural book that will always be in opposition to science so you can’t merge the two together at least not in this day and age with our limited scientific knowledge.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They don't know the difference, and they're trying to make it look like we don't either.

"They"? C'mon, now, AV!

 

[AV1611VET]

He’s trying to crawfish his way out of his original position in the discussion by deflecting.

I was going to put a strikeout word in one of my posts (backtrack) but didn't.